Talk:Circumcision/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

May have misinterpreted terms in sentence: "but the procedure is associated with increased clearance of the virus by the body,[15][16] which can account for the finding of reduced prevalence.[16]"

Hi,

Note that this is in the section Human Papillomavirus. Here it's said that the procedure is associated with an increased clearance of the virus from the body. Rehmeyer didn't conclude that circumcision increases the clearance of it from the body, he states that it reduces the persistance of HPV infection. Just wanted to point that out; these might mean two different things. I think that clearance in these studies refers to when the virus clears itself from the penis. HPV never really goes away after you get it, so its never cleared from your body.

JohnP (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The sourcing (and there are several used in that section) discusses "clearance". If you'd like a direct quote I can get that for you. Zad68 05:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that Larke uses clearance but Rehmeyer dosen't. You can get that for me if you'd like. You're saying it wrong though. HPV is never cleared by the body, you have it for life.

JohnP (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Larke says "increased HPV clearance" right in the abstract, so what is the problem if the article also refers to "clearance" like the source does? Note that the article wikilinks to Clearance (medicine) when the term is used. Zad68 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No but that's not the problem. The problem is that in the article you're stating that it causes an increased clearance of the virus from the body. HPV is never cleared from the body. I recently went to kidshealth.org to look up an article on HPV. Here is what it said: "Is there a cure? No. HPV is a chronic, lifelong infection." When I read Rehmeyer and Larke's studies I think what they were saying is it clears itself from the fluids, or outer skin on the penis faster if you're circumcised.

JohnP (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So you're agreeing the sourcing mentions "clearance" specifically and so the Wikipedia article is supported by the source. You're just concerned that readers may misinterpret what "clearance" means in this context, even though there's a Wikilink? Zad68 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Its because you say directly in the text that circumcision causes increased clearance of HPV from the body. HPV is never cleared from the body. It is cleared from the penis faster. It can't be cleared from the body because it is a life long illness.

JohnP (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

May not be a Proper Source: Section Technique, Sentence: Proposed theories for the purpose of the foreskin are that it serves to protect the penis as the fetus develops in the mother's womb, that it helps to preserve moisture in the glans, or that it impr

Citing this statement with the WHO report on circumcision may not be a good idea. The focus of their report is global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety, and acceptability. Their focus is not on the role of the prepuce.

JohnP (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea that the WHO can't be used as a reliable source on this seems rather unreasonable. Zad68 05:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think that the focus of this paper is on the foreskin at all. Shouldn’t we have a source that describes the foreskin for this information?

JohnP (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The focus of the WHO's paper is circumcision and they mention it to provide a bit of context. Are you suggesting that we should remove the sentence from this Wikipedia article altogether, as this article is circumcision and not foreskin? Zad68 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean I like how we have the little summary on the foreskin there before we go to technique. No, what I'm suggesting is that we find a source that actually represents the prepuce rather then one that's focused on the global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety, and acceptability for circumcision.

JohnP (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The WHO is giving a brief overview of the theorized functions of the foresking in the context of discussing circumcision, the Wikipedia article is just doing likewise by summarizing the WHO here, you're saying the WHO can't be trusted on this? I don't see how the source is a problem. Zad68 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I'm saying the source can't be trusted. Is naturally biased. Its purpose is to help fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa. It is focusing on circumcision’s prevalence, safety, and acceptability purposely, and not objectively, because they are trying to scale it up to prevent HIV in areas where there is a lot of HIV.

JohnP (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

In some of these countries, up to 25% of people have HIV. Have you read the RCTs?

JohnP (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Section Medical Indications, Statement "and is recommended that it be discussed with men who have sex with men, especially in areas where HIV is common.[26]"

The reccomendations from this study are "Voluntary medical male circumcision should be discussed with men who have sex with men and who engage in primarily insertive anal sex, particularly in settings of high HIV prevalence. Rating: BIIb " This does not apply to all MSM only those that practice insertive sex.

JohnP (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If the source says discussed with MSM why is it a problem if Wikipedia says "discussed with men who have sex with men". Zad68 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the problem. It's because the Wikipedia article does not say that it only needs to be discussed between MSM who practice insertive anal sex. This article is saying that it should be discussed between MSM who practice insertive anal sex not all MSM.

JohnP (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK I see, sure I'm fine with adding that qualifier, to have the Wikipedia article say "discussed with men who have mostly insertive anal sex with other men." I have made this change. Zad68 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The change dosen't represent the summary. They say it should be discussed with MSM who engage in primarilly insertive anal sex. They don't say "have mostly insertive anal sex." This could be misinterpreted. By primarilly they're trying to emphasize that they want the ones who are mainly practicing this type to do it. I already made this change.

JohnP (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

If We have a Good Source, and it dosen't directly support anything on the page, Shouldn't we still be able to add it?

Hi. Based on some current behavior on the page I felt obliged to bring this up. Myself and some other editors have added new sources and DocJames has deleted them. When I asked DocJames about this, he said that all of the sources have to directly support parts of the text. However, I just checked Wikipedia and it seems like you can add sources to a page as long as they generally support the article content. So this means that the sources don't have to directly support parts of the text.

JohnP (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the References section is for resolving ref-tag references used in the article, it isn't a dumping ground for other stuff. Zad68 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowwhere on WikiProject Medicine did I see this "rule" that you cannot cite a source that is directly in the text. Actually, what WikiProject Medicine is saying that good sources are recent literature reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews on the topic and that all of these should be put in the references, whether or not they support a direct statement on the page.

JohnP (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Question about Statement: A 2010 review of clinical trial data found that circumcision reduced the incidence of HSV-2 (herpes simplex virus, type 2) infections by 28% under "Other Infections"

I already reviewed the sourcing for this statement and found that the source was not a literature review and was only supported by one study. I had to remove the same statement from the summary. This already recieved consensus. We can't have this statement up because there is no literature review, meta-analysis, or systematic review supporting that circumcision reduced HSV-2 by this number

JohnP (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have found many policy statements and technical reports from other countries with info for page. Had to repost this one. This was not concluded but was sent to the archives.

I found new policy statements and technical reports that have information on circumcision. Zad I think that you stated that we could add these but I didn't get confirmation.

Here are the documents:

Document "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors" by the KNMG. See the link http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/77942/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm for a copy.

Document Neonatal Circumcision Revisited from Canadian Paediatric Society: Pubmed ID 8634956

Document "The law & ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors" from British Medical Association (medical ethics commitee). See the link http://bma.org.uk/search?query=circumcision%20AND%20policy

Document "Guidance for doctors who are asked to circumcise male children, 1997" from British General Medical Council (medical care regulator): See link http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance_circumcise_1997.pdf_25416429.pdf

-- I currently can't find a few from provinces in Canada. These are from manitoba, saskatchewan, and British Columbia. I will contact these organizations in order to provide links to these documents. Then I will post the links here.

Zad can I get confirmation on adding these? WikiProject Medicine says technical reports are valid sources.

JohnP (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Have to repost this because it was sent to archives but not concluded: Poor Position of Sentence: The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[13][14]

I thought that it would be good to start this paragraph with the sentence "The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[13][14] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[13] " This is because our sourcing is indicating that circumcision biologically prevents HIV, but the HIV benefit in developed countries is undetermined due to different population and behavioral factors. Since the benefit in developed countries is undetermined still, we shouldn't introduce the HIV benefit like it applies to all humans. The literature does not indicate that

JohnP (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Not the conclusion: "A 2013 systematic review and meta-analysis found that circumcision did not appear to affect sexual desire, pain with intercourse, premature ejaculation, time to ejaculation, erectile dysfunction or difficulties with orgasm.[59]"

The conclusion of this source is "In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men. " This means that it has an affect,

JohnP (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? looks well-summarized to me. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

no the conclusion says does not appear to adversely affect these things. Not affecting and not adversely affecting are two different things. The fact that it didn't adversely affect these things means it still had an affect.

JohnP (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Question on Section: "Medical indications", Sentence: "Circumcision may be medically indicated in children for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in males who are chronically susceptib"

Is this statement directly quoted from the textbook? I'm asking because based on the Phimosis page it seems to be false. Children don't get pathological phimosis, they get Physiologic phimosis. This is normal and can be treated with steroid cream.

JohnP (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Black's says "Phimosis (restricted opening of the foreskin) is sometimes an indication for circumcision", Wolter's says "The most common indication is phimosis", Lissauer lists phimosis specifically as a "medical indication", similar is echoed in many other sources. Wikipedia's pages on phimosis and related topics are particularly terrible, don't use them as a sources or a model for anything. Zad68 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but this is only pathological phimosis that is brought about by Traumatic tearing of the foreskin by parents, Chronic balanoposthitis, and Balanitisxeroticaobliterans as indicated by my new sources. This is not physiological phimosis that almost 90 percent of children get. There is no need for circumcision with this type of phimosis you can leave it alone or use steroid cream.

This sentence is ok. I have some new sources that talk about the medical indications for circumcision. These have pmids of 21298220 and 16800325. Maybe we should take these into account.

JohnP (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We should be using the study Review of the Current State of the Male Circumcision Literature, see PMID 25284631 because of WikiProject Medicine Guideline

According to WikiProject Medicine literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses are the highest quality medical sources we can use. This is a literature review that points out significant gaps and problems that exist in the literature involving circumcision's effect on sexual health. We only have one meta-analysis on the topic already; so this and the meta-analysis are the highest quality medical evidence on sexual effects that we have. I don't understand why you won't let me write about it.

JohnP (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are your efforts being frozen out John ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

AIDS part in summary isn't really clear.

The part in summary dosen't match up with what we have written in article. There's level 1 evidence as of now so we might as well point it out. But also should point out that the inclusion in the health policies of other developed countries is undetermined.

JohnP (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We are writing for a general audience. The term "level 1" evidence is not appropriate, at least not in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Should not use the word routine when talking about the developed world. Noone is even thinking about routine in the developed world. Should seperate out part on homosexuals from MSM. Make MSM part more clear

JohnP (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree. We can summarize this further as "Its use to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear"

Effects in MSM apply globally. Thus this should come after the global discussion. We can summarize as " For men who have sex with men the evidence of an HIV benefit is less clear" Which ref says "slight benefit"? And these details are best dealt with in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think section 1.1 should be called routine or elective.

I don't think that the literature is indicating that most people are thinking about routine or elective circumcision. The Bolnick textbook seems to be saying that countries are arguing over its medical value. It also says that no country recommends it non-therapeutically and no one wants to ban it either.

Well, overall the source doesn't give any indication that people are thinking about it routinely. This should be taken out of this title.

JohnP (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not see what is wrong with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean noone is even arguing over it being routine or elective. Keeping it as routine or elective shouldn't be done because we're describing a discussion in the medical field that isn't even existant. We're basically lying to Wikipedia readers.

JohnP (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you have lost me. Lots of sources use those terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the Bolnick book. They clearly state that noone wants to do it routinely and noone wants to ban it. Also, they say that medical organizations are arguing over whether its pros outweigh its cons or its cons outweigh its pros basically.

JohnP (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay so what is the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see an issue, routine and elective are the terms the sources use, are you suggesting the article be edited to not use the terms the authoritative sources use? Zad68 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

you can't discredit Bossio because she's a masters student

You can't discredit Bossio just because she's a masters student. WikiProject Medicine Guidelines say that literature reviews are the highest quality medical sources so this still must be included in page. Also, even though here conclusion relates to North America please see her results. She clearly states that there are gaps in the overall literature relating to sexual health. Here conclusion was written in that way to Emphasize the fact that the gaps in the literature regarding sexual health are so severe that people in North America need to look at their policies regarding circumcision.

JohnP (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bossio is a master's student in psychology, she has no medical qualifications whatsoever. She also has almost no publishing footprint. It's a very weak source. In addition her conclusions are very clearly localized to North America, the abstract alone mentions this a half-dozen times. Frankly it's really quite unreasonable of you, on the one hand for some things, to insist on tiny wording changes to nudge the content closer to the source (here I'm thinking of your request to add "insertive anal sex" to the recommendations for MSM) but in this case feel it unnecessary at all to mention how specific Bossio's comments are to North America alone. Zad68 03:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sentence on circumcision controversies

Why'd you delete my sentence. The ethics textbook is a really bad source, it dosen't even go over controversies. Crawford gives a good perspective of controversies in the UK and Pinto gives a good perspective of controversies in the US. Crawford gives a good summary of the controversy over sexual health in the UK and puts emphasis on it, we can't leave this out.

JohnP (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Leaving the sentence as is clearly makes the page North American bias. And the textbook is a poor source.

JohnP (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Crawford is a little old. Why remove this [1] which provides a good summary? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The textbook does not talk about questions that are being asked about circumcision. Only covers legal and ethical problems that doctors can encounter when asked to circumcise.

JohnP (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes and the sentence it supports is about "Ethical and legal questions" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No its about questions that have been raised overall. Not ethical and legal questions that doctors naturally have to work through when they're asked to circumcise. This is not a statement about the law, its about what the literature overall is saying.

JohnP (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again please do not keep repeatedly bringing up the same topic in multiple Talk page sections. Zad68 03:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved here for discussion

It is important to distinguish between the two different types of phimosis. Physiological phimosis is phimosis that is present in all newborn males and naturally goes away on its own. Pathological phimosis is evident in 0.6 to 1.5 percent of males and is caused by scarring of the prepuce. Pathological phimosis can be caused by forced retraction of an infants prepuce by parents, recurrent balanoposthitis, and the skin disease balanitis xerotica obliterans. It is important that parents do not play with or attempt to retract their sons' foreskins because this will cause them to develop phimosis. Pathological phimosis can be a medical indication for circumcision but recent advances in medicine have made the preservation of the foreskin possible. The use of topical corticosteroids has been found to be an effective alternative to circumcision for treating phimosis as well as manual retraction therapy. In addition to this, the surgery Preputioplasty can be used to preserve the foreskin but remove phimosis. A preferred version of this procedure involves making two lateral incisions in the prepuce that allow it to loosen. Circumcision is not needed to treat most cases of pathological phimosis because of these alternative treatments. An exception is for the disease balanitis xerotica obliterans, a genital form of lichen sclerosus, which has been historically known as the only absolute indication for circumcision. However, this has also been changing due to alternative treatment options. Topical steroid application has been found to be effective in early and intermediate stages of the disease when active and irreversible tissue damage has not occurred. Recent trials show good outcomes for boys who undergo Preputioplasty and injections of intralesional triamcinolone for BXO.

2. A primary source. Not needed.
5. 2002 A little old.

It is not clear which ref supports which text above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

We should not be providing "how too advice" thus "It is important that parents do not play with or attempt to retract their sons' foreskins because this will cause them to develop phimosis" is not good wording. This than seems to contradict what came before "as well as manual retraction therapy." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This bit "It is important to distinguish between the two different types of phimosis. Physiological phimosis is phimosis that is present in all newborn males and naturally goes away on its own. Pathological phimosis is evident in 0.6 to 1.5 percent of males and is caused by scarring of the prepuce. Pathological phimosis can be caused by forced retraction of an infants prepuce by parents, recurrent balanoposthitis, and the skin disease balanitis xerotica obliterans. It is important that parents do not play with or attempt to retract their sons' foreskins because this will cause them to develop phimosis. " was already discussed lower in the article. No need to discuss it twice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Have added a summary of the Cochrane review. And combined the rest of it into the pre existing text Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok well the sources that I found all say that circumcision is no longer needed for pathological phimosis and recurrent UTIs. The only thing that they indicate it is really needed for is BXO. This is too important for us to not have at least somewhat included in the indications section.

JohnP (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not exactly say that. In fact the source you added say that it is useful in some cases. But not most cases of BXO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No but I'm talking about the majority of pathological phimosis. BXO is a pretty rare case. Most pathological phimosis comes from premature stretching of the foreskin by parents and recurrent balanoposthitis as indicated by the sources.

JohnP (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Which ref says "Most pathological phimosis comes from premature stretching of the foreskin by parents and recurrent balanoposthitis" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

All of the sources here are saying that the main reason for circumcision when the patient has pathological phimosis is for BXO. The amount of babies that have BXO and have pathological phimosis is controversial. Cochrane review states that BXO still represents a highly selected and infrequent group among children with phimosis seen in ambulatory/primary care settings. Prepuce: Phimosis, Paraphimosis, and Circumcision Says 15% of children undergoign circumcision have BXO, To circ or not to circ says causes of phimosis are tramautic tearing of the foreskin, persistent infant adhesions, frenulum breve, phimotic ring, and chronic balanoposthitis. This one dosen't mention BXO.

JohnP (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

BXO seems to be the one part of pathological phimosis that requires circumcsion. Rather we should say a medical indication is for pathological phimosis cause by BXO. These sources are all indicating that it is unnecessary for balanoposthitis.

JohnP (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

No it is used for a number of causes of phimosis. You still: have not answered what supported "Most pathological phimosis comes from premature stretching of the foreskin by parents and recurrent balanoposthitis" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

no. This cochrane literature review and the other says its only needed for BXO.

JohnP (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I have reviewed this with you before. Your statements are not representing what the sources say. Zad68 03:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Have to repost this because it was archived but not resolved: Poor Source: "Professional Standards and Guidelines – Circumcision (Infant Male)" (PDF). College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. September 2009. Retrieved 2012-09-11.

The link to this source dosen't go to anything. We should keep this post on the talk page until we have the new link up. This is because if it is archived we will forget about fixing the source.

JohnP (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement that every source have a convenience link. There is no basis in Wikipedia content policy or guidelines for what you are saying here. Zad68 03:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Should elaborate on Section: Medical indications, Sentence: Circumcision may be medically indicated in children for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic, recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) in males who are chronically susce

We only have one sentence in this section involving circumcision's medical indications. I've been finding a lot more info on this topic that we could write about. See pmids 16800325, 21298220, 25180668, 24295833. There are two types of phimosis that children can get. One type is physiological phimosis and this dosen't require circumcision. This is the most common type. The other type is caused by premature stretching of the foreskin by parents,Chronic balanoposthitis, and Balanitisxeroticaobliterans as indicated by these sources.

Other stuff we could write about are other medical indications indicated by literature reviews. These are Balanitisxeroticaobliterans and the stretching of the foreskin by parents. I think we should go into more depth here.

JohnP (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You are again bringing up the same topics in a new Talk page discussion that we have already covered. As mentioned before those items should be covered at phimosis, foreskin, BXO, etc. Zad68 03:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

do you hope he stops so people don't go to the talk pahe and realize this article is censored to be pro male mutilation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.106 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The WHO report on Safety and Acceptibility of Circumcision in Africa is a Bad Source for Describing the Foreskin

We cannot use this source to describe the foreskin. It wasn't even made to describe the foreskin. The WHO is clearly biased here, as it is promoting circumcision to prevent an Epidemic that is going on in Africa. We need a better source that does not have bias and actually focuses on the prepuce. The functions of the prepuce have been known for thousands of years, this can't be too hard to find. The WHO is clearly incredibly bias, it only uses 3 sources on the prepuce all of which are quite bad. It doesn't even summarize its sources right. 2 of them say that the foreskin has a role, and the other doesn't focus much on the topic.

JohnP (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"WHO is clearly biased" Actually WHO is a very high quality source per WP:MEDRS which cares greatly about global health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me correct you. They're good for talking about HIV and the global epidemic, and they're good at encouraging the use of circumcision in Africa, but they are not good for describing the foreskin. The purpose of their article is so far from that, I don't know why you insist on using it for this purpose.

JohnP (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You mention that the WHO is biased three times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are biased when it comes to talking about the prepuce. Let me give you an example to illustrate this: Lets say there is an area of the world, like Africa, where people are dying of HIV all over the place. Then there is a procedure like circumcision that turns out to prevent HIV. The procedure is known to be highly controversial, and many people in Africa probably won't initially want to have it done. The WHO may know that the prepuce has some functions, but their primary goal here is to save Massive amounts of people from dying over in Africa. They don't want HIV to spread uncontrollably into other areas of the world like Europe and Asia. This is because if HIV gets uncontrollable then everyone could start dying.

The WHO's goal here was to downplay the sexual effects so that they could convince Africans to do it. They probably knew that it does have some sexual effects, just the HIV benefit here is much more important so they tried to cover it up. This is what makes their source bias.

Now going away from this, the mere presence of an epidemic makes this source bias according to our guidelines for medical literature. Medical literature is supposed to be objective. Here, with an epidemic present, this source is clearly using circumcision to treat an illness that is present in one part of the globe. Using it to treat an illness makes its results unobjective.

This is the English Wikipedia page. We don't broadcast to most people in Africa anyway. If this was Africa's page I would be Ok with using this source because the African guys should get circumcised if they don't all want to die. However, here in developed countries where there's little HIV, I think that we should actually use a source that tries to describe the foreskin.

JohnP (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

John - I admire your energy in trying to improv this article. Many of the points you make are correct and, if this article were permitted to be objective, would be acted upon. However your last entry has several glaring errors, some original research and some assumptions about Wikipedia and Africa which are plain wrong. The WHO enthusiasm for Circumcision may have many sources apart from the purpose of curbing an epidemic. Some of the consciousness of the medical industry is tainted by its previous recent devotion to Circumcision (" the cure in search of an illness") as a cure for a myriad of real, rare, and imaginary conditions. Perhaps when this article does come to be overhauled from its present unbalanced pro-circumcision state it will be by considering the sociological and psychological aspects of the genital cutter mindset more and the medical aspects less. The utter absence of any mention of forced and tribal circumcisions in Africa and elsewhere within the article is a good illustration of how badly this article has deteriorated. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht once again please be reminded not to use the article Talk page to air your personal opinions. If you return to the same disruptive editing behavior, I'll ask again for an administrator to review your behavior. Zad68 02:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Zad - once again you attempt to characterize useful debate as personal opinion. Why is it that you cannot countenance these aspects of circumcision being considered for mention within either the article or now even considered on the Talkpage ?. Please be reminded that debate to improve the article is the purpose of this page. Please desist from your attempts to intimidate other editors and to stifle debate.Please desist from your threatening and disruptive behaviour. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I see zdad cpmnstanly threatenes people not to discuss the topic on this talk page which is what it is for. I have reported him as a sockpuppet.

Stalk

The previous content was better

It was simpler for example "The foreskin extends out from the base of the glans and covers the glans when the penis is flaccid."

This is more complicated "The foreskin(prepuce) is a specialized, junctional mucocutaneous tissue. "

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I could fix that really easily. I didn't have the time this week to look over that article that much. There are sections that are much simpler, and we could state them in a way that would be beneficial to the reader.

JohnP (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

John please stop making multiple Talk page sections to cover the same topic. Your view appears to be that basically you feel the WHO is publishing lies. You may feel that way, however the WHO is regarded within the medical community and by Wikipedia as a reliable source, you don't appear to have a valid argument here. Zad68 03:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

John don't listen to him. he clearly makes new talk pages to try to end debate. zdad is likely paid to troll here by sopmeone with a conservative moral view that wants humans to have less sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.106 (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Rearranging text

The secual effects are adverse effects. Thus resorted content to were it was before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No sexual effects are the first thing circumcision effects. And we really don't know what they are as indicated by the sources.

JohnP (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It was better discussed under adverse effects. Disagree with your moving it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Jewish tradition a purpose of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure. Should a reduction in pleasure go into a positive or into a a negative effects section ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht are you suggesting that the reasoning given for a religious tradition should be treated by this Wikipedia article as a medical effect and given equal footing with the up-to-date medical review articles? A simple Yes or No answer would be sufficient, please. Zad68 03:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you. in your turn consider Zad that the loss of penile sensation caused by cutting off up to 80% of the skin of the penis and making it up to 25% shorter something that only medical researchers have any right to be heard on within this article Please feel free to answer as fully as possible. A simple yes or no answer would not be sufficient.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

it's a medical benefit because since it makes sex feel less good, people have less sex, and get less AIDS. cost effective. also cost effective to just cut the entire penis off then you will see way less HIV infections! Cochrane is a joke.

No way. Circumcision first and foremost directly effects sexual health. And we don't even know what that effect is. An effect that we need to list is its sexual effect. DocJames your statement suffers from cultural bias.

JohnP (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No the majority of the high quality literature dose not comment on sexual health. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

odd slip up for a doctor to admit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.168.151.106 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I just did a review of a big chunk of the literature that we have. I actually found that the majority of the articles that I read did give some reference to circumcision's effect on sexual health. Many authors would briefly describe how it improves or harms sexual health in the summaries of their articles. So it looks like the majority of our literature is giving some reference to it.

JohnP (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the list of the articles "we have" that you looked at? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked the Wikipedia article summarized six high-quality up to date meta-analyses and review articles, the Wikipedia article summarizes their conclusions accurately, you agreed that this was the case earlier, what is the problem now? Zad68 03:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for new introduction text to this article.

Circumcision is a ritual where people remove the foreskin of their babies, usually in order to put a mark of their religion upon their babies. After the baby is circumcised, it has a physical mark which binds it more strongly to its religious group. The practice is very common among Jews and Muslims. Many people with a more secular mindset, believe people should be allowed to chose their ideological adherence themselves when they are adult. Since circumcision is practically irreversible and forced upon people before they become adult, many human rights activists regard this practice as unethical and unlawful.84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Pain and autism risk, include?

• Circumcision tied to autism risk: study January 21, 2015

See causes of autism too? 108.73.112.31 (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC) 108.73.112.31 (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• • No. The study itself [2] does not meet MEDRS as it is a primary study, not a review of literature. Everymorning talk 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that the IP is the WP:SOCK of a known block-evading editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • What we are looking for is a review article published in a respected journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed poor quality sources

Have trimmed "" We need to use sources that meet WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Agreed, a clear violation of WP:MEDREV. Zad68 03:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Trimmed" is a pretty funny verb given the subject matter and echoing the euphemisms in the Circumcision article? Perhaps the editor meant "I have cut out" these sources. Like a foreskin. Will we ever get to a stage of examining the notion that "medical" articles may not be the only place to seek confirmation that cutting off up to 15 square inches of the skin at the head of the penis and sewing back together the remainder may have some diminishing effect on sensation ? Here is a circumcision information website which addresses, with medical references, 19 of the many issues which at present are hardly considered at all within the article.

http://intaction.org/10-myths-about-circumcision/

The rebuttal of the heavily promoted HIV prevention possibility of Circumcision is particularly useful. It is odd that given the current obsession with "medical" content for this article that neither the frenulum nor the ridged band of highly innervated tissue located just inside the tip of the foreskin, nor the synechia tissue which joins the foreskin to the penis head in infancy get any mention at all. The lifelong PTSD which a cut male can experience (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999) gets no mention yet either within the article. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Collapse content that violates WP:TPG and for which the Godwin Point has been reached

I don't understand how Doc James and Zad68 can be allowed to control this article, when they are so clearly biased for circumcision. Just analyze how much pro-circumision they vote for, and how much anti-circumcision they vote against. I have never ever seen Doc James or Zad68 argue that something pro-circumsion should be removed from the article, nor have I ever seen them argue for the inclusion of anti-circimcision material in the article. European doctors with a more modern mindset need to stand up for themselves. We shouldn't let these old fashioned religious zealots rule wikipedia. It is also funny that religiousness often is overrepresented in medical communities. Apparently they don't learn a lot about evolutionary theory when they study medicine. That is probably why they often think it is a good idea to chop off organs we have evolved to have. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC) I for one am glad that some editors (such as the two named) have the patience and expertise to keep this article's quality up and ensure it's aligned with our WP:PAGs! However, this Talk page is for commenting on content not contributors. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC) You do realize that it isn't necessarily clear from these guidlines how much weight should be given to medical stuff, compared to for example ethical stuff, in articles like this one? Many Norwegian doctors refuse to circumcise children because they think it is unethical. Circumcision is also clearly a more cosmetical procedure than a medicinal one, and it can be compared to make a tatoo on a child. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Whenever an editor says "clearly" an alarm goes off, because 99% of times it signals special pleading. For ethical aspects of this topic there is an entire article: Ethics of circumcision. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Why isn't this one rather called medicinal aspects of circumsion? Clearly because you are biased for circumcision.84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC) This has been discussed at length before (see e.g. here). Like it or not, the preponderence of good sources on this topic are medical in nature. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Of course. There is generally puiblished more medicinal stuff, than ethical stuff. Especially of high quality. A review article of the conclusions in ethical primary sources wouldn't make a lot sense. And only review articles are good sources according to wikipedia. So any topic that has any medicinal aspect can be dominated by the medicinal aspects like wikipedia is today.84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC) That's not so. For example a topic like Christian Science, with a strong medical aspect, has relatively small medical content because the published medical material is not dominant. When medical material however dominates the published literature, it dominates here too. That is as it should be. Since you agree that is how things operate I suggest further conversation here is futile - you might like to try changing the NPOV policy instead. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Nah, I am rather going to invest billions of USD in doctors researching the social benefits of making Nazi tatoos on children in Nazi communities, and then I can force you to have a wikipedia article about Nazi tatoos, where most of the sources are pro.84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Name?

I find it rather appalling that male circumcision is called circumcision, while female circumcision is called mutilation. Both terms are correct, of course, but one would think that circumcision/mutilation would have the same title for males and females. While I have other problems with the disparity of the articles, I will not go into that. I only ask, why do they have different titles? (A neutral, medical one for male circumcision, and a grabbing, graphic, negative title for female circumcision)

..actually, I'd also like to know why male circumcision is considerably rarer in Europe than it is in the US. Seeing as, as far as this article goes, male circumcision is such a good thing, one would expect Europe to be better at it than third world countries. 46.239.250.137 (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it is not the universal good that this "unbiased" article might imply. 76.0.111.153 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

One might also wonder why religion is so much more common in the US than in western Europea. Maybe circumcision is more common in the US since they are more religious? The german cancelor (Angela Merkel) has a PhD in quantum chemistry. Americans usually vote for presidents with money and charisma, not brain power.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The History of Circumcision article ( http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_1plUsryMYLWtAbv9YCIAg ) gives some better content clues on why Circumcision is so popular amongst USA doctors today (and in countries which it has colonized militarily or culturally) The masturbation prevention mindset contributed hugely to the revived surge in the popularity of both male and indeed female circumcision about a century ago, but Circumcision's popularity has declined greatly in recent decades. You may also find the Prevalence of Circumcision article enlightening http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_1plUsryMYLWtAbv9YCIAg and the Circumcision and Bioethics article http://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=_1plUsryMYLWtAbv9YCIAg Try to avoid sharing personal opinions or original research on this page.The terminology on the cutting of the genitals of both sexes is largely determined by what terminology is used by respected sources within the reliable literature on the subject. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The Prevalence of circumcision by country map is difficult to read.

The color code for 20-80% (0000cd) is darker than the color code for 70-80% (0044aa). Please use incremental darkness so that people can read it more easily. Also. Are you sure it shouldn't be 20-70%, since there is an overlap from 70-80%.84.210.54.80 (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Prevalence of circumcision by country

You're referring to this map? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The problem seems to be with the 20-80% interval, which is much larger than the other intervals and overlaps with many of the other intervals. I guess there isn't very accurate data available for these countries, but it seems wierd that there isn't more accurate data for Canada. Anyhow. Maybe a different color or stripes with light and dark blue color?84.210.54.80 (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You may wish to contact the uploader on his COMMONS:User_talk:JohnPRsrcher talk page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Study links autism with circumcision

Well, [this http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision] might go into the article somewhere. // Liftarn (talk)

A report of primary research on "sciencenordic.com" does not clear the bar of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But perhaps Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine may[3] // Liftarn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please take care to discriminate between primary and secondary sources. Zad68 03:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Primary[4] and secondary[5] // Liftarn (talk)

Please make yourself familiar with WP:MEDRS before continuing. Zad68 15:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine is the primary source here and the sciencenordic website reported on it so is a secondary source. I am guessing that zad is saying this is "controversial" so we should wait for more sources? Popish Plot (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a secondary source in any meaningful sense (particularly in the light of WP:MEDRS). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I searched in the Cochrane website and it doesn't mention this recent study. But I suppose some day a source such as that may mention it and then and only then it could be included in this article. A lot of popular websites such as dailynews and huffingtonpost are reporting on this but they aren't reliable for this kind of thing. Popish Plot (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite so; we need the WP:ANALYSIS of a high-quality secondary source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

HIV spread caused by Circumcision

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv

When will the gatekeepers of this WP article see fit to permit mention here of these and other deleterious results of the practice of Circumcision ? Maybe a little irony in 80 deaths from 50,000 circumcisions in that part of the world where Circumcision is being sold most heavily for health. This other article even details rewards offered for those turning in those unwilling to be cut.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That says the HIV is spread because in South Africa they are doing this in rituals with dirty knives, not in hospitals with trained staff. That seems common sense and this article does mention the studies recommend doing the circumcision with trained medical professionals, in terms of doing it for alleged medical benefits. This could be a good source for the article in terms of another source saying if circumcisions are to be done they should be done clean and safely. Popish Plot (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the consequence of the over-emphasis on medical circumcisions and the scant mention of tribal, forced and non medical circumcisions has the effect of presenting an article here that paints an unbalanced picture of the wide variety of ways people engage in this branch of genital cutting all over the world and its varied consequences. If it is causing the spread of HIV in South Africa( and in many other places) then this fact is notable beyond being a mere confirmation that it is a good idea to use a sterilized knife. But thank you for replying.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the article doesn't say that tho. It says it carries HIV risks because they do the circumcision ritual on boys at 18 years of age when they have already been having sex, and should do it on babies instead. You said it was causing HIV. Popish Plot (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Adverse effects

The article makes the bold claim "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction". But we have newer research that show adverse effects.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:MEDRS. We use secondary not primary sources. This 2011 primary source does not refute the newer secondary sources we are using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. And it also the first study on the effect on the partners so the 2011 study don't even address that aspect. // Liftarn (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a 2011 primary source. The sources we are currently using are newer than this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree: primary source, not usable (This Frisch guy seems to specialize in "bad news for circumcision" type articles - yet another reason why we need secondary sources to validate research). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Liftarn please make yourself familiar with WP:MEDRS and in particular WP:MEDREV before continuing. Thanks... Zad68 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"This Frisch Guy" as this "Alexbrn guy"so objectively and respectfully describes him is an MD Phd DSc Professor of Epidemiology who publishes on a wide variety of subjects related to his field. The characterization of his work as "specializing in "bad news for circumcision" type articles" is inaccurate, contrary to WP policy on writing about living persons, and reveals more about the describer than the Professor. Also, yet again the trio of Zad=DocJames=Alexbrn repeat tendentiously their opinion that Primary Sources cannot be used in WP. They can. Here is the policy section that says so.

For Wikipedia's policy on the use of primary sources, see WP:PSTS.

Here are three quotations from that policy ( but read the whole thing yourself !)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Some such as the above trio of editors express the opinion that the deleterious effects of genital cutting such as circumcision can only be considered from a medical perspective and so they prevent any mention of any of the many surveys and studies which have concluded that cutting a lot of skin off the end of the penis keratinizes (scars) and desensitizes the penis. Others of us disagree strongly with this opinion. We maintain that circumcision, like all forms of genital cutting, is primarily a cultural practice. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It is illuminating Seppi that you chose to let your own admitted personal opinion forum rant below stand as the last word here while hiding criticism of it below- Hmmmmm--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

