This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
Foreskin-based medical and consumer products[edit]
Foreskins obtained from circumcision procedures are frequently used by biochemical and micro-anatomical researchers to study the structure and proteins of human skin. In particular, foreskins obtained from newborns have been found to be useful in the manufacturing of more human skin.[55] Human growth factors derived from newborns' foreskins are used to make a commercial anti-wrinkle skin cream, TNS Recovery Complex.[56](subscription required) Foreskins of babies are also used for skin graft tissue,[57][58][59] and for β-interferon-based drugs.[60] Foreskin fibroblasts have been used in biomedical research.[61]
This section above,currently in the foreskin article really belongs here in the circumcision article, as these uses of foreskins arise from circumcision and not from the simple existence of foreskins. (Also the long section in the foreskin article that at least references the arguments about sexual pleasure for men and women with and without a foreskin attached belongs here too. !)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 07:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)I'll take this response to mean that once again there will be no satisfactory sources forthcoming.
Zad
68
02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
After hospital circumcision, the foreskin may be used in biomedical research,[14] consumer skin-care products,[15] skin grafts,[16][17][18] or β-interferon-based drugs.[19] In parts of Africa, the foreskin may be dipped in brandy and eaten by the patient, eaten by the circumciser, or fed to animals.[20] According to Jewish law, after a Brit milah, the foreskin should be buried.[21]
Zad
68
13:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The assertions that one would need reliable secondary sources to talk about the cutting edge of research made possible by circumcision, is, of course, absurd.
I agree, it seems like a case of, 'I don't want to, and you can't make me'. Not exactly in line with the founding principles, and rather constricting of information. Tftobin ( talk) 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/10/04/circoncision-religieuse-israel-condamne-une-resolution-du-conseil-de-l-europe_3490410_3224.html--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 01:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Google News search on search term "Council of Europe circumcision". ← ZScarpia 09:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/israel-court-fines-woman-refusing-circumcise-son
Is this worthy of inclusion in this circumcision article ? - I believe that it is. It is yet another indication that circumcision is cultural and political rather than medical.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 09:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Here are some newspapers and news agencies who have covered this landmark case for your perusal and that of other interested editors too. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/and-finally/woman-fined-over-noncircumcision-29793251.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/woman-fined-nis-500day-for-failing-to-circumcise-son/
http://rt.com/news/israeli-woman-fined-circumcise-346/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.560245
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201311262130-0023216
et cetera et cetera.
Perhaps this case belongs in a new "legal ramifications" section for the article, or a new "forced circumcision " section. What do other editors think ? Anybody care/dare to propose a wording -or care/dare be bold (as we are enjoined to do by WP) and go ahead and edit it in ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)This stupid woman obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article on circumcision, or she'd know that she's robbing her son of virtual immortality. I'm surprised they didn't hang her. