![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. |
This article is largely a repository for material removed from the main Circumcision article (where its purpose was argumentative) to help bring that article closer to NPOV. Tverbeek 13:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've read that based on interpretation of some Biblical verses, some historians think that ancient Egpytians only performed a dorsal slit of the foreskin rather than removing it entirely as Hebrews would start to do sometime later. Can this really be considered a circumcision though? Shouldn't they be able to tell for sure what the exact procedure was from looking at those supposedly cirumcised mummies? Anybody know? KingOfAfrica 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rho bite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (TC)
The study of the history of a subject is a legitimate separate study to the subject itself as illustrated throughout Wikipedia.
The use of the term 'junk' is wilfully offensive which merely reinforces prejudice. By failing for over 2 years to point out 'the junk', Robert seems to be admitting that he cannot and by default admitting that the content is legitimate. If so, the courtesy would be to remove the claim. Just2Jack 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Abu Hurairah is a despitued source, he has been known to have accompanined Muhammad for only three years and yet has produced a large number of Hadith's, in the neighberhood of 5,000, far more than any other companion of the prophet of Islam. His account is usually anti-women and dogs, all kidding aside, even his name in Arabic: ابو هريره means father of a kitten and it is argued that he was therefore partial against dogs. He is also mentioned as a thief and an embezzler. As a quotable source he is popular, in my opinion due to the large number of hadiths he claims to have witnessed, yet again, he only knew the prophet for 3 yrs. Again, he is popular to quote yet discredited by some, or many for that matter, myself included. -- The Brain 09:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
This article is largely a repository for material removed from the main Circumcision article (where its purpose was argumentative) to help bring that article closer to NPOV. Tverbeek 13:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rhobite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
The sources of this article is from anti-circumcision web sites. It is POV. It is selective in what it includes. It is not the edits to it which need to be justified but the inclusion of such POV junk in the first place. - Robert Brookes 00:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is now in merged form and it is much more comprehensive. It should be very NPOV because of the many viewpoints expressed. Robert Blair 12:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article has a strong anti-circumcision bias. See the references. It should be flagged as such.
24.84.40.22
18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is interesting, but long, and in many ways unrelated to the main article. Don't merge it back. -- L33tminion | (talk) 02:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
This article contains no discussion at all of the anthropology of circumcision, or its practice among many African, Australian, and Papuan groups. A history of circumcision that starts with ancient Egypt is scarcely adequate; we can be fairly confident that Australian Aborigines did not get the idea there! - Mustafaa 05:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We can be fairly confident or you? What are your objective grounds for asserting that circumcision did not migrate?
The article is incomplete. For instance it:
1. Fails to mention two of the most important figures in the history of circumcision: Abraham and Mohamed.
2. Dismisses a number of existing theories about the origins of circumcision. The fact that those theories exist makes them legitimate subjects of study in their own right. In the same way that social science has been studying beliefs and attitudes for decades.
3. Does not examine the period prior to ancient Egypt. Some may argue that the history of circumcision in pre-history is lost in the mists of time. The origins or species and the universe substantially predate circumcising. That did not deter science from seeking and discovering the origins of both.
All history is always biased. To the victor goes the spoils of war. One spoil is the power to write and re-write history in a way that is more often than not flattering to the victor. Today that may be seen in the attempts of the powerful to suppress alternative accounts and gain a record that is flattering to them.
Circumcision is an emotive subject. It has been throughout history.
Just2Jack 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
On the Circumstitions website there is a map of the United States which shows those states that do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. I provided a link to this map because it gives a clear picture of which states do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. Jake Waskett removed the link as a 'propaganda link'.
While I can understand that Jake might take that view of the web page, I see things differently. The website, of course, is against circumcision, but the map is very clear and informative, getting the information across in a particularly striking and attractive way. I think that the readers of Wikipedia are quite grown up enough to take what they want from this website, and to discard the rest. They don't need a nanny edit.
Perhaps the following wording will suffice to warn the poor unsuspecting reader that they might be exposed to blush propaganda!
See the map on this anti-circumcision website [1]. Michael Glass 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me!
Michael Glass
07:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect use of Language? Yes, there certainly is! I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.-- MrEguy 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A elephant is an elephant. There is no need to qualify that description by saying that it is intact because it still has its tusks.
A penis is a penis. There is no need to qualify that description because it still has it's foreskin.
The word 'intact' is redundant. The word 'Circumcised' is sufficient to differentiate that penises which are circumcised.
Just2Jack 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves moving some content from that page to this one (or verifying that certain content there is already represented here). Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?. -- Coppertwig 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving/copying information here from Circumcision#History of circumcision.
Repetition: In this article, a similar sentence about a decline in circumcision Greece due to not liking it appears in two places -- should probably be edited down. (I changed the wording to match Circumcision but it was already repetitive.) -- Coppertwig 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. at Circumcision is mostly a repetition of a sentence here, and I have not put it in here. -- Coppertwig 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Re childbirth in hospitals: I'm replacing this link [3] with the one from the Circumcision article, except that I'm keeping this URL, as the one from the ref there doesn't work. -- Coppertwig 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Stuff about South Korea and it being a unique case appears twice here (repetitive) and may not be precisely the same wording as at Circumcision. I'm not changing it at the moment. -- Coppertwig 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I put in stuff about whether risks are discussed, and a prevalence table, because it was in the history section at Circumcision, but there may be a better place for it than this article.
I have essentially only added/changed information to make this article contain essentially everything from the history section of Circumcision; I haven't (yet) done any other edits to this article. -- Coppertwig 01:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Need to fix formatting of references. Two different styles are mixed. -- Coppertwig 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the previous "References" section to "Bibliography", and putting the newer references that use ref tags under "References". -- Coppertwig 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
For the Pang reference (re South Korea): I couldn't get the url given at the Circumcision page to load. So I also include the cirp url within comment tags so it only shows in the wikitext. I did get the cirp url to load. Someone else can verify whether the other url loads and delete one of them, I suppose. -- Coppertwig 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked the reference list for duplicate references. -- Coppertwig 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Re this edit: [4] I think this information, if verifiable, should definitely be included in one of these articles; probably here, or perhaps at Circumcision and law or Prevalence of circumcision, except that possibly the info re Canadian health insurance can be abbreviated now that it's all the provinces -- it can be stated much more briefly, except that the info re a major hospital not permitting the operation is significant in itself and I think that sentence should be kept. It's definitely relevant information about circumcision. However, re one of the edit summaries, I think it's inaccurate to refer to circumcision as "outmoded". -- Coppertwig 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If the foreskin is infected sometimes they have to surgically remove it, but I have a feeling there are many different reasons for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.114.102 ( talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering it is of equal importance to religious male circumcision, which has its own spin off article, separating off the Medicalisation of circumcision 1850 - present day into it's own article too wouldn't be a bad idea. Particularly so, since a lot of what is in circumcision advocacy and opposition to circumcision is part of this history. I have most of the books so I could probably provide good sources too to make a good article. Better than it currently is anyway. We would then provide a short summary in the history of male circumcision page, which would improve the history of male circumcision by making it more concise and shorten it (as it is quite long). I have also suggested here: Talk:Opposition_to_circumcision#Move.2C_merge.2C_and_rename_request that if there is a new circumcision controversies article, then it could be reserved for recent controversies. Jakew has suggested the article would include non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision and HIV in Africa controversies- I don't think there are any more controversies. Anyway, what we should be trying to do is not to overlap; in other words have the same (redundant) information contained in numerous articles. Tremello22 ( talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph, which had multiple issues:
"Apart from the now obvious advantages of male circumcision as a prophylactic against AIDS, circumcision survives in protestant countries other than the United States, largely as a distiction between male members of protestant churches (circumcised) and male catholics (uncircumcised)."