My colorful statement below, in a nutshell, says that some people (e.g., you) have a bias and WP:MEDRS prevents them from contaminating articles with it; that's not an opinion, that's a fact (that's technically true for WP:NPOV too, but I didn't mention it). Even so, if an uninvolved editor wants to move the tab up, I wouldn't oppose it if they did. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's laughable that an article about the removal of a useless flap of dick skin raises so much controversy (compare the sum total archive size of this talk page to any other controversial topic's talk page archive, I dare you); I suppose there's always a group of individuals who drink the anti-science koolaid though, like anti-vaccers, intelligent design proponents, and, well, people who think a useless flap of dick skin is more than a useless flap of dick skin when medical reviews indicate that it's essentially a useless flap of dick skin. Thankfully, we use WP:MEDRS on Wikipedia to prevent the koolaid from spilling into our articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Medical Science is one perspective on examining the loss of sensation caused by cutting off up to 15 square inches of skin from the tip of the genitals. It is interesting that the last editor chose to utterly ignore the arguments and the primary source policy question, and the point about the mainly cultural nature of male or female circumcision, and was instead at such pains to compare questioning the centrality and exclusivity of "Medical Science only folks" to not one but to three groups of obviously deluded folk. Overkill misdirect dude. This is the same tradition within medical science that gave us with similar certitude and arrogance Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation not so long ago - though at least at that time Medical Science accepted that lopping off loads of skin off the male genitals causes as much loss of sensation as doing the same to a female, Lobotomy as a cure for mental illness and SSRIs currently for Personality Disorders ( see Dr. Marcia Angell for more on latter) Who then is drinking the Koolaid - surely the hysterics with the unquestioned beliefs.......--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Proof by example - you should read it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC) You should attempt to understand it--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Seppi333 says that the foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin. Well, maybe it is, but maybe people should be allowed to chose wheter they want this useless flap of dick skin themselves. A tattoo might also be completely harmless. I wouldn't think it was okay if my parents tattooed a cross into my forehead when I was baby, just because they are religious morons. Circumcision symbolizes religious tradition to me, and therefore I want it gone.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Although many people might feel as you do, please be reminded that Wikipedia article Talk pages are not to be used as a forum of personal advocacy. There are plenty of Internet forums for that, this isn't one of them. Thanks... Zad68 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC) A much more serious issue, is that you and Doc James have hijacked a non-medical topic and made it into medical one. I have already complained at the talk page for "neutral point of view" about this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Not_necessarily_a_good_idea_to_determine_weight_by_amount_of_published_review_articles.). 84.210.54.80 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC) That's not a medical issue; ergo, I wasn't commenting on that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC) Which reliable medical or other secondary source refers to the foreskin as a "useless flap of dick skin' Or is that description further Seppi 333 Original Research ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC) If it appeases you and your unflinching systematic bias for whatever reasons you probably won't disclose (i.e., your kool-aid), we can call it "the holy site of worship at the temple of the penis" instead. Yes, "useless flap of dick skin" is my WP:OR term for foreskin. And this is a talk page. Given all the pointless irrelevant whining, it's no wonder the archives for this page are so bloated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC) What is "useless" to you, might be considered very "useful" to other people. Lots of bold people do hair transplantations, and you can just as well argue that hair on the head is quite useless in our modern society. Of course, many women might prefer men with hair on their heads. Similarly, lots of women might prefer penises with foreskin, especially in countries where most people have foreskin. In other countries, where most people lack foreskin, women might prefer dicks without foreskin. And as for your medical research. I can guarantee you that if you force adult men to undergo circumcision, most of them will claim that they have reduced sexual pleasure. Similarly, you might expect adult men who voluntarily circumcise themselves to report equal or increased sexual pleasure. Because people are very prone to something called the placebo effect, and self-reporting from people isn't very good science.84.210.54.80 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Ah, another opinionated individual arguing against conclusions of peer-reviewed medical literature reviews! Tell me a little more about how vaccines cause autism and herd immunity is wrong - we should bloat the talk page archives with some of that nonsense too. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Against peer-reviewed medical literature? Yeah, in chemistry we prove things with NMR-instruments, not self-reporting from people. Your peer-reviewed medical literature is as valid as when people were determining chemicals by smell. You should also not talk to me about the irrationality of being against vaccination. Here in Europe most people are rational enough to understand that vaccines are good. Only in the US you have a problem with people that don't believe in vaccination, and people that believe in irrational crap ideas like intelligent design, creationism, religion, and circumcision. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC) So, based upon the use of self-reporting of an arbitrary metric in any medical study, all medical research is faulty? Lolwtf? Bulletproof argument right there. In mathematical analysis, we actually use logic to prove things, not bullshit rants. By extension of your former conclusion, does Europe also understand that vaccines are good based upon peer-reviewed medical literature that is as valid as when people were determining chemicals by smell? Lmfao. I also like how you think I'm in the US. Whining about how the medical evidence on circumcision is faulty is no different than an anti-vaccer whining about how the medical evidence on vaccines is faulty. How's that kool-aid taste? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) How many people do you think circumcision have saved compared to vaccines? As far as I know, I don't think anybody has ever died from having foreskin here in Norway, but I can tell you that a lot of people have died from not having been vaccinated. Furthermore. Are we vaccinating people because of some religious tradition? Nope. Are people circumcising their babies because of religious tradition? Absolutely. Why aren't you people rather advocating for neonatal breast removal? I am sure much more lives can be saved by neonatal breast removal than by neonatal circumcision, because lots of women actually die from breast cancer. I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC) How many people do you think circumcision have saved compared to vaccines? Not as many, but some. There are some legitimate medical reasons for circumcision, although it undoubtedly would be a rare operation if not for religious reasons. On the other hand, there are few, if any, documented adverse effects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC) You are probably right, but the question is: Should we make irreversible body modifications on children purely for religious reasons? In our modern secular world I think we only should make irreversible body modifications on children if it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons. Of course I would support circumcision if there were strong medical benefits associated with it. The medical benefits from circumcision are however very weak, and therefore we don't necessarily have any right to make this irreversible body modification on children without their adult consent. This is also why this article shouldn't follow WP:MEDRS. We are usually not performing circumcision on children for medical reasons. This article is actually very confusing, because it makes it look like we are circumcising children for medical reasons.84.210.54.80 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC) This user is a devout worshipper of His Noodliness. "I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition." I've had this userbox on my userpage for months. Probably the only argument that you can make about my "religious tradition" is that I wear a pasta strainer on my head at times; fortunately, I don't take my (lack of) faith too seriously, so I never have. This article contains a substantial amount of medical content because it is a medical procedure. We also do not write articles with judgmental overtones or omission of relevant aspects, which is often what occurs when there are people with very biased opinions writing about a particular topic (e.g., I angered many ecstasy lovers when I rewrote MDMA and expanded coverage of its health effects in humans). Topical coverage of the religious aspects of a topic are what is necessary and sufficient in circumstances like this. Frankly I also do not give the slightest iota of a fuck about the religious reasons for circumcision because as I've repeatedly pointed out: the opinion of the medical community is that foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin, so nothing is lost from its removal. Now, as I've already made my point about saying the medical evidence on circumcision is wrong is analogous to an anti-vaccer's argument, I'm more or less done on this talk page. Think that over for a moment if you plan to continue promoting that notion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC) You write "the opinion of the medical community is that foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin". So that gives you the right to remove it from other people? You think it is okay that parents make irreversible body modifications on their children as long as it doesn't have any negative medical consequences? What would you think if your parents tattooed a cross into your forhead? That doesn't necessarily have any negative medical consequences either. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Straw man - you should read it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Is that the best counter argument you can come up with? Try to forumlate something with your own words. Or maybe that is too intellectually challenging?84.210.54.80 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC) If you don't like having your entire argument invalidated by a 2 word rebuttal, perhaps you shouldn't use logical fallacies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Logical fallacies? I bet you don't even know the difference between deductive and inductive logic, and I bet you don't have any higher education in the either mathematics or natural sciences. If there is a logical flaw in my argument, you need to pinpoint exactly where that flaw is in order to prove me wrong. If you published an article in a scientific journal, I would need to pinpoint exactly where you were wrong in order to prove you wrong. Nobody would take me seriously if I just said Seppi333's article is flawed, without specifying exactly where the flaw is in your paper.84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) You see, if you had read the link as I suggested, you would already have your answer. I'll let you take the initiative to click that link now and read straw man to learn why it's a logical fallacy to argue against something I didn't say, much less even comment on, in a way that suggests/supposes I said it; this would probably be self-evident if there were less kool-aid in someone's diet. Also, since this thread is now blatantly off-topic, I think it's time to collapse all this nonsense to keep this page & its archives less bloated. WP talk pages aren't forums after all; they're only for discussions directly relevant to improving/copyediting articles, something which this tangent is not. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Arguments can be good for wikipedia and we shouldn't censor them. Remember to assume good faith and DBAD. Try not to get emotional whether you're pro or con circumcision. Popish Plot (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Seppi --Medical Science is one perspective on examining the loss of sensation caused by cutting off up to 15 square inches of skin from the tip of the genitals. It is interesting that Seppi chose to utterly ignore the arguments and the primary source policy question, and the point about the mainly cultural nature of male or female circumcision, and was instead at such pains to compare questioning the centrality and exclusivity of "Medical Science only folks" to not one but to three groups of obviously deluded folk. Overkill misdirect dude. This is the same tradition within medical science that gave us with similar certitude and arrogance Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation not so long ago - though at least at that time Medical Science accepted that lopping off loads of skin off the male genitals causes as much loss of sensation as doing the same to a female, Lobotomy as a cure for mental illness and SSRIs currently for Personality Disorders ( see Dr. Marcia Angell for more on latter) Who then is drinking the Koolaid - surely the hysterics with the unquestioned beliefs.......- --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

penile skin sensitivity & circumcision

moving the skin sensitivity part here to separate it from the sexual pleasure part --ChristopheT (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

now skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold test like this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 - I don't see any skin threshold test that contradicts those findings. So if we set aside the sexual pleasure thing for now (which is indeed much harder to quantify) can we move on the sensitivity part? ChristopheT (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course this loss of sensitivity of cut penises missing their penis tips should be mentioned per the WP policy on primary sources as outlined above, and in the way that any other similar WP article, such as the one on Female Circumcision is permitted to do. But for some odd reason -not here ! not now ! don't ask don't tell --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht ever POV-pushing against the knowledge found in good sources. Time to get this this disruptive WP:ADVOCACY dealt with. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Try to address the cogent point raised by Christoph please Alex, and desist from personal attacks and from ascribing bad faith. Your doing so is not in accord with the purpose of this page and is disruptive of its purpose which is improving the article. The primary study cited by Christoph clearly concludes

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis.

and

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.

and

Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

( "ablates" means that circumcision " removes or destroys the function of (a body organ or tissue) --per dictionary.

The secondary study which you then cite Alex makes no mention of the sensitivity question -its conclusions are concerned solely with sexual functions. Is it possible that you failed to notice this this ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

So blinded by bias, incapable of reading or comprehending the very text I quoted. Or just trolling. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again Alex I must politely ask you to try harder to stick to content and its consideration, and to refrain from attack and aspersions. If you choose to continue with such you will be in contravention of WP policy and subject to consideration for restricted editing, or an outright ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again, from PMID 23749001 — what part of "show[s] no difference or improvement in sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction after circumcision" (my bold) don't you understand? Your assertion that this source "makes no mention of the sensitivity question" is flat out false. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

No - your quotation is not in the abstract reference which you are providing - which lists 7 male sexual functions pre and post the cutting off of the foreskin with the following caution "

"these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies. Well-designed and prospective studies are required for a further understanding of this topic."

The line you reference above is not there. Nor is there any other mention of the sensitivity question at all at all. Perhaps you are confusing it with a different study altogether Alex. Dunning–Kruger ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're either incompetent or trolling, either way, time to WP:SHUN. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn did you post the wrong link by mistake? It's true that your quote is not there. Popish Plot (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, please -enough with the compliments. As I said already the abstract which you yourself referenced makes no mention of penile sensitivity. The full article ( available here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ ) does mention sexual function, sensitivity, and satisfaction but makes no mention of fine touch sensitivities of the cut and the non-cut penis as so clearly studied with such clear vivid results that it produced the three conclusion which I bolded above.

In its main text body the article which you cited speculates the following with no reference sources

"Theoretically, partial or total surgical removal of the prepuce leaves the somatic penis sensory fibres exposed to direct stimulation and in theory could benefit sexual function."

It is such an odd aside in the middle of a supposed objective systematic meta-analysis high quality secondary source.

On the shunning front- if you wish me or others to ignore your comments then please simply just say so --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand this form of science. If you just managed to get a secondary source published in a well respected scientific journal, and your secondary source happens to be the latest one published in a well respected scientific journal, then the conclusions in this secondary source is regarded as scientific fact on wikipedia? I see much more room for subjectivity in secondary sources than in primary sources, as it might be somewhat unclear if they have put equal weight on all their primary sources. A biased scientist might be paying much more attention to primary sources supporting his/her own views, just like with documentaries where often all opposing views are completely ignored. Ideally, wikipedia should be much more like a secondary source itself, where all primary sources are taken into consideration. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think these are all good facts to add to the article. I see right now in the third paragraph it says "Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[20][21] Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age.[20] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[22][23]" Now in the sources you mention it does show how circumcisions are dangerous it doesn't say "circumcisions cause HIV" so that is what I was worried you wanted to add. It's a fact that circumcisions can have risks especially when proper precautions are not used. Popish Plot (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

^sorry, I meant for the above reply to go under the "not improvement" discussion below. Popish Plot (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not improvements

The edits by User:Cirflow do not appear to be improvements. This one [6] adds "with the majority endorsing the former" which is not supported by a high quality ref.

This was to the point "Evidence supports that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa". This is not an improvement "Studies done in Africa have shown that there is evidence male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to qualify that to

"medical male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." As referenced above the evidence points to another form of circumcision greatly increasing HIV in the same area.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me attempt to convince you and others DocJames.

I notice that your rejection of the idea took less than five minutes. Did this give you sufficient time to find and read the two Guardian newspaper articles including the findings of the South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities ?

I offer the references here again just in case in those few minutes you had not time to form an informed opinion

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

http://www.health-e.org.za/2014/06/25/half-million-initiates-maimed-knife/

The South African Human Rights Commission here calls it "endemic carnage"

http://www.sahrc.org.za/home/index.php?ipkArticleID=282

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv

The 456,000 boys hospitalized from circumcision complications and the 419 deaths at circumcision are particularly noteworthy as is the 110 pound sterling reward per head( no pun intended) paid to those who turn in those who have escaped cutting so far.

It is difficult to see how we can devote such a large chunk of this article to possible positive effects of HIV in SS Africa and at the same time simply ignore the ongoing horror of the deaths, injuries and human rights violations by circumcision in the same territory.

The articles are long recent decent secondary sources with strong internal references which do not just discuss the damage by this type of circumcision but examine the merits and demerits of WHO and other medical circumcision promotion too. Perhaps there is there so much new pertinent information entirely missing from the WP article that it requires a big rejigging of the article and not the mere qualification adjective addition as I originally proposed. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that if you were to write a review piece for the Guardian and source your bias, it would probably be published; if you did the same with a pubmed-indexed medical journal, the editors would probably laugh at you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You are missing the point - this half million of death and injuries and HIV infections is part of the non-medical circumcision phenomenon . So by a brilliant process of deduction we really do not need to consider the sense of humour of pubmed-indexed medical journal editors in deciding how to include this important information.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advocacy tuma, and I agree with you. This page does sound overly medical in nature, id say its 70% medical and 30% ethical,political,cultural etc, when its more the reverse. I understand there are other pages for those nonmedical areas in this overall topic, but I feel they are under reperesented on this page and considering that this is the main page for the overall topic of circumcision, that shows something is being omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC) And as for my adjustment of the first sentence in the paragraph on HIV, well I was being more specific, the "evidence" where studies done in Africa on sub Saharan Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Evergreen Fir took it upon her/himself to delete the rest of your remarks Cirflow. And to label the removal with an opinion.I did not see any "perceived slights" I agree that this article is most peculiarly unbalanced and has been maintained in that unhealthy state for some time . How do you feel we can best address this problem so as to improve the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

When they do a circumcision, technically it's a surgical procedure. I do see in the articles third paragraph it talks about how it's very dangerous to do the procedure with unclean instruments, etc, and that is what is causing all of the problems in africa when tribal leaders order it. Popish Plot (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WE had this conversation further up this page PopishPlot. You made the same reductionist dirty knife argument. But if Circumcision is CAUSING hiv and hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations as well as human rights violations when many young men are forcibly circumcised or sold out for for money to the circumcisers then do you not think it more than a question of "please use a clean knife when you go to cut a willie" and do you not think it odd that when we mention the studies that indicate that Circumcision may reduce HIV that we do not qualify this by saying it is medical circumcision alone that may do this but that in the same part of the world many CONTRACT hiv through Circumcision, just as jewish infants have contracted herpes through circumcision in Europe, USA and in Israel. Did you get to read the two Guardian newspaper articles on the subject I referenced above ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

it is an odd old tradition but "if" circumcision "causes" HIV, we'd need a source saying that. But the guardian source doesn't. It is causing infections due to dirty knives . . . this article does say that already.Popish Plot (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but since the economic situation in third world countries is unlikely to change anytime soon, we might expect them to continue to use dirty knives and perform circumcision in an unhealthy way. In an ideal world, where everybody were rich Jews, we might expect most people to be circumcised properly with clean knives. But this isn't the world we are living in, and WHO might not be taking this into consideration when they are advocating for more circumcision in third world countries.84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

sounds like crystal ballism. And mentioning term "rich jews" shows a certain POV which does us no good. Bottom line is what do the reliable sources say? Do you have more good sources we are missing? Popish Plot (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it just as much crystal ballism to believe that routinal, proper, clean circumcision can be applied in third-world countries where most people don't have any access to basic health care facilities? And maybe we should try to establish a basic health-care infrastructure in third-world countries before we start advocating for circumcision? But then again, maybe many of the proposed health benefits of circumcision also can be achieved with better abdomen hygiene in third-world countries.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@84.210 - yeah I agree with Popish on "POV which does us no good"

@ Popish Plot--Perhaps i was unclear in saying "causing" thinking that you understood that to be shorthand for "causing the spread of" Now the headline of that article is

Thousands face agony or death after Zulu king's circumcision decree-

Health campaigners say the traditional manhood ritual, which carries HIV risks, should be replaced by operations in hospital and goes on to say

"We see horrific cases of rotting penises, septicaemia and inadvertent castrations," he said. "Others die from dehydration and hypothermia. HIV is spread because the same knife is used on large groups of boys.

We have had a disastrous year, with 80 deaths, including two suicides,

Certainly the risks of circumcision as practised by people such as the Xhosa are substantial and include the danger of developing septicaemia and other infections.

Do you feel Popish plot that these statistics and statements from health workers about the damage done by circumcision including but not limited to HIV has no business being mentioned in the circumcision article ?

The other article headline is

The death and deformity caused by male circumcision in Africa can’t be ignored

and 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.

The WHO report mentioned

http://www.malecircumcision.org/programs/documents/TMC_final_web.pdf

says

male circumcision as a rite of passage into manhood has not been designed for the purpose of HIV prevention, and there are certain aspects of the practice that could undermine the potential benefits of male circumcision for HIV prevention, or even put people at increased risk of contracting HIV.

.......men are more likely to become infected if their circumcision wound is not fully healed.

and

Regarding the effectiveness of traditional circumcision for the prevention of HIV, the fact that it is performed after sexual debut in some tribes compromises the potential benefits.

To conclude : we may be misleading readers when we speak of the HIV preventative power of circumcision if we do not qualify this by saying that this research result applies only to medical circumcisions. We also ought to mention the violence and deaths and coercion around these other forms of circumcision. Otherwise we should rename this article "Medical Circumcision"--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Since none of them are objecting, I think you should just go ahead and change it.84.210.54.80 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think these are all good facts to add to the article. I see right now in the third paragraph it says "Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[20][21] Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age.[20] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[22][23]" Now in the sources you mention it does show how circumcisions are dangerous it doesn't say "circumcisions cause HIV" so that is what I was worried you wanted to add. It's a fact that circumcisions can have risks especially when proper precautions are not used Popish Plot (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When secondary sources have unfounded claims.

I am wondering if you are allowed to cite statements from secondary sources, even if the secondary sources don't provide any references for their statements. In particular, I wonder if you are allowed to use the statement about no loss of penile sensitivity from the secondary source, even if it appears like the secondary source you are referencing to doesn't have any reference for this statement itself. You are very strict with references here on wikipedia, so shouldn't you expect the same demand for references in secondary sources?84.210.54.80 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No. See WP:TRUTH. We report what reliable secondary sources say and give due weight to their contributions on the topic. We don't critique them. We don't create our own conclusions from them. We just report on them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, how do you determine if a secondary source is reliable? If secondary sources don't have references to primary sources for their statements, then of course they are not reliable. A reliable secondary source must have references to prove all its conclusions (just like you must have references here on wikipedia), otherwise the secondary source is just hogwash. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. It answers those questions and folks on WP:RSN would be willing to answer any other questions you might have. You might be also interested to read WP:BIASED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Some include

1. Recent
2. Pubmed indexed
3. Journal has a decent impact factor
4. Reputation for reliability.
5. Peer reviewed

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And another five sources (that are sorely lacking from the article) are

1/National Newspapers- see debate about disease and death from Circumcision in Africa covered by the Guardian newspaper above)

2/Primary Sources not yet collated in Secondary ones- some useful ones on the proof of loss of fine touch receptors caused by the cutting off of the foreskin and the resultant scarring are mentioned in recent debates.

3/Anti-Circumcision groups ( see WP:BIASED as referenced above by EvergreenFir - most interesting)

4/ Non medical sources examining human rights abuses within the Circumcision culture.

5/ Non medical sources studying the psychological motivation of those who continue to cut male genitals.

The chief factor in the unbalanced current state of the article is the practice of deletion of non medical journal sourced material.

