This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Circumcision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions
Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, 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. |
Circumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 |
Sample PubMed |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Toolbox |
---|
This article claims that circumcision is common in Australia, but that is no longer the case. According to the Australian government, only about 10% of new borns go through the procedure https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/circumcision 49.199.181.240 ( talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Should we re-add ethics to the lead? We previously agreed in past discussions on having controversies like bioethics included in the lead. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @ Prcc27:. Where are you getting the notion that there's a present consensus to include it in the lead? KlayCax ( talk) 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It appears we have a consensus that controversy/ethics should be included in the lead. We may need to get a stronger consensus on what that wording should actually be though. The theologian wording seems to not have much support. There used to be a sentence on bioethics (i.e. major medical organizations hold “widely variant perspectives on the bioethics” of circumcision) so that could be an option as well. If I am not mistaken, isn’t KlayCax the person that came up with “there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision”? Seems like a reasonable compromise, unless/until we can expand on and improve the wording. Prcc27 ( talk) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The article states that:
"There is a consensus among the world's major medical organizations and in the academic literature that circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in high-risk populations if carried out by medical professionals under safe conditions." While this might be true for some time or for the world's major medical organization, there is certainly no consensus in the academic literature. Quite the contrary actually. The 3 studies used by the WHO are now highly controversials and have raised significant questions regarding methodology and ethics while one could easily find hundreds of literature stating that circumcision has little to no effects on HIV prevention :
Here is a very small list of research finding male genital surgery did not reduce HIV risk or even increased risk for heterosexual men and women. I could add dozens more:
Chao, 1994 - male circumcision significantly increased risk to women
Auvert, 2001 - 68% higher odds of HIV infection among men who were circumcised (just below statistical significance)
Thomas, 2004 - circumcision offered no protection to men in the Navy
Connelly, 2005 - circumcision offered no protection to black men, and only insignificant protection for white men
Wawer, 2009 - the only RCT on M-to-F HIV transmission found male circumcision increased risk to women by 60%
Westercamp, 2010 - circumcision offered no protection to men in Kenya
Darby, 2011 - circumcision offered no benefit in Australia
Brewer, 2011 - youth who were circumcised were at greater risk of HIV in Mozambique
Rodriguez-Diaz, 2012 - circumcision correlated with 27% increased risk of HIV (P = 0.02) and higher risks for other STIs in men visiting STI clinics in Puerto Rico
Nayan, 2021 - circumcision offers no protection to men in Ontario
Frisch, 2021 - in Denmark, a national cohort study reveals circumcision provided no protection against HIV or other STIs
It could be also useful to mention that the advertised promotion of VMMC for HIV prevention has also some contrary effects, leading men to have unprotected sexual relationships leaded by the beliefs that they would be protected thanks to their circumcision : Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men demand unprotected sex from HIV positive pregnant prostitute Sept. 2014: Uganda: Circumcision Promoting Risky Behaviour Oct. 2012: Malawi: Men more likely to practice unsafe sex after circumcision
This is definitely not what one could call a scientific consensus.
Petrarco123 (
talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Circumcision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Frequently asked questions
Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, 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. |
Circumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.
|
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 |
Sample PubMed |
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Toolbox |
---|
This article claims that circumcision is common in Australia, but that is no longer the case. According to the Australian government, only about 10% of new borns go through the procedure https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/circumcision 49.199.181.240 ( talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Should we re-add ethics to the lead? We previously agreed in past discussions on having controversies like bioethics included in the lead. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @ Prcc27:. Where are you getting the notion that there's a present consensus to include it in the lead? KlayCax ( talk) 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It appears we have a consensus that controversy/ethics should be included in the lead. We may need to get a stronger consensus on what that wording should actually be though. The theologian wording seems to not have much support. There used to be a sentence on bioethics (i.e. major medical organizations hold “widely variant perspectives on the bioethics” of circumcision) so that could be an option as well. If I am not mistaken, isn’t KlayCax the person that came up with “there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision”? Seems like a reasonable compromise, unless/until we can expand on and improve the wording. Prcc27 ( talk) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The article states that:
"There is a consensus among the world's major medical organizations and in the academic literature that circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in high-risk populations if carried out by medical professionals under safe conditions." While this might be true for some time or for the world's major medical organization, there is certainly no consensus in the academic literature. Quite the contrary actually. The 3 studies used by the WHO are now highly controversials and have raised significant questions regarding methodology and ethics while one could easily find hundreds of literature stating that circumcision has little to no effects on HIV prevention :
Here is a very small list of research finding male genital surgery did not reduce HIV risk or even increased risk for heterosexual men and women. I could add dozens more:
Chao, 1994 - male circumcision significantly increased risk to women
Auvert, 2001 - 68% higher odds of HIV infection among men who were circumcised (just below statistical significance)
Thomas, 2004 - circumcision offered no protection to men in the Navy
Connelly, 2005 - circumcision offered no protection to black men, and only insignificant protection for white men
Wawer, 2009 - the only RCT on M-to-F HIV transmission found male circumcision increased risk to women by 60%
Westercamp, 2010 - circumcision offered no protection to men in Kenya
Darby, 2011 - circumcision offered no benefit in Australia
Brewer, 2011 - youth who were circumcised were at greater risk of HIV in Mozambique
Rodriguez-Diaz, 2012 - circumcision correlated with 27% increased risk of HIV (P = 0.02) and higher risks for other STIs in men visiting STI clinics in Puerto Rico
Nayan, 2021 - circumcision offers no protection to men in Ontario
Frisch, 2021 - in Denmark, a national cohort study reveals circumcision provided no protection against HIV or other STIs
It could be also useful to mention that the advertised promotion of VMMC for HIV prevention has also some contrary effects, leading men to have unprotected sexual relationships leaded by the beliefs that they would be protected thanks to their circumcision : Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men demand unprotected sex from HIV positive pregnant prostitute Sept. 2014: Uganda: Circumcision Promoting Risky Behaviour Oct. 2012: Malawi: Men more likely to practice unsafe sex after circumcision
This is definitely not what one could call a scientific consensus.
Petrarco123 (
talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)