1. There's no citation. 2. It's POV. The prophylactic effect against AIDS is disputed, not "obvious." 3. What "protestant countries" is this referring to? I believe today the USA is the only country in the world where the majority of Protestants circumcise. It's certainly not common among the Protestants of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or Germany. I'm not sure about Northern Ireland, but it's my understanding that circumcision has become rather rare in the UK the past several decades. - Helvetica ( talk) 03:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(Outdent) Jakew, given what I've seen of your editing and discussion on this subject, I find it quite surprising that you would be offended by being characterized as "pro-circumcision." If you say that its effectiveness against HIV infection "is not a matter of serious dispute any more," then that would imply that you're at least pro-circumcision in the context of preventing HIV. I do agree that in a debate it's generally a good idea to avoid addressing the individual so much as the issues, but when we're dealing with one person's subjective judgment, the opinion of that person on a topic is relevant. - Helvetica ( talk) 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is a less misleading map not available? To show 20-80% as one group is ridiculous. Yes, it is not inaccurate to show the US and Israel as similar to Muslim countries, South Korea and the Philippines in this regard. Indeed, religion is not at all a reliable indication what the preference is in countries other than the US: Oriental Orthodox Christians are all circumcised in Egypt and Ethiopia, they consider it a religious rule, but none are in Kerala, southwest India. And 20-80% includes many countries whose rate is far closer to zero than to 100%. It would be much more realistic to include, say, groups of 20-50% and 50-80%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.73.83 ( talk) 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The quotes "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall" are from John Anthony West who is not a reliable source for this. This [5] is a better source. As for Ankhmahor it is true that this is seen as circumcision, see above, but more recently it's been interpreted as pubic shaving. [6] Dougweller ( talk) 14:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The figure in the main article, about 55.9% of male newborn discharged from USA hospitals with a circumcision performed, as it's much higher than the number of persons reporting adscription to Moshe's law in America, and of course, of kids having a stenosis of foreskin channel: 'phimosis', requiring medical care to avoid complications, sometimes in an emergency procedure, is something not addressed at all by authors; as Exodus 20 points all connected to hebrew should have circumcision, the issue of consent and freedom in accepting foreskin cut in such a huge part of babies is important, and unexplained.
PMID 22672975, and PMID 26407411 discuss the serious dangers in 'Metzitzah B'Peh', the habitude, the 'old way', of officiant restaining kid's blood with his mouth, full with a sip of wine.
'Fellatio' was the Roman name for this, and same as 'Cunnilingus', this type of 'oral sex' was repressed among them. No data are reported about the possible lifetime psychological effects of penis manipulation in an 8 days old kid, having recovered from the delivery shock, penis reacts as any sense, single way, with genital pleasure, in this case, linked to a man, as a kid can distinguish very early the gender of those approaching them.
Circumcision, whatever its goal, is a medical procedure, to be performed only by physicians, under at least some sedation-amnesia, an anaesthetist is required for this. The American Pediatrics Academy statement was: 'Circumcision should not be a routine procedure for all male babies'. The whole case is obscure, as John 7, 22; points: 'Circumcision does not come from Moshes, but from Patriarchs', and Acts of Apostles 7, 51; remarks: 'Circumcision opened not your heart neither your ears'. Salut +
All circumcision is male. There is no other kind.
Female genital mutilation is not circumcision, and it would be helpful to stop perpetuating that mistaken term. Calling it that is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize it. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 08:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There should be something here in the last section about WHO recommending, based on studies, circumcision, for HIV prevention especially in Africa. Also, most of the comments on this talk page appear unaddressed a decade plus later.
Page reads as lacking a neutral POV as anti-c. Histories are explored (especially Greek) much more than what the page is supposed to be about. Came her to find out why so many American adult men have undergone this. Didn’t learn much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:2C69:EFFF:A501:CEA6 ( talk) 19:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The quote paragraph linked to citation 18 is not to be found on citation 18. I do not know how to fix this. The paragraph makes it appear as if the young men die from a circumcision alone, the actual article makes it clear that they die also from beatings and the fact that circumcisions are done with blood and in cleaned instruments. As presented the incorrect quote is both incorrect and biased.
The "revival" section here which uses this source compared the 9th edition from 1876 (by Baynes) to a 1910 publication.
Encyclopædia_Britannica#Edition_summary indicates this would be the 11th edition, either overseen by Chisholm (NY) or Hooper (London) Confusing: were there different versions of the 11th tailored to UK and US with two different editors? A pattern also seen for the 12th
Do we have any indication as to what was in the 10th edition (1902-1903) between these two cites?
Chisholm/Hooper worked on that too but had helpers: Wallace helped Chisholm on the NY edition and Hadley hepled Hooper on the UK one.
I notice it lists "supplement to 9th" so maybe it wasn't a full printing and got skipped for that reason? WakandaQT ( talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The figures for the United States only go up until 1975. They need to be updated to include the last ~50 years. Netside ( talk) 22:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Section #3 Ancient world includes 3.5 Medieval Judaism and 3.6 Decline in Christianity. Starting with the New Testament period the latter ends with "today". 3.5 and at least some of 3.6 should be separate sections. Mcljlm ( talk) 18:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I recently deleted false/fringe information that was in the article. (The vast majority of which was unsourced and/or from activist websites.)
If anyone objects to the deletions: feel free to ping me on talk and we can discuss. Thanks, KlayCax ( talk) 07:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that this had to be pushed into talk is a little dumb, but okay. I can somewhat understand removing Charles III and his brothers, but we should keep William and Harry as Harry confirmed in his memoir. Is this okay? @ nevesselbert Man-Man122 ( talk) 19:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Revival in the English-speaking world. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, "posthectomy" is the correct medical term. It isn't "extremely outdated and obsolete term" at all. No, it doesn't refer to both: The word
circumcision is from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around".
That is very much not just a "snip" by any definition. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a
worldwide view of the subject. |
This article is largely a repository for material removed from the main Circumcision article (where its purpose was argumentative) to help bring that article closer to NPOV. Tverbeek 13:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've read that based on interpretation of some Biblical verses, some historians think that ancient Egpytians only performed a dorsal slit of the foreskin rather than removing it entirely as Hebrews would start to do sometime later. Can this really be considered a circumcision though? Shouldn't they be able to tell for sure what the exact procedure was from looking at those supposedly cirumcised mummies? Anybody know? KingOfAfrica 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rho bite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (TC)
The study of the history of a subject is a legitimate separate study to the subject itself as illustrated throughout Wikipedia.
The use of the term 'junk' is wilfully offensive which merely reinforces prejudice. By failing for over 2 years to point out 'the junk', Robert seems to be admitting that he cannot and by default admitting that the content is legitimate. If so, the courtesy would be to remove the claim. Just2Jack 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Abu Hurairah is a despitued source, he has been known to have accompanined Muhammad for only three years and yet has produced a large number of Hadith's, in the neighberhood of 5,000, far more than any other companion of the prophet of Islam. His account is usually anti-women and dogs, all kidding aside, even his name in Arabic: ابو هريره means father of a kitten and it is argued that he was therefore partial against dogs. He is also mentioned as a thief and an embezzler. As a quotable source he is popular, in my opinion due to the large number of hadiths he claims to have witnessed, yet again, he only knew the prophet for 3 yrs. Again, he is popular to quote yet discredited by some, or many for that matter, myself included. -- The Brain 09:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
This article is largely a repository for material removed from the main Circumcision article (where its purpose was argumentative) to help bring that article closer to NPOV. Tverbeek 13:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rhobite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
The sources of this article is from anti-circumcision web sites. It is POV. It is selective in what it includes. It is not the edits to it which need to be justified but the inclusion of such POV junk in the first place. - Robert Brookes 00:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article is now in merged form and it is much more comprehensive. It should be very NPOV because of the many viewpoints expressed. Robert Blair 12:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This article has a strong anti-circumcision bias. See the references. It should be flagged as such.
24.84.40.22
18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is interesting, but long, and in many ways unrelated to the main article. Don't merge it back. -- L33tminion | (talk) 02:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
This article contains no discussion at all of the anthropology of circumcision, or its practice among many African, Australian, and Papuan groups. A history of circumcision that starts with ancient Egypt is scarcely adequate; we can be fairly confident that Australian Aborigines did not get the idea there! - Mustafaa 05:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We can be fairly confident or you? What are your objective grounds for asserting that circumcision did not migrate?
The article is incomplete. For instance it:
1. Fails to mention two of the most important figures in the history of circumcision: Abraham and Mohamed.
2. Dismisses a number of existing theories about the origins of circumcision. The fact that those theories exist makes them legitimate subjects of study in their own right. In the same way that social science has been studying beliefs and attitudes for decades.
3. Does not examine the period prior to ancient Egypt. Some may argue that the history of circumcision in pre-history is lost in the mists of time. The origins or species and the universe substantially predate circumcising. That did not deter science from seeking and discovering the origins of both.
All history is always biased. To the victor goes the spoils of war. One spoil is the power to write and re-write history in a way that is more often than not flattering to the victor. Today that may be seen in the attempts of the powerful to suppress alternative accounts and gain a record that is flattering to them.
Circumcision is an emotive subject. It has been throughout history.
Just2Jack 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
On the Circumstitions website there is a map of the United States which shows those states that do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. I provided a link to this map because it gives a clear picture of which states do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. Jake Waskett removed the link as a 'propaganda link'.
While I can understand that Jake might take that view of the web page, I see things differently. The website, of course, is against circumcision, but the map is very clear and informative, getting the information across in a particularly striking and attractive way. I think that the readers of Wikipedia are quite grown up enough to take what they want from this website, and to discard the rest. They don't need a nanny edit.
Perhaps the following wording will suffice to warn the poor unsuspecting reader that they might be exposed to blush propaganda!
See the map on this anti-circumcision website [1]. Michael Glass 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me!
Michael Glass
07:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Incorrect use of Language? Yes, there certainly is! I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.-- MrEguy 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
A elephant is an elephant. There is no need to qualify that description by saying that it is intact because it still has its tusks.
A penis is a penis. There is no need to qualify that description because it still has it's foreskin.
The word 'intact' is redundant. The word 'Circumcised' is sufficient to differentiate that penises which are circumcised.
Just2Jack 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves moving some content from that page to this one (or verifying that certain content there is already represented here). Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?. -- Coppertwig 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving/copying information here from Circumcision#History of circumcision.
Repetition: In this article, a similar sentence about a decline in circumcision Greece due to not liking it appears in two places -- should probably be edited down. (I changed the wording to match Circumcision but it was already repetitive.) -- Coppertwig 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This sentence: There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. at Circumcision is mostly a repetition of a sentence here, and I have not put it in here. -- Coppertwig 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Re childbirth in hospitals: I'm replacing this link [3] with the one from the Circumcision article, except that I'm keeping this URL, as the one from the ref there doesn't work. -- Coppertwig 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Stuff about South Korea and it being a unique case appears twice here (repetitive) and may not be precisely the same wording as at Circumcision. I'm not changing it at the moment. -- Coppertwig 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I put in stuff about whether risks are discussed, and a prevalence table, because it was in the history section at Circumcision, but there may be a better place for it than this article.