What is particularly pernicious is where an editor, unhappy with the summary or conclusions of a study, combs through the text of an article combing out quotes to support their position on the subject.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

While we at least agree that "What is particularly pernicious is where an editor, unhappy with the summary or conclusions of a study, combs through the text of an article combing out quotes to support their position on the subject" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the sentence “Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." in the article should definitely be changed to “Circumcision does not appear to harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." Because the first part of the sentence “ Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis”, is outright false, as there apparently are no primary sources (or real research) documenting this statement. As ChristopheT has already said, skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold tests, and therefore we should expect the same result from all such experiments. So it is not strange that all primary research (the real experiments performed) get more or less the same results, which is that circumcision actually seems to reduce skin sensitivity. The secondary source you are using which claims that there is no decrease skin sensitivity, is obviously confusing skin sensitivity with sexual function/satisfaction. Skin sensitivity is easy to assess and should not be confused with sexual function/satisfaction which is much harder to assess. 85.19.205.254 (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Well, the sentence [in the journal article] should definitely be changed ..." ← why not ask the publisher to issue an erratum? Good luck with that. BTW, something else I think us editors can agree is bad is, socking. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I will have better luck if I send an email to the editor-in-chief of the journal it was published in. But why do you here on wikipedia insist on having a statement which you should know cannot be true, as there doesn't seem to exist any primary sources (real research) validating the statement.85.19.205.236 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Alex. Either get the journal to change there statement or publish you own review in a high quality journal and we will cite you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

And until then you are going to spread information you know is false from wikipedia? Great encyclopedia I must say! Tell me, do you also lie to your patients Doc James? Maybe you should consider adding another criteria to your secondary sources. That they have references to back up their claims.84.210.54.80 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see both sides of this argument are getting frustrated and mad. That is a mistake that I fell for as well but then I read wikipedia guidelines. Basically wikipedia's rules say even if something is obviously wrong, if a reliable source says it, and no other reliable source contradicts it, it should be in wiki's articles. So this talk of sensitivity, what does the source actually say? This is the source we are using correct? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12293/abstract;jsessionid=1EED689F94138B98E5492BF110965D34.f02t04 What does it say to the question: "Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?—" It says: "The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. " Now to me this makes no sense. Take off skin and common sense says you have less sensitivty. I myself have no feeling there but guess what, that is my anecdotal experience, not a reliable source!. So I will have to live with this article which I feel is factually wrong, but cannot prove. And I have been looking for other sources on this but have not had luck. Popish Plot (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was looking into the sourcing on this question I came across all kinds of stuff: some sources saying it decreased sensitivity, some saying it increased it, other that it made no difference. Luckily we have a high-quality source to synthesize the evidence for us. In lieu of new sources I suggest this topic is now resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Give me a single primary source where they have used a threshold test to determine sensitivity of the penis, and came to the conclusion that there is no loss of skin sensitivity for circumcised people. I don't want any studies about loss of sexual function/satisfaction, because that is something completely different.84.210.54.80 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

But why does it have to be a "threshold test"? Is there a wikipedia sources rule that says we should only use threshold tests? If we ran our own threshold test it'd be "original research". We have to wait for some scientist to do it, publish his or her results in peer reviewed journal, THEN also have a reliable secondary source report on it. Maybe such a thing has already happened and I haven't found it, if you have please show us the source!. Popish Plot (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was actually able to find one study claiming that there is no difference (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x/abstract), but there were only 40 participants in that study, while there were 169 participants in this study, where they found that there is a decrease in sensitivity (http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/). All the other articles I found on skin sensitivity also reported reduced skin sensitivity. It is also kinda obvious (take a look at this picture - http://i.imgur.com/J7rhb.jpg)84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

So now, because says:

All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable - any given primary source may be contradicted by another, and the Wikipedia community relies on the guidance of expert reviews, and statements of major medical and scientific bodies, to provide guidance on any given issue. The rare edits that rely on primary sources should have minimal WP:WEIGHT, should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In the rare cases when they are used, primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see: Wikipedia:No original research).

--- Is there a secondary source for this topic? I went to this site: http://www.cochranelibrary.com/ I searched for "Male circumcision penile sensitivity" and not much seems to show up. At least it wasn't that study by Bronselaer GA1, etc. I had this problem with the study that linked autism to circumcision. There was a peer reviewed study but no secondary source. Now who knows what the reason for this is. Maybe legit sources see these studies as rediculous and not worthy of reviewing. Maybe they know circumcision is bad for you and if they reportedo n that they'd be put out of business because the powers that be like to use circumcision to make us work harder and not think about sex as much. Who knows but it's original research to speculate. Popish Plot (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello I have a question about reliable sources and the cost effectiveness of circumcision. There is a section of this article dealing with studies that show cost effectiveness. I wanted to check into the reliablility of the sources for it. I could be wrong but it seems they are all primary sources. For example here is one source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3640353/ I checked to see if this site mentions it http://www.cochranelibrary.com/ and the search found nothing. Should I look elsewhere besides cochrane? If there is no secondary source for cost effectiveness should this section exist? Popish Plot (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes will replace with a better ref. [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

DocJames I see. So here is the primary source correct? [8] and this is the secondary source [9] ? It seemed like they were the same website but I guess NCBI has primary sources and then pubmed as a search tool for seconday sources on the same site. That is where I got confused. Popish Plot (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No secondary sources are review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

References

shouldn't we take it out of the article if there are no secondary sources? Popish Plot (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it doesn't need a secondary source because it's about economic benefits, not medical benefits? It's from a medical study tho. It is odd tho that it says it's economically beneficial but not why or how. Popish Plot (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Using the WHO as a main secondary source and giving it a lot of weight

I brought up this topic about a year ago [10] and how I thought it was a bit dubious to be using the WHO as a great authority.

Just recently an journal article has come out which outlines the process behind the WHO going full throttle with its circumcision promotion as a means to combat HIV : abstract

Here is the full article if anyone wants to read it: (Redacted)

My reason for bringing up this point is that the WHO recommendations are the most quoted source in this article. I think if we didn't put so much weight on them then I think this article would be a bit more balanced. Tremello (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I also think this highlights the need for more discussion in this Wikipedia article of whether circumcision to prevent HIV in Africa is a good idea or not. I think the idea needs more criticism. Tremello (talk) 09:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If there are high quality sources having this discussion we can comment on them. Do you have any high quality sources that do this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you know if there is a WHO secondary source saying circumcision is economically beneficial? Popish Plot (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Selling Circumcision-Harvested foreskins is certainly profitable -- here is Scientific American on the subject --

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-cut-above-the-rest-wrin/

But for reasons best known to themselves, a small but well coordinated group of editors and admins are determined that this aspect of the Circumcision Trade be never mentioned here.(along with forced circumcisions, tribal circumcisions that cause death HIV spread in Africa, and ultra-orthodox Jewish circumcisions that spread herpes and death to infants in New York, Israel and elsewhere.) Jewish philosophers such as Philo ( Circumcision -" the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure"and Maimonides("the main purpose of the act is to repress sexual pleasure,) do not get a look-in neither. Oh Well. At this stage the unbalance of the article is so marked that it is risible.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht - Please be reminded to limit your Talk page comments to the article content, and not editors. Zad68 00:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuma that is odd. Why would they not want this in the article? Maybe this helps explain why circumcision is economically beneficial, because the foreskins can be sold to pharma for cash? It'd be original research to speculate. Maybe we would need a secondary source? Why don't the esteemed editors want it in the article? It's a useless flap of skin to quote one of them, but maybe it is useful once it has been cut off to help people look younger? Maybe. It is odd that everyone got silent when I asked why there aren't secondary sources for the economical benefits claim. Popish Plot (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Popish, please limit your comments to the article content, and do not direct your comments towards editors. This is required per Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines, please read those guidelines if you haven't already. Thanks. Zad68 00:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Zad- Please be reminded to limit your Talk Page comments to the article content, and not editors. Please re-familiarize yourself with Talk page guidelines --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Zad, what do you think of this topic, finding secondary sources? You know, what I am discussing (didn't mention any users). Popish Plot (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Non Medical Circumcisions

There is a lot of coverage in recent years in National newspapers worldwide about those male Circumcisions that are carried out for non medical reasons in non medical settings by non medicine practitioners -often with fatal results as I have previously copiously referenced. Does any editor feel that therefore we should have a new section in the article entitled something like "Non Medical Circumcisions" in which such significant events and results could be included ? If not - then can we really call this the "Circumcision" article at all or should we re-name it the "Medical Circumcision" article as a sister article to the "Circumcision Surgical Procedure" article. The views of national and international human rights bodies on the deaths and mutilations,, as well as commentators within the tribal, religious and cultural groups who carry out the cuttings ought to be included. We can hardly dismiss these as "activist groups"

Perhaps we need a section on comparisons/ parallels with Female Genital Circumcision and the literature on that subject too- The "Comparison with other procedures" section of the Female Genital Mutilation article might be a good starting point for the construction of such a section--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about circumcisions done for non-medical reasons or by non-medically trained persons? // Liftarn (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Both and both at the same time too. See references from Guardian newspaper articles and elsewhere previously referenced by me. Some editors here maintain that this eminent newspaper is not a "good" reference ( see editor Alexbrn for an example) but Wikipedia policy as previously referenced here and I disagree.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This page needs a total overhaul

Not only is there not good info here but much of the claims are totally false. For starters Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . Obviously the page is locked and there are clear biased interests at work here so I'm not going to bother to research and debunk all the other nonsense here. I recommend deletion and starting from scratch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, let's work with a paper that fails WP:MEDRS. Think Wikipedia write something based upon this too? http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract

While we're busy revising this article with consecutive null edits to address your concerns, you should start a userspace draft on that paper. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And while you think circumcision should follow WP:MEDRS, more rational people understand that circumcision is much more related to cultural fashion, religion and tradition. But of course you are in denial. You can't accept that you were circumcised for religious reasons, so you need to make up some medical nonsense to justify it for yourself.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I still have my useless flap of dick skin; I enjoy trolling people who drink too much koolaid - that would be you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you try to chop it off, if you believe so much in religious traditions?84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't circumvent MEDRS when you're making a medical claim by arguing about what the page topic is or isn't. The fact is, saying "Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure" is a medical claim that must be backed up by MEDRS compliant sources. The primary study you cited above is not such a source. By contrast we have MEDRS-compliant sources [11] that say that "The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction." Everymorning talk 22:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Everymorning I am a bit confused. Why is this source good, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309 , but this one isn't: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . . . they are both from ncbi. Popish Plot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who made the claim. I think it would be almost impossible to prove anything about how circumcision affects sexuality, because I don't believe in self-reporting. Maybe if you scanned the brains of people in an MRI instrument while they were having sex, you could compare the brains of people with and without foreskin. Maybe if you knew exactly which parts of the brains are more active in sexuality, you could compare the MRI results. I doubt there are any such studies, but if there are I might consider them to be valid proof.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean like these? [12][13] - apparently no one has noticed yet, or they just don't care. You pick. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

They're reviews - ones you didn't bother to read. It's probably not possible to generate non-spurious results when comparing across participants as proposed (as opposed to "within" participants, as in the reviewed studies) for rather technical reasons that I don't feel like explaining. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No. Why don't you like the circus? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Circus  ?-Irrelevant histrionics are plain tedious.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis" - amazing ! - with 90% of penis owning authors in WP:EN I would have thought that fell under 'common sense' - here a few selected sources that does describe why and how penile sensitivity is reduced due to circumcision :

• R. Crooks, K. Baur: Our Sexuality. 5. Edition. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, Redwood City 1993, p. 129.
• J. R. Taylor, A. Lockwood, A. Taylor: The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. In: British journal of urology. Februar 1996, p. 77(2), p. 291–295
• M. L. Sorrells, J. L. Snyder, M. D. Reiss, C. Eden, M. F. Milos, N. Wilcox, Van Howe RS: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. In: BJU Int. Vol. 99 Issue 4, April 2007, PMID 17378847, p. 864–869
• Why Masters & Johnson’s 1966 Circumcision Study is Flawed (1998)
• DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang: The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. In: BJU international. Volume 99, Issue 3, March 2007, S. 619–622. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x, PMID 17155977
• E. O. Laumann, C. M. Masi, E. W. Zuckerman: Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. In: JAMA. 277(13), (1997)
• K. S. Fink, C. C. Carson, R. F. DeVellis: Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and Satisfaction.

ChristopheT (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Best not to "select" sources, but just to reflect the highest-quality ones (as this article does). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What makes Crooks & Baur less reliable than let's say Sadeghi-Nejad ? ChristopheT (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It's 22 years old for a start. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And circumcised penises have become more sensitive in the last twenty two years too. For a finish. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I see too old fair enough - what about the British Journal of Urology study from 2013 "Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort"? ChristopheT (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

now skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold test like this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 - I don't see any skin threshold test that contradicts those findings. So if we set aside the sexual pleasure thing for now (which is indeed much harder to quantify) can we move on the sensitivity part? ChristopheT (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course this loss of sensitivity of cut penises missing their penis tips should be mentioned per the WP policy on primary sources as outlined above, and in the way that any other similar WP article, such as the one on Female Circumcision is permitted to do. But for some odd reason -not here ! not now ! don't ask don't tell --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@ChristophThomas: PMID 17378847 is eight-year-old primary research. Why on earth would we use that when there are recent secondary sources? Plese see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: do you find a more recent penile skin threshold tests? ChristopheT (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: is it really so hard to move the talk about one very specific question to the specific section below ?ChristopheT (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The study in question has been considered (with others) in secondary sources, e.g. PMID 23749001 which states: "the majority of studies, including high-quality ones ... and ones with data arising from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ... show no difference or improvement in sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction after circumcision." We use secondary sources here to reflect accepted knowledge. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

is that really accepted knowledge then, if the source says "the majority of studies say . . . " imoplying not all. And right now the article says "it appears that circumcision doesn't effect satisfaction". That language seems a bit odd to me. It appears? Just not sure what that means. Popish Plot (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what Alexbrn means. He says the prior study has been included in the conclusion of the secondary source, but does a loss of sensitivity in the penis necessarily mean less sexual satisfaction? That is not necessarily clear. People might get orgasms in dreams without any penile stimulation at all, so it might be that people can experience equally high orgasm satisfaction with less penile sensitivity. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction are two quite different things, although they might be related to each other. And if the secondary source claims there is no difference in penile sensitivity, then it must be referencing to some primary source with an opposite conclusion. If there are no primary sources claiming that penile sensitivity is equal for people with foreskin and circumcised men, then the conclusion about no loss of penile sensitivity in the secondary source is a big fat lie. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Kids, kids, kids please try to stay on top of this pyramid. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No dispute has ever been resolved by name-calling or making up words like code name -> codename.

• Re Popish Plot: The reason the source I linked to is better than the BJU Int source is that the former is a review article, while the latter is a primary study. See WP:MEDRS. Everymorning talk 02:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everymorning. That helps. Popish Plot (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Denmark, Sweden Ban Non-Medical Circumcision of Boys/ Circumcision in conflict with Convention on the Rights of the Child

The headline above of this International Business Times article is a little misleading as Circumcision has not been banned -just that the national doctor's groups in both countries have recommended banning it under the age of 12.

http://au.ibtimes.com/denmark-sweden-ban-non-medical-circumcision-boys-1330592

This may be sufficiently noteworthy to mention within the article. Within the IBT article it is mentioned that "Child Rights International Network in a joint statement with the Nordic Ombudsmen for children and pediatric experts in September 2013 opined that circumcision without medical indication is in conflict with Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child."

That is a biggie. What section of the article should we feature that in ?

The accompanying video from JewishNewsOne is interesting too.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes a recommendation for a ban of non-medical infant circumcision. Do we have a link for the original statement? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do. http://www.crin.org/docs/English-statement-.pdf --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 02:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes looks reasonable.

This would support "In September 2013, the Children's ombudsmen in all Nordic countries issued a statement where they called for a ban on circumcision of minors for non medical reasons, stating that such circumcisions violate the right of children"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

But we already contain "while non-religious routine circumcision is illegal in South Africa and Sweden" and the above content is already in the article on Circumcision and law so it is already covered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Have reverted this [14]

It does not need its own section and has many issues. I see no consensus for these changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Also what is with the line?

"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"" And what is with the all caps in the heading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's another instance of disruptive (/incompetent) editing in support of the case for topic-banning this editor. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You moan when I edit and you moan when I do not edit lads. Forced Circumcision article is listed as "Forced circumcision" on wikipedia but is capitalized as Forced Circumcision elsewhere . Why do you think this is ?

Please give some more detail on the "many issues" you make such brief reference to Doc James in describing your reasons for your revert of the entire new Non Medical and Forced Circumcisions section of the article. In addition please explain your reversion of the distinction between doctors recommending medical circumcision and that of recommending all circumcision including the horrific deaths and disfigurement caused by non medical circumcision. Are you suggesting that doctors do recommend such attacks too ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not needed "Most of the article content directly above is concerned with medical circumcisions conducted by trained personnel in aseptic conditions."

This does not needs its own section main heading and should not have so many caps "Non Medical and Forced Circumcisions" Why are we using a December 1992 source for which the access date is 2010 and the link is dead?

Newspapers are not good sources. We already have a section on "African cultures" where we can discuss adding further content Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello DocJames, quick question, is this the secondary source or primary source? I think it is secondary source because it summarizes other studies? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835757/ Popish Plot (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a five year old secondary source. Why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DocJames I just wanted to make sure I was on the right track, I was getting confused about what is a reliable secondary source, but then it made sense, and just wanted to check with another wikipedian real quick. Popish Plot (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James - forced circumcisions are not simply an african phenomenon, nor are tribal and cultural circumcisions where the cut persons contract diseases, die, or are disfigured or sexually dysfunctional for life. So no it would not fit in in the "African cultures section" though your suggestion that it should do so did make me smile.

Reputable newspapers are, contrary to your expressesd opinion, excellent sources. Let me refer you to the Wikipedia section which says so. It is called Wikipedia Reliable Sources. Perhaps you missed the sentence there

"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact

when you were forming your poor opinion of the article concerning the butchery on unwilling victims of forced circumcision. You have not answered the question on whether you are suggesting that a tribal circumcision with a rusty hiv infected knife is as well recommended for health as one conducted in a hospital by a doctor with a sterilised scalpel. The version of the article which you have reverted it to makes no such distinction. Do you ? The deletionism here is getting out of hand.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Tuma, forced circumcisions may or may not happen all over but what if the reliable sources only mention it in Africa? Then that's what should be said in this wiki article. This source is about africa: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa . . . you tried to add this source about yugoslavia war crimes http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/sdrpt4b.htm this is a dead link tho. Do you know if that link is just a typo, is there another one? etc? Popish Plot (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the Forced circumcision article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article, specifically, you are referring to here. Popish Plot (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind I figured out you meant the wiki article itself on it. Popish Plot (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article does not say deaths commonly occur it says "Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia." Basically this sentence is saying that when death occurs it is usually by these mechanisms. The article actually says it is unclear how many people are dieing from this procedure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the article is in Comment is free, a comment and political opinion sub-site within theguardian.com. This has many contributors and only light-touch editorial oversight so even by lay press standards, should be treated with caution. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine with it being removed altogether. We should at least see if we can find a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this just typifies what i was saying that there are a lot of pro-circumcision editors here. The source might be suspect but the topic isnt. Yet there is no effort to include an important topic. So forgive me if i cant keep a straight face next time you lot say you are neutral. If you were neutral you would look for a different source. Tremello (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me assist you with that difficult search Doc James for sources and for numbers :

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/27/south-africa-circumscision-danger South Africa urged to end silence on dangerous circumcision rituals Human rights campaigners call for change after 42 boys die in three weeks from badly performed rite-of-passage procedure

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/28/south-africa-circumcision Circumcision: South Africans should stop allowing our boys to be butchered

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&action=edit&section=6 The death and deformity caused by male circumcision in Africa can’t be ignored

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv Thousands face agony or death after Zulu king's circumcision decree

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/26/health.gender There are few convincing arguments in favour of circumcision. Why is it still so common?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/targeted-for-forced-circumcision-men-of-kenyas-minority-tribes-flee-the-knife/article19987346/ Targeted for forced circumcision, men of Kenya’s minority tribes flee the knife

http://www.health-e.org.za/2014/06/25/half-million-initiates-maimed-knife/ Over half a million initiates maimed under the knife

http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf(Journal of Law and Medicine) Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns Gregory J Boyle and George Hill* In conclusions "The RCT lead authors all held pre-existing beliefs as to the “benefits” of male circumcision and cited articles that supported their pro-male circumcision opinions.118 There is a risk that contradictory evidence was also omitted in their institutional review board submissions. When undertaking research into male circumcision, full disclosure of personal beliefs indicative of likely biases should include professional, religious, political and cultural affiliations, as well as one’s own circumcision status."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/us-jewish-parents-question-circumcision Jewish parents in US begin to question the need for circumcision

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/male-circumcision-baby-goodluck Male circumcision: Let there be no more tragedies like baby Goodluck

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/cut-or-not-to-cut-male-circumcision-question To cut or not to cut: the male circumcision question Parents considering male circumcision have a right to expect objective medical advice, untainted by commercial interests

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/forced_circumcision_in_kenya

http://newtelegraphonline.com/the-mardudjara-where-men-eat-their-own-foreskins/

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Any good sources? 20 poor sources do not equal a single good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess that depends on what fact you want to source from these articles. In terms of current "events" the Guardian is very trustworthy, in terms of medical facts, probably not. You should also look at who the Guardian is citing and in what context. Doc James deleted one of my sentences because it was a newspaper article. The article was based on talks with a renowned South African surgeon, however, that was not obvious, and sourcing non-english material on the english wikipedia is probably not too clever in any case, so I see his point on that.Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me Doc James, that your search for precise numbers of those being killed and maimed by this type of Circumcision may be hampered by your not even being able to tell 13 from 20. And an ability to recognize a good source would help too. Did you actually open ANY of the links or was your mind already made up a long time ago and elsewhere ?