I have essentially only added/changed information to make this article contain essentially everything from the history section of Circumcision; I haven't (yet) done any other edits to this article. -- Coppertwig 01:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Need to fix formatting of references. Two different styles are mixed. -- Coppertwig 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the previous "References" section to "Bibliography", and putting the newer references that use ref tags under "References". -- Coppertwig 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
For the Pang reference (re South Korea): I couldn't get the url given at the Circumcision page to load. So I also include the cirp url within comment tags so it only shows in the wikitext. I did get the cirp url to load. Someone else can verify whether the other url loads and delete one of them, I suppose. -- Coppertwig 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I checked the reference list for duplicate references. -- Coppertwig 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Re this edit: [4] I think this information, if verifiable, should definitely be included in one of these articles; probably here, or perhaps at Circumcision and law or Prevalence of circumcision, except that possibly the info re Canadian health insurance can be abbreviated now that it's all the provinces -- it can be stated much more briefly, except that the info re a major hospital not permitting the operation is significant in itself and I think that sentence should be kept. It's definitely relevant information about circumcision. However, re one of the edit summaries, I think it's inaccurate to refer to circumcision as "outmoded". -- Coppertwig 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If the foreskin is infected sometimes they have to surgically remove it, but I have a feeling there are many different reasons for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.114.102 ( talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering it is of equal importance to religious male circumcision, which has its own spin off article, separating off the Medicalisation of circumcision 1850 - present day into it's own article too wouldn't be a bad idea. Particularly so, since a lot of what is in circumcision advocacy and opposition to circumcision is part of this history. I have most of the books so I could probably provide good sources too to make a good article. Better than it currently is anyway. We would then provide a short summary in the history of male circumcision page, which would improve the history of male circumcision by making it more concise and shorten it (as it is quite long). I have also suggested here: Talk:Opposition_to_circumcision#Move.2C_merge.2C_and_rename_request that if there is a new circumcision controversies article, then it could be reserved for recent controversies. Jakew has suggested the article would include non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision and HIV in Africa controversies- I don't think there are any more controversies. Anyway, what we should be trying to do is not to overlap; in other words have the same (redundant) information contained in numerous articles. Tremello22 ( talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph, which had multiple issues:
"Apart from the now obvious advantages of male circumcision as a prophylactic against AIDS, circumcision survives in protestant countries other than the United States, largely as a distiction between male members of protestant churches (circumcised) and male catholics (uncircumcised)."
1. There's no citation. 2. It's POV. The prophylactic effect against AIDS is disputed, not "obvious." 3. What "protestant countries" is this referring to? I believe today the USA is the only country in the world where the majority of Protestants circumcise. It's certainly not common among the Protestants of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or Germany. I'm not sure about Northern Ireland, but it's my understanding that circumcision has become rather rare in the UK the past several decades. - Helvetica ( talk) 03:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(Outdent) Jakew, given what I've seen of your editing and discussion on this subject, I find it quite surprising that you would be offended by being characterized as "pro-circumcision." If you say that its effectiveness against HIV infection "is not a matter of serious dispute any more," then that would imply that you're at least pro-circumcision in the context of preventing HIV. I do agree that in a debate it's generally a good idea to avoid addressing the individual so much as the issues, but when we're dealing with one person's subjective judgment, the opinion of that person on a topic is relevant. - Helvetica ( talk) 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is a less misleading map not available? To show 20-80% as one group is ridiculous. Yes, it is not inaccurate to show the US and Israel as similar to Muslim countries, South Korea and the Philippines in this regard. Indeed, religion is not at all a reliable indication what the preference is in countries other than the US: Oriental Orthodox Christians are all circumcised in Egypt and Ethiopia, they consider it a religious rule, but none are in Kerala, southwest India. And 20-80% includes many countries whose rate is far closer to zero than to 100%. It would be much more realistic to include, say, groups of 20-50% and 50-80%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.73.83 ( talk) 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The quotes "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall" are from John Anthony West who is not a reliable source for this. This [5] is a better source. As for Ankhmahor it is true that this is seen as circumcision, see above, but more recently it's been interpreted as pubic shaving. [6] Dougweller ( talk) 14:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The figure in the main article, about 55.9% of male newborn discharged from USA hospitals with a circumcision performed, as it's much higher than the number of persons reporting adscription to Moshe's law in America, and of course, of kids having a stenosis of foreskin channel: 'phimosis', requiring medical care to avoid complications, sometimes in an emergency procedure, is something not addressed at all by authors; as Exodus 20 points all connected to hebrew should have circumcision, the issue of consent and freedom in accepting foreskin cut in such a huge part of babies is important, and unexplained.