@Lucent - did someone make a foreign language link ? DID doc make a point about it ? These deaths, dysfunctions, disease spreading, and disfigurement from tribal Circumcision have little to do with medicine. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

What's up with this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_circumcision Can this be linked to in this main article? There is talk here of ethics of circumcicion, surely it is unethical to force it on someone? Maybe that is original research tho? Popish Plot (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Linked in the navbox at the bottom. And on the subpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh OK I didn't notice the navbox at the bottom. Does it have to only be there? What do you mean by sub pages. I am wondering if it could be under the "see also" section at the end? Right now all it says is "foreskin restoration". There happens to be a TON of other circumcision related articles. Maybe not all of them, but many seem like they should be mentioned in "see also". I looked at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:See_also#See_also_section It says don't put things in the see also section that are already linked elsewhere in the article OR in the navigation box. Then it says though: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Is it really a problem if it's in the see also section or the nav box. I suppose it is not a big deal either way, just thoughts I had. Popish Plot (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We tend not to use see also sections per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see. Tuma had said this was kept from the page but it is in the navigation box . . . and there's no need to also have it in a see also section. We do have a "see also" section as it is now, with one item in it, I guess it's no biggy and let's do nothing. Popish Plot (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the prevalence of circumcision among convicted rapists world wide?

I've heard from non scholarly sources that only Norway keeps statistics on the prevalence of circumcision among convicted rapists; is this true? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem about doing statistics on the prevalence of circumcision among convicted rapists, is that a very high percentage of convicted rapists in Norway come from Muslim countries, and Muslims are almost always circumcised. The percentage of convicted rapists with a Jewish background is probably very low. So I think this is an effect of culture rather than of circumcision.84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, I googled it, no reliable sources saying so anyway. There are reliable sources saying circumcicision was done back in the day to cut down on masturbation. I don't see any saying to cut down on rape tho. Popish Plot (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Is circumcision not something recorded in prisoners anywhere than, not a single journal of criminology has done any kind of study? Bullets and Bracelets (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I googled it, admittedly that is not the best way to find reliable sources. I did see links that seem unreliable tho, to websites. a link to academia.edu shows up first that made me think it might be reliable but I'm pretty sure it's not peer reviewed and even if it was we would also need a secondary source that reviewed it's study or whatever it says. Popish Plot (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Without being overly rude, Wikipedia is not Yahoo!Answers and this question is quite ridiculous. Talk pages are not forums. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

if you need to start something like "without being overly rude" you probably shouldn't say it. Remember we don't want to scare the newbies, I am trying to assume good faith and talk about getting reliable sources, which is what this talk page should be about. Popish Plot (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Letting a new editor know that an article Talk page isn't to be used for general Q&A is appropriate, such a question would be better handled at the Reference Desk (perhaps you didn't know that existed). Zad68 02:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Instead try to get the person to become a new editor. You tried to turn me off from editing when I started too zad. Popish Plot (talk) 05:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Effects of Circumcision needs its own sub section

The sexual effects of circumcision needs its own sub section. Now more then ever doctors are recognizing the sexual effects of circumcision in their literature and writing about it. If you read through the literature written through the past year it is evident that the sexual effects of circumcision are being written about in writings around the world. Due to this fact it is important that we define one of the effects of circumcision to be sexual in order to be consistent with the writings of the medical community.

JohnP (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't find that the actual publication data support the idea that there's been a recent surge in publication on this topic. I used Google Scholar and found publication hits for the 2010-2011 timeframe of 8,020; 2011-2012 of 8,710; 2012-2013 of 9,530; and 2013-2014 of 9,540, which is about a 9% increase year-over-year for the first two periods and then actually a leveling off in the last one. Zad68 02:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Now this is much better. You could have just told him it was ridiculous but instead gave detailed response. Shows good info on how to find reliable sources too. Popish Plot (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, according to my analysis, I read 100 random papers on circumcision that were found on pubmed. Over 70 of those had a paragraph or two in which they talked about the sexual effects of circumcision. According to my analysis it seems that the majority of papers are in fact talking about circumcision's sexual effects.

JohnP (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Just the topic of sexual sensitivity and circumcision is a really specific area, its like searching circumcision and hpv, you're not going to find that much. I think that going by what people are generally saying in the introductions of their papers is a better option.

JohnP (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sexual Effects Needs to be under regular effects

A sexual effect is not an adverse effect because it lasts in the long term, much like the prevention that circumcision offers from STDs. It should not be listed under adverse effects, we should keep information about the complications of the surgery there.

JohnP (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The suggestion that sexual function is harmed (or adversely affected) by circumcision means that is the right location. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Yobol, there is nothing in WP:MEDMOS that suggests that the Adverse effects section needs to be limited only to short-term. Zad68 23:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Fits well under "adverse effects" Sexually effects are not the reason for the procedure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree and agree. Disagree because one of the main reasons to do circumcision is to limit sexuality such as masturbation. Agree though because I know that it does already show the facts in the article under adverse effects. I think it's in the correct place for someone reading the article and wondering "what are the pros and what are the cons". The only problem is that it's point of viewish for wikipedia to say what the pros are and what the cons are. And the reliable sources are silent on things such as whether it's good or bad to limit sexuality. Popish Plot (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I hugely disagree with this statement. The sexual effects of any surgical procedure on the genitalia are just as much effects as any other effect. Circumcision directly alters the genitalia and therefore its effects are first and primarily sexual. JohnP (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the reasoning is that the benefits are said to be limiting HIV, if you get HIV that leads to AIDS which is likely to lead to death, and if you're dead who cares if you have reduced sexual sensitivity. Popish Plot (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah the HIV benefit is important but thats relative of the context. In areas with high HIV circumcision can be used to lower the rate. In the US though we're already using condoms, I'm pretty sure a condom would eliminate the benefit of circumcision since it covers the thing.

I think it probably is a bad idea in Africa since most of the circumcision is likely to be performed by Witch doctors with dirty knives.62.63.34.217 (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, an effect on the rate of STD and an effect on your sexual health are just as important as each other. For instance, if someone had their sex lives significantly harmed by circumcision, they may be more likely to commit suicide. JohnP (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well what are we really arguing about here. Where info goes in an article? It does mention adverse effects here plus someone can click on the ethics and controversies of circumcision links for more info. Does this article need to mention circumcision can lead to suicide? The question then is what reliable sources say that and how notable is it? Popish Plot (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No there is no research that says circumcision can lead to suicide. This is more of an argument of whether the sexual effects of circumcision are effects or adverse effects.

This is a question of: are the sexual effects of circumcision an effect, just like its effect on diminishing your chances of obtaining STDs? JohnP (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

From a medical perspective circ is not performed for any effect on sexual experience. Thus it is not an effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

From a medical perspective its not really performed for any effect at all either though. In most countries circumcision is offered as a free service mainly to please religious groups in the society that want their sons circumcised. The majority only offer it for tradition and not for any of its effects whatsoever.

DocJames, do you know why all these studies are being done in africa? I mean why not in other places of the world too? The article isn't clear and makes it look kind of racist. Popish Plot (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Good point Popish Plot. Most of the good ones were done in countries with dictatorships too. It's because the doctors in our country lack proper funding to study circumcision. JohnP (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC) JohnP (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That would make its effect on STDs not an effect as well. JohnP (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The difference of course is that its desired effect on the transmission rates of certain STD (HIV in particular) is indeed one of the indications, see the WHO sourcing. Zad68 15:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane review on UTIs

The "urinary tract infections" section currently cites a Cochrane review despite this review saying that they couldn't identify any relevant studies. [15] I think this review should therefore be removed and replaced with something else, perhaps this paper. 23:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good secondary source. Popish Plot (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pubmed indexed

This source is not pubmed indexed file.scirp.org/Html/1-1990065_55256.htm and thus I removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Adverse effects"

It says :" Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." in the text.

Isn't that proved to be completely wrong ? I mean especially the "reduce sexual satisfaction" part. I hope someone will notice that and bring up some evidence against this statement because this is can be missleading. Imagine parents looking up circumcision on wikipedia and read this quote thinking that their childs sexual satisfaction wont be influenced if they remove the childs foreskin.

Anyway there are studies and someone should do research and change that. Maybe we need an entire section about sexual effects.

It seems counter intuitive but that is what reliable sources say. Saying it "appears" is a weasel word, and that's quoted from the studies themselves. Popish Plot (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A secondary source without any link to primary studies claiming that circumcision doesn't decrease sensitivity. That secondary source is as reliable as wikipedia would have been without sources for its claims. And there is as far as I know only one horribly bad primary study claiming that circumcision doesn't decrease sensitivity, while there are other much better primary sources claiming that circumcision actually reduces sensitivity. Wikipedia is unscientific. This claim in particular (that circumcision doesn't decrease sensitivity) is very very unscientific. But there is tons of nonsense on wikipedia, like that the first pKa of sulfuric acid is -3. Is is actually -10. It is actually very hard to find good data on pKa values today, not only on wikipedia, but on Internet in general. The problem about the world today, is that most people use google, and that google usually puts wikipedia articles first. So lots of misinformation is spread today. We need to make a new free enclopedia with a much stricter scientific regime, where editors are required to have at least a PhD in the fields they edit. Maybe we could call it sciencepedia? 84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that no secondary sources mention those primary sources that showed circumcision reduces sensitivity (correct me if I'm wrong). Why are they being ignored? I could speculate but it'd be original research. Popish Plot (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't just make such a claim, find some scientific studies which proof your claim. Then you will get support for your changes.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There are of course studies that show reduced sexual satisfaction (both for the male and his partner), but we are still waiting for meta studies to include those findings. // Liftarn (talk)

By meta studies do you mean seconday sources? Popish Plot (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I do agree with this statement. A while back I did an overview of all of the sexual literature on circumcision that we have on the page. The studies are saying that circumcision does not appear to effect sexual intercourse, but that also more research needs to be done. Since this area is lacking we really should have our own sub section that describes this to people, that the research on sexual health isn't developed yet. JohnP (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, as of now the best we can say though is that circumcision does not appear to effect male sexual health. We could point out that there are significant gaps in the literature involving circumcision's effect on male and female sexual health in general. that was found in a large literature review last year by Jennifer Bossio. JohnP (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

John can you give an example of a few of these articles? Specifically ones that say something like "more research needs to be done". Also though I think if no seconday sources say "more research needs to be done" it can't be in the article. Because that may be an obvious conclusion but basically everything in this article needs a secondary source to be in it. Popish Plot (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No but a literature review by Jennifer Bossio says that, it actually really emphasizes that. Literature reviews are of super high importance according to pubmed guidelines. See Jennifer Bossio's study from 2014. JohnP (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

John, I see that Bossio was discussed as a sourse in the archives here before: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_81#you_can.27t_discredit_Bossio_because_she.27s_a_masters_student Zad said she was a masters degree student so it was no good. Is that really a problem? She got published in a medical journal. Also I see she replied to critics: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsm.12852/abstract — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popish Plot (talk • contribs) 14:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No Popish Plot the fact that she is a masters student isn't a problem. It dosen't matter if she's a masters student or not, her study is really good, and is one of the best literature reviews that I have read on the topic; as it is unbiased and does a good overview on the material. JohnP (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess Morten Frisch's study could be a good secondary source. Maybe some stuff by Morris Sorrels too. They seem to be indicating that more research should be done because they found that circumcision reduces the most sensitive parts of the penis and also causes women pain during intercourse. JohnP (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh um heres a really good one. The study Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Ye Tian in the conclusion states that there is a scope of further research that needs to be done. JohnP (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WOOW. 2 of our largest literature reviews and meta-analyses on circumcision's sexual effects both say that MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED ON THE TOPIC OF CIRCUMCISION'S SEXUAL EFFECTS. Could this indicate that the sexual effects of circumcision are in fact a direct effect of the procedure? JohnP (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of studies that show a decrease in sensitivity, just use the google machine, and no I'm not talking out of by behind, I've read plenty about the topic over the years. Also I suspect some American editors may have a bias in favour of circumcision due to its prevalence in the U.S. Also, call this POV if you will, but it seems like common sense that quite a bit of feeling is lost. Tens of thousands of nerve endings are cut away, the glans becomes permanently exposed, dries out and calluses over to compensate for the lack of covering, constant friction, and lack of moisture. Wikipedia unfortunately suffers from excessive bureaucracy. I should mention that I did not mean to offend yourself or anyone else. But come on guys, "more research is needed", my arse.--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Allowing more than one view

By opting to white-wash the views of the minority on this subject, pretending they are irrelevant, when they are a significant minority and certainly deserving of being known about by our readers, we do a disservice to the readership. The goal of Wikipedia is not to be a "decision making body" regarding medical recommendations where there is not yet a "truly settled opinion" about such recommendations within the medical community. In such cases of "not yet settled medical opinion", as in the real world outside of Wikipedia, our readers are capable of making their own medical decisions based on a complete and full understanding of the available medical knowledge, and are the ones who deserve to be making the decision for themselves, not our editors.

Yes there is the temptation to want to have "all of the answers", but sometimes we simply don't have "all of the answers", and it is Wikipedia's responsibility to admit that, when that is in fact the case. Wikipedia is not a private medical clinic, it is an encyclopedia. Yes, the article becomes a bit more difficult to write when both sides of the argument are included, but Wikipedia is intended to be a "neutral" provider of information, not a "biased" provider, favoring one side or another. Scott P. (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please see my most recent edits of today (April 26), which attempt to make the pro-circumcision argument available to the public. Admittedly, my edits from yesterday (April 25) were done without having read the articles as carefully.

PPS: Please note that the Wall Street Journal article was probably not indexed in PubMed, however Wikipedia has no editorial policy restricting articles on medical topics to sources approved by PubMed. PubMed is not an arbiter of truth, nor does it claim to be, it is only an indexer of certain niche publications. Scott P. (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Note discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Allowing_more_than_a_single_viewpoint_in_an_article --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott, Wikipedia does not give medical advice and we do not write articles as if they were to be the only resource someone would use to make medical decisions, see WP:MEDICAL.

Please stop misrepresenting the AAP's position, they do not recommend universal as your edits have suggested twice. In this particular case of whether routine (universal) circumcision is recommended, there isn't a wide variety of opinions--there is wide, general agreement neither the benefits nor the risks outweigh each other (see Pinto 2012) and that it should not be either recommended nor forbidden (see Bolnick 2012). So I'm not sure why this particular point is the one you're focusing on. Zad68 12:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, your very last, obviously rather "reflexive" reverts of my edits, obviously hurredly done without even taking any time to see if and how they might have differred from my first set of edits done on the 25th, removed info that I had quoted, stating that the AAP does not suggest universal circumcision. My edits also stated that, all other things being equal, the AAP does recommend for circumcision. Which is also true. You have just restored the article to a position that only represents one side of the debate, and which totally "hides" the position of a very significant minority, which is as I predicted you would, but which also happens to be entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. This is not your fault. This is the policy's fault. Scott P. (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Scott I don't understand where you are coming from. The article makes it clear that "the positions of the world's major medical organizations on non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision range from considering it as having a modest net health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit with significant risks for harm". the article seems to me, to follow NPOV and to do some with subtlety, which is rare for a controversial article in WP (kudos to those who have achieved that!). Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I would humbly ask that you please review the last reversion, and please explain to me exactly and specifically how direct quotes from the Wall Street Journal, and from a WHO publication misrepresented anything that required reversion? And why must the article be written to be in a near complete state of denial about the current positions of the AAP and the WHO regarding universal circumcision? Nowhere do I see the article clearly stating the current position of the AAP, or of the WHO, regarding the positions of these two very major organizations on universal circumcision. Why is that? Scott P. (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I will answer my own question, it is because current Wikipedia Policy does not have any recommendations for how to fairly represent more than one view in an article. It is written with what seems to me to be an underlying assumption that there can only be one view fairly expressed in an article. You doctors have an immense talk archive for such a simple topic. This is because you are forever forced to debate something that has no clear answer, and to try to write an article that must pretend that there is only one view, the supposedly "Neutral View", when there are two legitimate views that ought to be covered. Wikipedia Policy talks about carefully weighting opinions, with the apparent assumption that there is really only a single legitimate viewpoint. This is not helpful in my humble opinion. Why can't varying opinions be expressed without having to carefully weight them in favor of a less than neutral viewpoint? Scott P. (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

your commentary that "this article focuses on X" or whatever it was was essay-like OR. in my view, the article does repressent that there are a range of views. i really (i mean it) don't understand your point. I quoted above where the article says that, and the views are expressed throughout. Two concrete questions. 1) what would the article look like if you wrote it? (e.g. would there be sections clearly laying out the various perspectives?) 2) what source or sources would you use to determine which is "majority" and which is "minority"? (and btw, just a personal thing, i don't find much "humble" in what you say nor in your edits, so the "in my humble opinion" or "i humbly ask" rhetoric is just distracting. we are just some people talking here....) Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel I must now "humbly" apologize, for not being so humble here. I am one who was in fact personally "anti-circumcision" before reading this article, believe it or not. A further "confession": my true concern here is actually how to improve Wikipedia Policy.

You asked, "How do I feel that this page would look if it fairly represented the 'pro-circumcision' minority view?" This would be an entirely new Wikipedia Policy, but here is my proposal: There would be a permitted "minority view" section, that would be a maximum of say… 400 characters. In this section, it would be the responsibility of all editors to "fairly represent the minority view" there. My recommendation, in order to achieve such a fair accounting of the minority view, would be that ideally an editor who actually held the minority view should be permitted to make 'final' edits to that small section without any fear of reversion by those with a competing view, so long as that editor's work meets with minimal Wikipedia "accuracy requirements only", and such a view would not need not be "weighted" as other views must now be. Scott P. (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

if you want to improve WP:NPOV please do that at the talk page for that policy. would you please answer the two questions i asked about this article? they were intended to draw concrete answers. if you don't have a concrete answer, we would seem to be done here. (i get it that you would include a "minority view" apparently labelled as such; i don't know what you would do with the rest of the article where the range of views is presented throughout; nor do i know what source or sources (actual ones, please name them) you would use to justify what goes where) thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You asked: 1) what would the article look like if you wrote it? (e.g. would there be sections clearly laying out the various perspectives?)

Yes, somewhere near the beginning, there would be a section titled something either like, "Minority views", or in this case, "Pro-circumcision views".