PMID 22672975, and PMID 26407411 discuss the serious dangers in 'Metzitzah B'Peh', the habitude, the 'old way', of officiant restaining kid's blood with his mouth, full with a sip of wine.
'Fellatio' was the Roman name for this, and same as 'Cunnilingus', this type of 'oral sex' was repressed among them. No data are reported about the possible lifetime psychological effects of penis manipulation in an 8 days old kid, having recovered from the delivery shock, penis reacts as any sense, single way, with genital pleasure, in this case, linked to a man, as a kid can distinguish very early the gender of those approaching them.
Circumcision, whatever its goal, is a medical procedure, to be performed only by physicians, under at least some sedation-amnesia, an anaesthetist is required for this. The American Pediatrics Academy statement was: 'Circumcision should not be a routine procedure for all male babies'. The whole case is obscure, as John 7, 22; points: 'Circumcision does not come from Moshes, but from Patriarchs', and Acts of Apostles 7, 51; remarks: 'Circumcision opened not your heart neither your ears'. Salut +
All circumcision is male. There is no other kind.
Female genital mutilation is not circumcision, and it would be helpful to stop perpetuating that mistaken term. Calling it that is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize it. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 08:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There should be something here in the last section about WHO recommending, based on studies, circumcision, for HIV prevention especially in Africa. Also, most of the comments on this talk page appear unaddressed a decade plus later.
Page reads as lacking a neutral POV as anti-c. Histories are explored (especially Greek) much more than what the page is supposed to be about. Came her to find out why so many American adult men have undergone this. Didn’t learn much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:2C69:EFFF:A501:CEA6 ( talk) 19:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The quote paragraph linked to citation 18 is not to be found on citation 18. I do not know how to fix this. The paragraph makes it appear as if the young men die from a circumcision alone, the actual article makes it clear that they die also from beatings and the fact that circumcisions are done with blood and in cleaned instruments. As presented the incorrect quote is both incorrect and biased.
The "revival" section here which uses this source compared the 9th edition from 1876 (by Baynes) to a 1910 publication.
Encyclopædia_Britannica#Edition_summary indicates this would be the 11th edition, either overseen by Chisholm (NY) or Hooper (London) Confusing: were there different versions of the 11th tailored to UK and US with two different editors? A pattern also seen for the 12th
Do we have any indication as to what was in the 10th edition (1902-1903) between these two cites?
Chisholm/Hooper worked on that too but had helpers: Wallace helped Chisholm on the NY edition and Hadley hepled Hooper on the UK one.
I notice it lists "supplement to 9th" so maybe it wasn't a full printing and got skipped for that reason? WakandaQT ( talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The figures for the United States only go up until 1975. They need to be updated to include the last ~50 years. Netside ( talk) 22:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Section #3 Ancient world includes 3.5 Medieval Judaism and 3.6 Decline in Christianity. Starting with the New Testament period the latter ends with "today". 3.5 and at least some of 3.6 should be separate sections. Mcljlm ( talk) 18:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I recently deleted false/fringe information that was in the article. (The vast majority of which was unsourced and/or from activist websites.)
If anyone objects to the deletions: feel free to ping me on talk and we can discuss. Thanks, KlayCax ( talk) 07:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The fact that this had to be pushed into talk is a little dumb, but okay. I can somewhat understand removing Charles III and his brothers, but we should keep William and Harry as Harry confirmed in his memoir. Is this okay? @ nevesselbert Man-Man122 ( talk) 19:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Revival in the English-speaking world. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, "posthectomy" is the correct medical term. It isn't "extremely outdated and obsolete term" at all. No, it doesn't refer to both: The word
circumcision is from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around".
That is very much not just a "snip" by any definition. ‑‑
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)