You asked: 2) what source or sources would you use to determine which is "majority" and which is "minority"?

In your case, it would seem to me that since the majority of the world's male human population is uncircumcised, that such would probably indicate a likely majority view that circumcision is not recommended. I am unsure of the exact mechanism of all of this in all cases, but it seems to me that Wikipedia needs to allow for more competing views to be fairly laid out, and by systematically weighting against them, it does nobody a service. I very much appreciate your willingness to hear me out here, despite the fact that this is not the NPOV article talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

so you have no source to allocate what goes where and instead propose WP:OR. that doesn't fly.... Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of anything better, common sense usually works best. In the absence of a settled opinion amongst the medical profession, openly admitting that it is an unsettled opinion, which anyone who does independent research on it can easily see, and then allowing both competing sides to fairly express their reasons, seems to me to work better than the current state of the article, which is NOT AT ALL NEUTRAL, no matter how much it pretends to be neutral, and does not serve Wikipedia or the general public well. True neutrality in a case where there is no settled opinion, would be representing both sides fairly. Currently this article fails miserably at that task. Scott P. (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality on Wikipedia is based on what independent reliable sources say, not what individual editors feels is "common sense" (this should be clear because what is "common sense" for one editor can be nonsensical to another). We explicitly do not give equal time to individual arguments, but give weigh arguments individually in proportion to their prominence in the high quality reliable source. If the high quality reliable sources come down on one side more than another, then we are obliged to come down on that side in proportion. Without production of high quality sources to back up your own argument, you will find little support for changing this page. Yobol (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

scott:this is where you have lost me. you have made strong claims throughout the long comments you have made, that there is whitewashing and non-neutrality etc. i have not seen where you identified what the key positions are, nor what sources you use as a basis for describing each of them. would you please do that? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The key positions are: Pro-circumcision, and Anti-circumcision. Anyone doing a Google search for the terms "Circumcision recommendations" can see that the advisability of circumcision is far from a settled issue within the medical profession. The fact that this article is written as if there were no real "contending views" concerning circumcision, and as if it was essentially a "settled issue" when it is clearly not at all a "settled issue" seems to me to be a bit misleading. All of the edits I made today (the 26th) that were reverted simply tried to clarify that one point, and none of the edits I made were, as otherwise claimed, "misleading". This is proven by itself as nobody has yet explained why these edits were "misleading". Rather, it seems to me that the removal of the edits about another viewpoint was "misleading" and should be POV, but it is not POV according to the current POV policy. That is not your fault. I apologize but this will be my last post here for awhile. Please don't rename this section that I started again. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

hm. i guess you are talking about popular opinion? the science-based medical authorities are not that divided as has been noted a bunch of times above. i wonder if you would be happier if we did something like pull the lead of the Circumcision controversies into this article as a subsection (per WP:SUMMARY) under Society and culture. it seems to do what you are looking for. i don't know if other editors here would find that reasonable or not. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess Britannica must just be about popular opinion then, seems they are able to present both sides fairly without a problem, unlike us. Somehow Britannica seems to manage to fairly represent more than one view in their article about circumcision. They leave the reader with the implication that the issue may still be unsettled in the medical community, and that it is not clear whether or not circumcision is or is not always advisable. Why can't we do that too? Bye. Scott P. (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC) note: This comment was re-edited by me (Scott P.), at: 19:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

ok, bye. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No organization recommends for non-theraputic circumcision?

I have again reverted back to my edit. Please do not revert a third time before explaining here specifically why you feel that my edit "misrepresented" the views of the WHO and the AAP. No organization recommends for non-theraputic circumcision? I have again revised this statement to say, "No organization recommends for universal circumcision." The wording of the former statement seemed to imply that in the case of a newborn who had no particular disease requiring circumcision, no major medical organization would recommend circumcision.

The former statement was weighted too heavily against circumcision, and accordingly misrepresented the AAP's statement that, "The health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for those parents who choose it." The former statement also misrepresented the WHO statement that, "Promoting male circumcision in the general population... (would result in) limited public health benefit." The two statements from two of the pro-circumcision "major medical groups" here indicates that both of these groups would recommend for circumcision for healthy newborn males, at least assuming the parents wanted it. Therefore, the word universal works better here than the word non-therapeutic. The new phrase, "No organization recommends for universal circumcision," is more accurate and more easily understood by non-medical folks. Please do not revert this again. Scott P. (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

i am not sure you are familiar with recommendations by major medical/scientific bodies. for example here is how AAP talks about vaccines, which they unambiguously recommend: "The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend children be vaccinated against measles at age 1, and again at 4-6 years of age before entering kindergarten. More than 90 percent of U.S. children meet this recommendation, according to the CDC." (from here) and "Why are vaccines important? Immunizations protect children. Vaccine-preventable diseases can have dangerous consequences, including seizures, brain damage, blindness and even death....Are vaccines safe? Yes. Today’s vaccines are safer than any in history.....Can I delay or skip vaccines? It is not a good idea to skip or delay vaccines, as this will leave your child vulnerable to diseases for a longer time...." (from here)

Nothing there says it is elective, or "but it is OK if you choose not to". It is unambiguous recommendation. But look at the AAP's policy statement: "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." It saying "yes it is better, but you choose". and their press release when they put out the updated policy, is even more watered down: "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs." You seem to be interpreting the AAP's statement on circumcision as something like that the statement on vaccines it's not. They are not some strong "pro-circumcision" camp. they are absolutely pro-vaccine. can you not see the difference? Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading exactly what the AAP has written, which is a statement that advocates for a net medical "benefit" for circumcision, and therefore recommends that in cases where the parents want it, even for a normal and healthy infant, they are recommending for circumcision. This seems to be pretty plain English to me. To say that they advocate "against" circumcision in otherwise healthy infants, which is what the previous statement implies, seems to me to be a misrepresentation of their views. Why not simply state that they do not recommend for "universal" circumcision, which seems to me to more accurately represent their views? English is English, and it seems to me to be a "no-brainer". Doctors do have a reputation for speaking in "med-speak" from time to time, however, I think I am accurately understanding the AAP's publicly stated policy here, don't you. If not, please explain to me, does not the "med-speak" term: "non-therapeutic" which you are using here imply "normal and healthy infant"? If so, then the AAP does recommend for circumcision in normal and healthy infants in the case where the parents want it. Also, why use confusing "med-speak" when Wikipedia is supposed to be for lay people, not other doctors? The term universal is not "med-speak", the term "non-therapeutic" seems to me to be a confusing med-speak term. Why confuse when you can clarify? Scott P. (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

you keep projecting this black and white story that it is something like the "vaccine wars". it is nothing like that with medical authorities' views on circumcision. the thing you are skipping over is "when parents want it". in other words, no big loss if they don't do it. (" the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.") on vaccines the AAP does not leave it open - they say "do it" (the benefits dramatically outweigh the risks) and they make very clear the harm of not doing it. can you not see that difference? Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

and yes - the AAP mildly recommends circumcision for healthy newborns as an option for parents - a "good to have" not a "need to have". yes they do. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So then, please let the last edit stand, because the previous wording did imply that nobody ever recommends for circumcision of healthy newborns, and the AAP does recommend for that, under that circumstance. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There are three separate and distinct things here:

1. The AAP's position - The AAP is unequivocal that they do not recommend the procedure for all newborns. The AAP's Policy Statement says they found that "the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it" but falls short of recommending it for all newborns. The AAP's Press Release states clearly "the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision." The AAP's patient page here says "existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child's current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents." Therefore edits that attempt to make the article imply they do recommend it for all newborns misrepresent the AAP's position.
2. The WHO's position - Their Policy document here recommends considering making the procedure routine only in certain conditions, not everywhere. Their statement here says that their "recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence." -- This is a highly qualified position. Edits that quoted "limited public health benefit" were taken out of context of the WHO's document, which qualfies that statement to "In settings with lower HIV prevalence in the general population, including where HIV infection is concentrated in specific populations at higher risk of HIV exposure, such as sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men". So edits that attempt to make the article imply they do recommend it for all newborns, regardless of setting, misrepresent the WHO's position.
3. The actual edit, diff here, is a minor wording change from "non-therapeutic" to "for universal". This doesn't actually change the meaning and isn't really even relevant to this discussion.

Zad68 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Then if you find no problem with the wording, please leave it as it is. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As the current edit doesn't misrepresent the sourcing, it's fine. Zad68 14:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kindly Zad, that was all I was asking for. Scott P. (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

This is a formal request that the title of 'Male Circumcision' or 'Circumcision' as it is, be changed to bring it in line with its female counterpart, 'Female Genital Mutilation'.

It is gendered that just because male circumcision is more common than female circumcision, one should be called mutilation and the other circumcision. They are both mutilation, why are they not both written as such? Blerg111 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:COMMONNAME. This would need a request page move anyway, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

General sanitation

There should be some comment in this article about doing regular sanitation of the area reducing disease and other skin conditions. It is no different than washing your hands reduces the spread of germs, brushing your teeth reduces gum disease and tooth decay, and washing your hair keeps it clean. Some areas of the world this cleanliness is not practiced, or possible due to the lack of water or sanitation facilities, and anything that is not regularly cleaned will eventually get issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightvisions (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflict Between Articles, and Missing Content

I have noticed a complete conflict between this article and the Foreskin article. For example, the Foreskin article indicates that it "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue," and "the foreskin is [a] speciali[z]ed tissue that is packed with nerves and contains stretch receptors" and "the areas of the penis most sensitive to fine touch are on the foreskin" removal of which would invariably reduce pleasure, which this article says there is no loss. This article also bears no mention of the loss of the "Gliding Action", the "Ridged Band", the normally lost "Frenulum", "Glans Keratinization", among other things. As well as complications caused by circumcision like the significantly increased risk of Urethral Stricture.

This article states that there are a host of complications from not being circumcised while the other article states that they "are easily treated" and implies that circumcision is unjustifiably invasive. Astronut25 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add to my previous comment. From the Erogenous zone page:

Sorrels et al. (2007) carried out their work in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. They studied 163 male subjects, which included both circumcised and men with intact foreskins. Nineteen locations on the penis were tested with the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test. The glans of the uncircumcised males was found to have greater sensation than the glans of the circumcised males. The area of greatest sensation on the circumcised males was the circumcision scar. Uncircumcised males had five areas located on the foreskin of significantly greater sensation than the circumcision scar on the foreskin. The preputial mucosa, the mucocutaneous boundary and the ridged band were found to be areas of great sensation on the uncircumcised penis.[14] Taylor has postulated that the ridged band is sensitive to movement.[15]Astronut25 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS regarding what sort of sources are needed for medical claims. I have fixed the concern you raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Brian Morris review in lead totally imbalances weight

I am talking about the statement "A 2014 review found that the benefits of circumcising a boy outweigh the risks of doing so by at least 100 to 1.[23]" in the lead.

Firstly if this statement is to go in the lead - the right place would be the paragraph before ("The positions of the world's major medical organizations range...") because this statement is about neonatal circumcision. Anyway I think if we did put it in the paragraph before I think it would create a pro-circ bias which isn't an accurate reflection of real world consensus (The world certainly isn't 100 to 1 in favour of neonatal circumcision- which is what the wording is trying to imply). I don't think it is important that this review article is included in the article but if someone want to find a place for it in the body of the article then I would reluctantly agree to that.

Just to comment on the article itself - no doubt people who like the article would say it is a review article and so it is one of the highest forms of evidence. But there was a rebuttal reply. So yeah - I don't think it is important to include. Tremello (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be infant not boy. Not strong feeling where it goes but it is a recent review.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No strong opinion on placement, whether in the body or lead. Reviews cannot be rebutted by letters to the editor. It should not be removed from the article. Yobol (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong info

In the article there is a section about religious practice and covers Christianity with this

"The New Testament chapter Acts 15 records that Christianity does not require circumcision; Christianity does not forbid it either. The Catholic Church currently maintains a neutral position on the practice of non-religious circumcision, and has never addressed the issue of infant circumcision specifically.[108] Coptic Christians practice circumcision as a rite of passage.[1][27][109][110] The Ethiopian Orthodox Church calls for circumcision, with near-universal prevalence among Orthodox men in Ethiopia.[1] In South Africa, some Christian churches disapprove of the practice, while others require it of their members.[1]"

The section:

"Christianity does not forbid it either. The Catholic Church currently maintains a neutral position on the practice of non-religious circumcision, and has never addressed the issue of infant circumcision specifically."

Is actually wrong. I can not speak for Christianity as a whole, various protestant groups pop up fast and have varied beliefs, Catholicism has a strong stance that is never told. In the current edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, line 2297 covers respect for bodily integrity and says "except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law.". While this does not specify circumcision, the practice can be called a mutilation (defined as verb to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts also to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part), or at the least an amputation. And as far as therapeutic (of or relating to the treating or curing of disease) the fact that there is a an argument over there being any potential medical benefits removes the option, and also in the case of most infants it is done as prevention and not treatment in other words not curative.

Even though this is a grey area as far as pointing to circumcision the smoking gun lays in the Ecumenical Councils:

"It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

From the Papal website ( http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum17.htm ) the 17th council in Basel. Basic laymen's terms the Catholic view of circumcision is that it is a Mortal sin. To put that in perspective abortion is a Mortal sin in Catholic speaking. A Mortal sin is one that removes you from the grace of God and puts you on a path to Hell. The basic way the Dogma works is that since this was the last time the issue was reviewed it is still the current view of the Catholic Church — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkarnage (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I made some adjustments to the section. Prcc27 (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Inserted a few more bits to show how it all ties together

Several issues

Why is female circumcision listed under the entry female genital mutilation, but male genital mutilation is listed under circumcision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.161.114 (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is, somehow, extremely pro-circumcision. It states HIV, STIs, cancer and whatever are all way less likely, and that its side-effects are nonexistent. But the greatest problem is that the focus is conveniently placed on medical circumcision. This contrasts the majority of circumcisions on babies in Africa and the Middle East etc, where people often aren't medics. I believe we need a split to medical and ritual circumcision to get rid of this WP:UNDUE. Nowhere does it say a mohel may perform fellatio on the baby's penis to remove the blood, occasionally transmitting diseases. Nowhere does it say kids were originally circumcised in America to prevent masturbation, as this is made difficult by it. North Africa circumcises, Europe doesn't. Is North Africa's medical knowledge more advanced? Things don't add up. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of what you mention can be found in subarticles, Brit milah (the "fellatio" thing), and Circumcision controversies (Dr Kellogg). --Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The arguments that male circumcision are for health reasons are ridiculous and pro-circumcision campaigners will typically use flawed research and so-called statistics to justify their position. The reality is that boys who grow up in countries that do not circumcise grow up happy and healthy without the alleged health problems that pro-circumcision advocates would have you believe. A common justification used for circumcision is that it claims to reduce urinary tract infections in boys. Yet girls have more problems with urinary tract infections than uncircumcised boys. But urinary tract infections in girls is never considered a major issue worthy of mention. Why is that? AlwynJPie (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely think we should include in the article that it is unclear how circumcision affects sexual function [16]. We should also add that circumcision decreases sexual enjoyment and pleasure in masturbation meaning that many men experience adverse affects from adult circumcision due to a loss of nerve endings and possible complications[17] and that circumcision ablates junctional mucosa which plays an important part in the overall mechanism of the penis [18]. I'm sorry, but this article is extremely biased and we need to change it and implement my suggested edits as soon as possible! Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more things we should add in the article: it should be noted that the randomized controlled trials pertaining to circumcision preventing HIV were not subject to blinding and as a result are subject to observer bias. And that most of the trials were stopped early which tends to overestimate the efficacy of intervention. Complications include include tetanus, loss of the glans, loss of the entire penis and death. Recent studies have reported a reduction in sexual satisfaction as a result of circumcision in 17%-38% of patients. Circumcision permanently removes the gliding function of the foreskin that makes intercourse easier [19], it removes the most sensitive part of the penis, and the glans of a circumcised guy are less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of an intact guy [20]. Circumcision does not affect the incidence of postoperative UTI during antireflux surgery [21]. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to implement the changes right now especially since AlywnJPie & Prinsgezinde appear to agree with me that the article is biased! Prcc27 (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Bare urls, sourcing, etc.

I have reverted these bare urls [22]. Many of them such as this one are simple not accessible [23]

I would recommend that User:Prcc27 read WP:MEDHOW and format the references similar to how they are in the rest of the article so others can verify the changes.

Also journals used generally need to be pubmed indexed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Doc James: I'm so sorry; I was able to access those links through my university's databases. I will definitely try to make the sources accessible and will try to figure out how to format properly later on. However, you deleted something from the Christianity section that wasn't a medical claim and seemed to be properly formatted (I just copied the the reference from another article). If it wasn't properly formatted can you explain why it isn't? Prcc27 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bare URLs are not why I reverted. Doc James, Yobol, Anthonyhcole, Jytdog, and others, are you okay with all Prcc27's latest edits? Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to WP:Ping Alexbrn in place of Anthonyhcole. But I focused on Anthonyhcole because, in addition to knowing that he is a WP:Med editor, I was seeing him at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Montanabw (for example, the General comments section).

The bare URLs had been fixed, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James, Prcc27, and Flyer22: Obviously editorializing has no place here, but difficulty in accessing a resource does not disqualify it. A source may require logging in and may even require a subscription. Flyer22’s reversion summary in toto, emphasis mine, is:

Revert. It is not just a reference formatting case; it’s also the case of the quality of some of the references, some of it requiring a "log-in," and there is WP:Editorializing.
— User:Flyer22 15:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

but the standard is that:

. . . an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries . . . . Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.
— WP:PAYWALL

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LLarson (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 September 2015‎

I am well aware of WP:PAYWALL; I've cited it enough times. And where more-accessible sources can be used in place of less-accessible sources, they should be...unless the less-accessible sources are of significantly better quality. I see no need at all to use log-in required sources at this article.

Your WP:Ping didn't work on my account, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm here now, so here goes:

• [24] Removal of "Christianity does not forbid it either." This seems reasonable. There are likely to be some small but Christian sects that forbid it. So I support taking it out unless a reliable secondary source can be found that supports this very bold assertion.

That edit also adds "However, in the past they held a position against the practice" but uses a primary source to support it.

In topics that are supported by a deep scholarly literature, such as medicine and Christianity, Wikipedia insists on us using only the best independent "secondary" sources. To understand what Wikipedia means by "primary" and "secondary" sources, read this section of policy: Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Other parts of Prcc27 recent contribution are also supported by "primary sources" (I think I see a randomised trial there.)

Prcc27, please have a look at that policy I linked to in the previous paragraph and only add content that is supported by high quality secondary (or maybe tertiary when it comes to Christianity) sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Anthonyhcole: Are you saying my edit on Christianity was fine and should be restored or are you saying I need to use a secondary source? Prcc27 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm saying there are very few circumstances where it is appropriate to use a primary source in a topic like medicine or Christianity, and this is not one of those circumstances. As a general rule mostly use recent, high quality secondary sources, sometimes use tertiary sources (like textbooks) and almost never use a primary source. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Flyer22: If you are having problems viewing my sources someone may be able to do so on your behalf per WP:PAYWALL. My sources are reliable and should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, thanks for weighing in. Prcc27, we generally should not use primary sources for medical content; this is per WP:MEDRS. Using primary sources to contradict the more established literature should be avoided. Flyer22 (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Are you referring to my Christianity edits or the other edits? Prcc27 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to the medical content, I am not speaking of religious aspects unless they are making medical claims that should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. WP:MEDDATE is clear that historical matters are usually exempt from the WP:MEDRS standards; similar applies to cultural views, unless the cultural views are making a medical claim about the current state of a medical field as though it is fact. But whether it's medical claims or cultural content, primary sources should not be used to contradict the more established literature. On a side note: I changed the heading of this section by adding "sourcing, etc." so that it's clearer as to what this section is about. Flyer22 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not OK with many of the edits; not NPOV and not even trying. (introducing a 1998 source.. oy) Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I usually don't edit articles in the medical field and am still trying to get familiar with WP:MEDRS so sorry for including an old source. However, I did not violate NPOV; I was trying to fix the article because it seemed to have an WP:UNDUE bias. And to be fair I added in the article "The effects that circumcision has on sexual function is unclear" and that adult circumcision "also appears to result in improved satisfaction." Prcc27 (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yobol: What exactly are your concerns with my edits? I could just as easily argue that the article places an WP:UNDUE bias in favor of circumcision! The sources do not violate WP:MEDRS- can you explain why you think they do? Prcc27 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In fact, one user referred to them as "good references" so where does the WP:MEDRS violation come in? Prcc27 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the sources are not pubmed indexed. We should gennerally be using sources that are. And we should generally be using sources from the last 5 or at most 10 years. 1998 is a little old.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)Let's take a look at the sources:

Mills - looks like a good source

Dalton - published in a non MEDLINE indexed journal

Fleiss - very source

Kwak - old primary study

Yang - primary study

Kim - primary study

Porche - non MEDLINE indexed journal, text repeats what is already in paragraph

Taylor - old primary study

Sorrells - primary study

Fink - primary study

As you can see, only the first I would consider clearly MEDRS compliant; most are primary studies being used to contradict secondary sources, which is specifically prohibited by MEDRS. I am also concerned about your stated goal above, which is to correct what you believe is a POV problem in the article, in this case by using suboptimal sources; appropriate neutrality is determined by finding the high quality sources first, and accurately summarizing them, rather than adding poor sources to come to a specific POV in mind. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Are all sources on Pubmed secondary sources/non-primary studies? I want to make sure before adding a Pubmed source I found on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

PubMed indexes most articles (reviews and original research) published in a reputable bio/medical/health journal. If an article isn't found in PubMed it's a red flag that the journal may not be of very high quality. You can usually tell from the article's introduction ("abstract") whether it is a review (secondary) or an individual study (primary). If it's a review, they usually describe it as such. If not they'll usually say something about the study design (number of subjects, etc.).

If you're searching PubMed, you can tick "Review" under "Article types" in the top left corner and your results will be restricted to (mostly - it's not perfect) secondary sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a source and want to make sure it is consistent with Wikipedia policy before adding it to the article. here's the source and the full article is here Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's essentially an opinion piece by Brian D. Earp, an ethics guy. While it is reliable if we wished to relay Earp's views (attributed as such), that would likely be undue: lots of people have lots of views on this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, but does this source that was provided in the Earp article comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE? The full article is here. Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a reasonable source, whether any use of it is undue would depend on that use. The article appears to be a big "more research is needed" piece, and in general we avoid saying that per MOS:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Before I get reverted again.. is this a reliable source and is there a way to use it without violating Wikipedia policy? As for the other edit I didn't "cherry pick" you said we should avoid saying "more research is needed" and a lot of the self-reports contradicted each other. Prcc27 (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27, you are misunderstanding WP:Neutral. I state the following every time a person misunderstands what WP:Neutral means: "Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse." It means abiding by the majority viewpoint or majority aspect and not giving the minority viewpoint or minority aspect as much weight as, or more weight than, the majority viewpoint/aspect. Its WP:Due weight section and the subsections for that section are clear about that. People so often misunderstanding what WP:Neural means is why I have a section about it on my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I understand. But when there are reliable sources that make a claim against circumcision I think it's necessary to include them. I'm not going to remove what the majority viewpoint says on circumcision but male circumcision isn't universally accepted from a cultural-medical prospective and IMO there is cultural bias in favor and against circumcision. So who's right? America/Africa/Middle East or the rest of the Western world (excluding America)? Prcc27 (talk) 06:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not our job to decide; we just reflect faithfully what the best sources say. Your additions on masturbation were problematic precisely because you are trying to "play an equalizer" by picking out some weak evidence buried in an article, whereas in the section which contains that content the article is saying that evidence is really problematic, and the article as a whole is saying "more research is needed". We don't need to scrape the barrel when we have better & stronger sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • What about this source. Am I not allowed to use it either..? Prcc27 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of sources being "allowed" or not but (as I say) of us reflecting faithfully what the best sources say. Your link is to a commentary piece and this wouldn't be very good for sourcing biomedical assertions when we have so many much better sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well it would be silly for me to attempt to make an edit and risk getting reverted because some might think I'm acting in bad faith. So let me be clear what points I would like to be reflected in the article and see if you agree it would improve it: "There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) linking UTIs to circumcision status" (this does not contradict anything the article says about UTIs- it just adds that RCTs are not how people linked the two together); "Incidental deaths and (partial) amputations of the penis have also been reported" (I don't believe anything is contradictory there); "some studies suggest that circumcision can lead to psychological, pain related, and sexual problems later in life" (this seems to be pretty consistent with he Royal Dutch Medical Association's viewpoint that "complications in the area of sexuality" have been reported). Of course I would paraphrase these assertions. Would including those be faithful? Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem here is this is not one of our "best sources", but a commentary piece (the lead author of which is an anti-circumcision campaigner, it seems). As I say, I wouldn't use this source for biomedical assertions. If your proposed content is relevant, why not find it in stronger sources? But better still, digest the stronger sources and distil them here, rather than hunting for sources to support a POV. Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

the ref says "Adverse self-reported outcomes associated with foreskin removal in adulthood include impaired erectile functioning [55,62–65], orgasm difficulties [55,66], decreased masturbatory functioning (loss in pleasure and increase in difficulty) [59], an increase in penile pain [57,65], a loss of penile sensitivity with age [67], and lower subjective ratings of penile sensitivity [64]. However, other studies have found no significant differences in self-reported sexual functioning following adult circumcision [68–71]. Research comparing sexual functioning among men circumcised as neonates with intact men or comparing men circumcised as neonates with men circumcised as adults is sorely lacking or—in most cases—completely nonexistent."

Next question is how to summarize this? Basically this review is stating it is unclear if circumcision affects sexual function with some low quality evidence stating it does and others stating it doesn't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, how did I "cherpy pick"? Please explain. Prcc27 (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

By using the source (which is already used quite a lot in this article anyway) to compile a shopping list of Things That Can Go Wrong without also taking from the source the countervailing commentary about ease of prevention or incidence -- the source does in summary say that circumcision "is a relatively safe procedure with a low overall complication rate" after all. Yet again this looks like amping up one "side" of the POV in a way which gives undue prominence to certain aspects of relatively peripheral source material. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, if you saw nothing wrong with the Mills source (the one I used in the lede) please restore it. Second, your accusation is very uncalled for, extremely offensive, and just isn't true because it is already stated that "Neonatal circumcision is generally safe when done by an experienced practitioner", "minor complications are reported to occur in three percent of procedures", and "Severe to catastrophic complications are sufficiently rare that they are reported only as individual case reports" in the adverse effects section. So if you think it's okay to be redundant then fine I can restore my edit and add that "circumcision is a relatively safe procedure with a low overall complication rate" (even though it's basically already stated). But don't accuse me of POV pushing for avoiding redundancy. And WP:Assume Good Faith exists for a reason. Prcc27 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Why add the Mills source to the lede (which should only summarize body content anyway - see WP:LEDE) when it's 7 years old (so outside WP:MEDRS preferred window) and we have newer? I don't think we need any more use of the Krill source, for the reasons I gave. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Can we at least add the complications that actually have a Wikipedia article? The Krill source is currently used for the following sentence: "Other possible complications include concealed penis, skin bridges, urethral fistulas, and meatal stenosis." Unless you can give a good reason not to I definitely don't think it would hurt to include two more complications i.e. phimosis and chordee. So the sentence would read "Other possible complications include concealed penis, chordee, phimosis, skin bridges, urethral fistulas, and meatal stenosis." Seems like a fair compromise to me. But I'd probably want to include phimosis in the Phimosis, balanitis and balanoposthitis section as well. Prcc27 (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Extending the list a bit sounds reasonable though six items is straining at the limit of readability. People can always read the source if they want to delve into the details. Alexbrn (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

There aren't any randomized controlled trials that link neonatal circumcision to UTI prevention? [25] [26] Prcc27 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Phimosis

The previous sentence says the procedure is used to treat phimosis, and then that it can cause phimosis. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• That's because phimosis is a possible complication of circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes both can apply. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Adverse Effects

Please excuse me if I am contributing to this page incorrectly or out of turn, I've never edited anything on Wikipedia and it's rather confusing to me. Though I cannot speak from experience, I am wondering if the Adverse Effects section should include psychological effects as well. From what I have witnessed, there are many circumcised men who appear, in a broad sense, to be resentful, or even emotionally hurt because of their circumcision. Not necessarily due to the actual physical result, though I am sure that could be a contributing factor in some cases, but instead appear to be circumcised "correctly" and without incident, yet very vocally oppose what was done to them and report many things that could easily fall into the DSM category of Major Depressive Disorder. It's at least something to consider. Thank you. Zachattack05 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns about the adverse effects section. Before we add anything we have to make sure we have a reliable source to back up the claim per WP:MEDRS. I have a source that might be useful for what you're talking about. However, I'm not sure if it is new enough. Anyone want to weigh in on whether we are able to use this source? Prcc27 (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

An old article, in a journal not in PUBMED/MEDLINE, penned by controversial anti-circumcision activists. So no. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, here's the pubmed link. I merely skimmed the article and didn't see whom it was written by since I got the source off of the foreskin restoration article. Why is its use justifiable on that page but not this page? Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it anywhere. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Council of Europe

It makes sense to include an intergovernmental organization's resolution in the ethical and legal issues section since this is a legal issue even though it isn't necessarily binding. We should say "the Council of Europe passed a nonbinding resolution that considers religious circumcision of boys a 'violation of the physical integrity of children.'" 47 countries are members of this organization so it would be dumb to exclude it from a section that deals with law. It isn't WP:POV or WP:UNDUE to include it for the same reason saying that South Africa and Sweden bans religious circumcision doesn't violate those policies. It is a matter of legal fact and just because a law or resolution is anti-circumcision doesn't mean mentioning it gives undue weight to the anti-circumcision view. A resolution is a resolution even if it goes against the scientific consensus we shouldn't just pretend like the resolution doesn't exist. Laws against homosexuality go against the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and normal but mentioning that homosexuality is illegal doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. [27] Prcc27 (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Do you agree? Prcc27 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Need good secondary sources to evaluate weight, and even then probably this isn't the article for it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sexual effects

Why's this been put back as a subsection of "Adverse effects" when, according to our text, the effects aren't actually adverse? Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• The sexual effects section mentions how there aren't adverse effects on sexuality. I still feel it's pertinent but I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be a subsection. I reverted you because you still had the sexual effects section in subsection notation rather than making it its own section. However, I also don't see the point in moving the sexual effects section above the adverse effects section, especially since "adverse effects" comes first alphabetically. Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We have a section "Effects". I made "Sexual effects" (which are, after all, "effects") a subsection of that. This is logical. Putting it back as a subsection of "Adverse effects" is not logical (and gives us a big portion of hanging text at the beginning of "Adverse effects"). I don't think your comment makes any sense and what you "feel is pertinent" is really not a good basis for driving our content. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, that makes sense. You didn't explain which section you were moving it to in the edit summary. I thought you were trying to make it a seperate section and move it above adverse effects for personal preference without realizing that it was a subsection. Prcc27 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Doc James: Do you think sexual effects should be a subsection of "effects" or "adverse effects"..? Sorry if I wasn't clear in the edit summary when I restored Alexbrn's edit. Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The context they are presented in, is that of concern regarding them being a negative effect. Thus we say "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction" and thus IMO this fits best under adverse effect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Zero impact factor

This source has a zero impact factor [28]. Thus I removed it. We need to use sources with a reputation of accuracy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate? I don't understand your reasoning... Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If a source has no impact in the academic world, why should Wikipedia grant it weight in articles? That would be WP:UNDUE surely. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

How does it not have impact in the academic world? I'm still not quite understanding the reasoning for not including it.. Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what an Impact factor is? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I didn't know what it was. So thanks for linking to that article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Genital Mutilation

In favour of cultural equality and to put male genital mutilation on an objective level i propose that since it is considered to be a form of genital mutilation in Scandinavia and other arts of the world that it be referred to it as such in the article. Given that FGM is referred to Female circumcision on its article but mainly as FGM then MGM should also have it mentioned.

It is only right as the sole reason it is not already regarded as a form of mutilation while female genital mutilation is would be because of the american bias for male genital mutilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.193.44 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Per the FAQ at the top of the page, "Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male genital mutilation or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same." Yobol (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the name of the article in order to note that male circumcision may also be referred to as male genital mutilation. If there are at least some reliable sources that refer to it as such then I don't see the harm in at least mentioning it. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There NEEDS to be serious reference to the barbaric nature of this mutilation and the serious mental, physical, and sexual effects it has on those who are damaged by it. To refer to the mutilation of females as the mutilation it is and to not do the same for boys is sexist and wrong. Why is it ok to mutilate boys but not girls and not even have the mutilation refered to as such in a encyclopedia, ffs? There needs to be a comprehensive section on this for boys, and just because the mutilation is called by another name does not make it less than what it is - a attack on boys and their genitals. Call it what it is: Male genital mutilation, also known as 'circumcision'. 2001:569:BC3C:2200:1CDD:5420:7CF2:FBCE (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the broad opinion here, there are many similarities between FGM and MGM, and the content of the page (and title) should be written so that both are similarly worded. If 'Consensus' may have previously rejected this, but opinions have changed rapidly about genital mutilation, lets see if there's new consensus Esplorare (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We follow the terminology used by reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Primary source

This is a primary source [29]. We need to use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would consider high quality secondary sources, but the study appears here: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/108/7/266 with an impact factor of 2.118, and is discussed here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150109093725.htm and here https://www.rsm.ac.uk/about-us/media-information/2015-media-releases/ritual-circumcision-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-in-young-boys.aspx as well as other places. Seems pretty legit to me. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yawn, yet another primary source from anti-circumcision warrior Morten Frisch. To understand what primary sources are see WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Primary Source" section

I'm shocked by your use of the term "Yawn". If this person was an opponent of excision of small girls, would you show the same apparent contempt for his point of view? I think not. Lestrad (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

While there are definitely WP:CIVIL concerns with that user's comment let's try not to start a debate on male circumcision vs. female circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Circumcision as "elective"

Circumcision is called an "elective" procedure, but if "elective" means that the individual on whom the procedure is being performed has given his or her consent, that cannot be the case with circumcision of infants. A newborn child cannot give his consent. The "consent" is given by the parents (or one parent) in the child's place. Therefore I feel that the term "elective" should be removed, or at least that the fact be noted in the article that many men feel that circumcision is mutilation and that they have suffered an irreparable loss without their consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that's not what the term "elective" actually means. "Elective surgery" means "surgery that does not involve a medical emergency"; it says nothing about the volition of the patient. So never mind? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And the parents get to make the health care decisions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source that "elective surgery" means "surgery that does not involve a medical emergency" or not..? Also, it does not matter if the parents can legally allow their son or daughter to be circumcised; we do not need to use the word "elective" and I don't see how using that word improves the article. In fact, does the source even call it an "elective surgery"? If there is not a reliable source source that calls circumcision of non-consenting minors an "elective surgery" then the wording needs to be removed! Prcc27 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Source? I was lazy and used a notorious unreliable source -- our (rather inferior) article Elective surgery. But you'll find numerous definitions, a few of which emphasize choice on the part of the patient, but of most of which are functional rather in the way the article has it. At any rate, we're not going to stop using the term in the common fashion in order to promote a point of view. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If we are not going to call circumcision "genital mutilation" due to the there being a lack of medical reliable sources that call it that then that means we should not call circumcision an "elective surgery" without medical reliable sources calling it that. That's kind of how WP:NPOV works. And if a medical reliable source that recognizes it as an "elective surgery" can't be provided then using that wording is POV pushing. Prcc27 (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Except one debate is about highly emotive labelling and the other about a technical nicety of terminology. As to the substance of the matter, [this] Cochrane review refers to "elective surgery" as taking place on children between 28 days and 16 years, so it's safe to assume that's a mainstream medical view of how the term applies. Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet the "emotive" labeling is used for the Female Genital Mutilation page. Where does that source refer to it as an "elective surgery"? Just because the source talks about or even supports circumcision of children doesn't mean they recognize it as "elective". It's your guy's POV that the surgery is "elective" not the sources. The sentence "The procedure is most often performed on neonates and children for religious and cultural reasons" is just fine and adding "elective surgery" to that sentence does not improve the article at all and all it does is push a POV. Prcc27 (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that makes no sense (who's 'your guy'?). We're talking about this article, not FGM, and I have provided a good source which uses the words "elective surgery" when referring to circumcision of children. This contradicts the point of this section which was the suggestion than there needed to be individual consent before the word "elective" could be used of the procedure, and so it could never be used of infants. I have no particular view on whether our article needs to use that term or not. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant to say "your guys's" (the plural of your). I missed the words "elective surgery" when skimming it but now I finally found them. We don't need to randomly link to an article with poor quality especially since the source that sentence is based on doesn't refer to it as that (or maybe it does. If I can miss those words in a summary then I can surely miss those words in a long pdf). Prcc27 (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The Council of Europe WP:UNDUE

I do not think it is WP:UNDUE to represent the legal resolution of an intergovernmental organization i.e. the Council of Europe which represents 47 countries and is Europe's largest Human Rights organization. The resolution may one day be used by one of the European countries as a basis of law so it should be included in the section dealing with legal issues. I also found another secondary source that covers the Council of Europe's resolution. As I've stated before "A resolution is a resolution even if it goes against the scientific consensus we shouldn't just pretend like the resolution doesn't exist. Laws against homosexuality go against the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and normal but mentioning that homosexuality is illegal doesn't violate Wikipedia policy." And if circumcision was banned in a country we shouldn't and wouldn't leave that out of the article just because a minority of countries/medical organizations are pro-circ. WP:UNDUE restricts minority viewpoints from being represented. However, the resolution isn't exclusively about a viewpoint on circumcision but rather the legality of the procedure itself. [30] Prcc27 (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This might belong in our Ethics article where the ECHR is already discussed and/or in the law articles. According to the principles of WP:SYNC we then only summarize those articles here. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Content

This was added "although death, partial or complete amputation of the penis, and several other less common complications are also risks associated with circumcision" with this ref [31] Not seeing support? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I just used that source to add content on UTIs and I was reverted by someone because it was "not a strong source, not well represented." Is the source too weak to even use? How is/was this even determined? Prcc27 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS. And when the source just relays "some American research", it isn't faithful to trumpet it here in Wikipedia's voice. Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was reliable enough per WP:MEDORG. Was all the information in that paragraph from the North American research or was it just the first sentence that referred to the North American research? WP:AGF. Prcc27 (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The Network of Sydney Children's Hospitals, worthy though it no doubt is, probably doesn't rank among the "major medical and scientific bodies" MEDORG means. By the looks of it, all of that paragraph is relaying the primary US research without adding any evaluation, so effectively this is primary information too. Alexbrn (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not get this

"it is only illegal in South Africa and Sweden if it is done for non-religious reasons" Are we trying to claim that it is illegal if done for medical reasons? That makes no sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We only claim that because the reliable source claims that. If there is a reliable source that says otherwise then we can reflect that in the article. It appears that it would make sense to assume that therapeutic circumcision is legal even in countries that ban circumcision. But we can't just edit the article based on our assumptions. Prcc27 (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We are trying to convey the meaning of sources not copy from them word for word. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, and we can do that as long as we don't violate WP:OR. But we could always ignore that rule if necessary. What do you think?Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Source says "routine neonatal circumcision has been declared unlawful in South Africa, Sweden (except on religious grounds) and Finland." So I have adjusted the text to match what the source says. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Relabeling for medical, religious, adult, and infant circumcisions

This page is very divisive when it comes to circumcision. Circumcision is written about almost entirely from an American medical point of view on this page, and considering that this is not a page about routine elective medical infant circumcision, but rather the practice as a whole, several different things must be specified.

For one, it stated prior that "The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on neonates and children for religious and cultural reasons.", while in truth, neonatal circumcision is only supported and prevalent in 2 countries, with the majority being done worldwide in childhood or before adulthood as a religious or coming of age ritual.

It must also be noted that you reverted when i stated that "Most support the former, however, with the American view on elective infant and child circumcision being the main exception". prior to writing that, to an onlooker, it would be assumed that some believe the former and some believe the latter. but this simply is not the case. that would be like stating "some Muslims support the beheading of infidels, while some don't". What would be more accurate would be to state that "most Muslims are against the beheading of infidels, while a small minority of fundamentalist Muslims believe that they should behead infidels". similarly, the vast majority of major medical organizations worldwide are in support of the former, while in fact American bodies are the sole supporter of the latter view.

Further down, there need to be distinctions between rates and prevalence. rates do not = prevalence. prevalence is the overall amount of people who are circumcised, while rate is the amount of those that are getting circumcised. that is why the rate is 58%, while the prevalence is 75%.

In the history section ,I was reverted for stating that "Prior to the 1900s, circumcision was virtually unheard of in Europe for medical reasons." , as well as for replacing "common" with "supported". It is true that prior to the 1900s, circumcision among Europeans was virtually unheard of, only with isolated instances like for King Louis XVI or among foreigners and non Christians such as Jews or Muslims. for the supported vs common argument: during the 1900s, circumcision was never common. it was only practiced by the upper and middle classes, and it is estimated that in England by 1940 that the PREVALENCE of circumcision was only 30% overall. It was supported by the medical literature of the time, hoever, and therefore i replaced "common" with "supported". User:Cirflow

A number of your changes do not appear to be supported by the cited sources, such as the discussion about the American guidelines being the "exception". I agree that some of the other wording needed to be clarified, and I attempted a compromise on those points. Yobol (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, which edits are not cited? i could possibly provide for some of them.User:Cirflow

well how would i go about getting a citation for that? finding every single national medical organizations guidelines and copy pasting them all as 200 citations? Well, Canada, Australia, England, Netherlands, Finland, Germany, Sweden and many other countries all agree with the former, would it be enough to copy those countries stances compared to the AAP and CDC? User:Cirflow

I honestly don't think the compromise goes far enough. The words "elective surgery" are superfluous, and the only purpose it seems to have in the article is POV-pushing. How does including those words benefit the article? In fact, neither of the sources call it an "elective surgery". Prcc27 (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Need appropriate sources which neither this nor this is for the claims in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not use gathered citations- these were citations which were already being used in the article, and therefore completely justifiable. Also, I feel that this article should not be locked into MEDRS citation rules, as circumcision in most instances is for cultural reasons not related to medicine. Granted, under certain sections which state the steps of the procedure, benefits, risks, medical reasons for, etc MEDRS should be used. Under a section which is debating prevalence and age groups, however, I dont see why a non MEDRS citation is unacceptable. Also, prcc7, I feel that the term elective procedure is acceptable, as it is true. Circumcision is primarily an elective(nonmedical) procedure, whether elected by parents without consent or by young man who wishes to take part in a rite of passage I feel term Still holds the same meaning and I think is an acceptable term. User:Cirflow

Which ref says it is most often done as a ritual? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said it was most often done as a ritual. I stated that it is most often done as an elective procedure or ritual amongst neonates, teenagers, and children. Those citations give examples of different circumcision rituals. the ritual of tuli, for children, and a Bris Milah for infants. I am looking for a ritual example for teenagers as well.user:cirflow

NACS

Hey, the NACS may not be a major medical organization, but the six organizations it represents are. And they are also members of the European Federation of Sexology which has its own medical journal. [32][33][34] Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You state these six organizations are major. How many members do they each have?

We at Wikipedia have our own medical journal on Wikiversity. That does not make us a major medical organization. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Danish Association for Clinical Sexology has at least 16 members (8 occupations times 2 since each word is plural) consisting of doctors, nurses, midwives, occupational therapists and physiotherapists, but also psychologists, educators and social workers. Btw, the Danish Association for Clinical Sexology, Swedish Association for Sexology, and the European Federation of Sexology (and probably the other 4 organizations either directly or indirectly) are members of the World Association for Sexual Health if that even makes a difference... [35][36] [37] Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So... Is that enough members for it to be a major organization? What is the minimum requirement..? Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

How many individual members? That is types of members. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, i recently did an edit using this as a citation unknowingly, and would like to show my support of Prcc27 based off of the justifications which he has stated in this chat. I too, however, would like to know the amount of members which they have. Cirflow (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with this article

So lets address what's wrong with each (necessary) part. This is going to take work and sources. I will address each part.

- I have edited a section out of this article that stated that no medical organization in the world has recommended a ban on male circumcision, which is patently false. To quote an article from the Huffington Post, which reported on this...

"The Sweden Medical Association, which counts 85% of the country's physicians as members, recommended setting twelve as the minimum age for the procedure and requiring a boy's consent in a resolution which was unanimously passed by the ethics council, reported the Svenska Dagbladet."

So we have at least one case of a medical organization recommending a ban.

Some physicians making a recommendation ≠ a country imposing a "ban". Also HuffPo is not a great source. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

- Alex, the Wikipedia article we are discussing made the bold statement that no medical organization has ever recommended a ban. That is false, and you can check the sources of the Svenska Dagbladet if you like on the matter. But nobody ever said that the article we are discussing was talking about country's actually having banned the practice. Try to keep up :) - Zirojtan

• Agreed, we need to stop pretending that all medical organizations are against banning circumcision when we have a source saying otherwise. And we should maybe refrain from boldly saying that all medical organizations are against universal infant circumcision as well. Btw, infant circumcision is banned in some countries and completely banned in one country. Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In regards to reliable sources... this source seems to support banning it and views it as a human rights violation as well, so I think Zirojtan's edit should be restored for the most part! Prcc27 (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above that per citations there absolutely are "medical organizations" which have/do recommend a ban. Furthermore, the article fails to mention that a) circumcision was formally/officially banned in the Roman empire beginning with the Emperor Hadrian. b) the RITE has been banned in the Catholic church for centuries, a reiteration of the Roman ban (St Thomas even mentions this in his Summa Theologica). The Council of Florence states: 'Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation." Lastly regarding the errors, Copts do NOT practice circumcision as a "rite of passage"...or ANY rite whatsoever, and NONE of the citations mention this. There is a HUGE debate raging currently in the Coptic church which wants to ban circumcision as it has long recognized that both MALE AND FEMALE circumcision prior to the 13th century was rare if not non-existent among Copts, but came in fact due to societal pressures from the MUSLIMS after the final Christian defeat of the Crusades. So, once the page protection is lifted, I absolutely plan to make these corrections. Any objections here?Trinacrialucente (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Indications and contraindications

Medical indications

"Circumcision may be medically indicated in children for pathological phimosis"

Children cannot get phimosis (this is also addressed later in the page). That cannot even be diagnosed in children. As for the UTI's part we need to mention that women get way more then cut or intact men and they are treated with antibiotics.

- This is true. In fact, there is no clear definition of phimosis in the first place. "Phimosis" seems to be able to be defined as a foreskin that is too long, a foreskin that only has a small orifice near the meatis allowing for urination, or a foreskin that is attached to the glans... depending on which source you consult. All of these things are natural for the development of the human penis, as the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans by the synechia or the prepucial lamina. - Zirojtan

Technique

It is referenced what foreskin "may do" for babies, etc. Foreskin has many purposes and functions. Needs to be rewritten entirely.

- There are various techniques for circumcision which produce various results... this needs to be discussed in further detail.

Human immunodeficiency virus

The only place circumcision has any relevance for prevention is Africa. Everywhere else people should be wearing condoms. This hopefully can be addressed in a succinct way. Also cut men are less likely to wear condoms but I don't want to sidetrack too much. If this was true at all, the U.S. and it's HIV rate would be far lower then what it is...

- Actually this is not even relevant in Africa. The "studies" that demonstrated this are controversial at best, and fraudulent at worst, and are riddled with confirmation bias. An in depth discussion needs to be undertaken as to the nature of these studies and their methodologies so that readers can better understand this. Furthermore, issuing condoms to intact men in Africa and teaching them about proper sex ed is easily more cost efficient than removal of the prepuce. Outright removal of the prepuce (as well as the frenulum... how exactly does that help combat HIV?) requires the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of medical devices, clinics for their use in a sterile environment, and training of surgeons to perform the surgery on millions of African men. You don't have to be a statistician or a physician to see that this line of propaganda is bogus.

Also, the "studies" done in Africa had a number of egregious methodological flaws in them, including, but not limited to, a lack of identification of the source of the virus when transmitted... which essentially tears down any validity these studies might claim because we simply don't know how the infection transmitted in these studies. We only know that more of the intact men contracted HIV, and it is also known that a surprisingly high number of participants contracted HIV despite not having reported engaging in sexual activity or having used condoms. Given that iatrogenic transmission of HIV is well documented in Africa, the references to its efficiency in curbing the contraction rate of HIV need to be thrown out in order for this article to be even remotely credible, because thus far, whether or not that is the case is unknown, and it defies common sense given that the notion that HIV transmission and circumcision cannot be correlated according to the geographical data (European and East Asian countries have a lower rate of transmission than the United States, which circumcises, while the others do not). - Zirojtan

Cancer

Cancer in the penis is common for old men, it has nothing to do with being cut or not and it is not a recommended way to reduce cancer. This absolutely must be addressed. Anyone saying it is cancer prevention is spreading wrong information.

- Actually it isn't common for any population of men. Men are literally more likely to develop breast cancer.

Adverse effects

Meatal stenosis absolutely will not be prevented with proper technique for circumcision. This must be fixed. This is far too common for it to be preventable with circumcision.

- Meatal stenosis is actually more common in circumcised men than it is in intact men. - Zirojtan

Sexual effects

Viagra sells more in circumcising countries. It very clearly has issues with erections, pleasure, and comfort to the woman who can suffer vaginal dryness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban Circumcision (talk • contribs)

Your POV issues aside, you are only providing your opinion on this topic and in a few cases making tangents. Please provide reliable sources. {{unsEvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:

I have read these points from many legit sources. For starters people should read the doctors opposing circumcision pamphlet, which addresses all of these plenty, and has hundreds of their own separate sources. How much viagra sells in each country I will find a separate source. I will get more if necessary and more from outside input, but this is a very solid source that covers a lot.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

Ban Circumcision (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

References

I support prcc27s edit. He provides legitimate justifications and adds citations along with them. I also find it interesting how the only people who replied simply stated the arguments were all biased, and then left, not analyzing any of the citations or justifications in detail or providing constructive criticism as to why their edits were being blocked. Judging by that, they were unjustified in reverting your edit, and they did not achieve consensus. Cirflow (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Metziztah does not belong in this article

It is part of the sacrament of a Bris Milah, not the act of circumcision. Arguing reductio ad absurdum, should we have sections on the blessings, naming children, and wine as well? HHow about kvatter and kvatterin and the Seat of Elijah? All are integral parts of the Bris sacrament; none are the act of circumcision. So too metzitzah. It is in the article in which it properly belongs already, and does not belong here. -- Avi (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's also a load of biomedical content not sourced to WP:MEDRS, but Cirflow seems intent on edit warring it in, which is behaviourally problematic for such poorly-sourced claims. Alexbrn (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It might be a rite but it's still circumcision. As for medrs, I think that's not required for sections on culture. The claims are not medical in nature. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

not medical in nature ← To take just one claim: "It has been documented that the practice poses a serious risk of spreading herpes to the infant" – have you even read the text here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a medical claim about metzitzah which belongs in its article, of course. But it is not a claim about circumcision. Not washing ones hands is an even greater risk vector for all kinds of infections, should we add that here too? Of course not, it has nothing to do with CIRCUMCISION the act even though it may occur contemporaneously. So too metzitzah. We handle it in great detail in its proper article, as we should. -- Avi (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is that biomedical information anywhere must be sourced to WP:MEDRS, not weak old primary studies. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

With that I agree, Alexbrn. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop edit warring over this bold addition. WP:STATUSQUO for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Circumcision is one part, admittedly the major part, of a Bris Milah. Metzitzah is another part, as is naming the child, kisei shel Eliyahu, Sandakaus, various blessings over wine, etc. Just because something is part of a Bris Milah does not make it part of circumcision. This is why Metzitzah belongs in Bris Milah, where it is and not in circumcision. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Upon rereading and thinking in it, I agree that Metzitzah B'Peh info does not belong here. It's related, but is specific to the Jewish ritual and now about circumcision specifically. Inclusion here would be coatracking I think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/circumcision.html

Not sure if any editors are being intentionally deceptive here, but in the spirit of WP:GOODFAITH quoting from the SAME quote above, this should put the matter to rest: the act of circumcision in Judaism is done as a RITE and according to the Jewish Virtual Library "The rite of circumcision (brit milah) is one of the most ancient practices of Judaism" https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/circumcision.html One of the COMPONENTS of the ritual of circumcision, or Brit Milah, is Metzitzah, and a form or technique of Metzitzah is Metzitzah B'Peh, wherein a mohel puts his mouth around the infant's penis purportedly to suck off the blood/prevent bleeding from the wound. Since this technique is such an important aspect of the circumcision ritual that innumerable Jewish figures have publicly commented on it (up to our recent years) and is unique to Judaism, it absolutely deserves to be mentioned here. No more WP:POV or obfuscation needed. The matter is crystal clear, but to repeat: "rite of circumcision" = Brit Milah...they are NOT separate. Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So it's part of one rite, and is not circumcision per se, which we define as a medical procedure in line with the preponderant RS. It doesn't belong here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the citation above, it's not "part of the rite"...it IS the rite, specifically called "the rite of circumcision" or "Brit Milah". Jews do not go cutting off their foreskin for fun or medicinal reasons. They do it as a rite mandated by religious law.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Stuff pertaining to specific kinds of ritual are about ritual and not about circumcision per se. We have a Brit milah article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of the article since I helped write and was quoting directly from it in this article. And for the third time, in Judaism, the "Rite of circumcision" is the same as "Brit Milah". In other words, the SOLE reason for the ACT of cutting of an infants foreskin is because of Brit Milah. Might want to read the article before commenting again since you are sounding redundant. Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. This article is focused on "the surgical removal of the foreskin" in the generic sense. Some of the religious/cultural aspects are also mentioned and so we have a section on Judaism in WP:SYNC with our Bris Milah article. This is as it should be. Alexbrn (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The point is when a circumcision occurs in the Jewish context, in an encyclopedia one should know a) WHY it occurs (i.e. it is part of a rite mandated by a religious law) b) HOW it occurs (the components outlined in Brit Milah...which is the rite of circumcision). As it reads now "Jewish circumcision is part of the brit milah ritual is wrong...it IS the Brit milah ritual as per the Jewish Virtual Library. Given the way circumcisions were conducted by orthodox jewish communities in NYC resulted in a herpes outbreak that made national headlines, it is relevant. In other words, the Jewish mohels did not pass herpes on to infants by randomly sucking on their penises; they did so as part of the act of circumcision which caused the outbreak. Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bris Milah article needs to be right. What's here must simply be some brief summarizing text in WP:SYNC with that. Alexbrn (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The rite of a Bris Milah contains many actions. There is the keriyas shaym, there is sandakaus there holacha v'havaha mayhakisay, there circumcision, there is hatafas dam bris, and there is metzitza, and there is even more. This article is about the surgical procedure of the removal of the foreskin from a penis. It is not about the rite of Bris Milah, for which we have its own article. Metzitzah happens in close temporal proximity to circumcision, so does hatafas dam bris and, for that matter, kriyas shaym. Saying that circumcision IS the entirerty of a Bris Milah is analogous to saying that the chupah is the entirety of Jewish marriage—which may be an understandable mistake but a mistake nonetheless. Jewish marriage needs kiddushin and nisuin, and chupah is just one form of nisuin. The yichud is another, and I believe some hold that the badekin as well. Mistaking a subset for a superset is what is happening here. Metzitzah is a part of as Bris Mila, but is it not the act of circumcision any more than placing the child on the lap of the sandek is a part of cicumcison (and the sandek is so integral to the rite of Bris Mila that he may eat on Rabbinic fast days like the father and the mohel). So, I reiterate, that Trinacrialucente is under a misconception and that metztzah should be handled in its proper article, which, it is. -- Avi (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Psychological effects

This text

Extended content
Behavioral effects have been observed following circumcision including changes in sleep patterns, irritability, changes in feeding, and parental bonding. Some men who were involuntarily circumcised described their feelings about the procedure using the terms "violation, torture, mutilation and sexual assault". References

Is based on a source from 1999 and another from 2002. A little old so am not sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If there isn't any contradiction, especially between a newer reliable source then it's fine. Prcc27 (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

See also sections

Not recommended per WP:MEDMOS. Especially ones that duplicate content already in the article or sub articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Autism

The link between circumcision and autism was previously refuted a while back due to WP:MEDRS concerns. However, I may have found a source that complies with WP:MEDRS. Prcc27 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a primary source not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

MSM

We already state this twice in the article. No need to state it a third time.[38] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, that edit definitely seems superfluous to me. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I think it's important to re mention it when a different source is counteracting it, which the U.S. antiviral association did. User:Cirflow

To be fair, the entire "medical indications" section seems superfluous to me and so maybe we should remove it or at least all that information can be discussed in another subsection. So I wouldn't mind getting rid of the section altogether to be honest. Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Author

We do not typically state who wrote each of the sources we use. We simply use high quality secondary sources. Therefore removed [39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to state who the author is either. Prcc27 💋 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering the controversy surrounding the author, I still feel that it is fair to state who authored the review at the least. Sugarcube wants to include that he is a pro circ activist, and tbh it is well known that he has a pro circumcision page, and that he consistently writes controversial and often disagreeable reviews and studies. Therefore, I feel that simply stating who wrote the review is an acceptable compromise for both parties. Cirflow (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Sugarcube and why aren't they commenting on this talk page then? If we link to Brian Morris for being a pro-circ advocate then we would have to link to Ronald Goldman (psychologist) for being an anti-circ advocate. I don't think we need to link to either in this article. I don't see how linking to Morris's wikipedia page is a compromise. We don't necessarily need to discredit Morris or Goldman as long as their source is deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that putting a link to Ronald Goldman is fair. When sources from a biased person are being added I feel that an indicator is neccesary in order to avoid UNDUE. Also, nobody seems to be arguing over Ronald Goldman not being mentioned, while there are people who are arguing that Brian Morris should be mentioned. User:Cirflow

• You are the only one arguing that Morris should be mentioned. And this may be a personal opinion but when it comes to circumcision almost all the sources are biased one way or another. We don't necessarily need to name every author. Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As a general comment, I believe that when this article went to GA Brian Morris reviews were not used, not because there was anything wrong with them particularly, but because the name was such a red rag to anti-circ activists, and equally good reviews making the same point were always available. Not using Morris just kept the peace better. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)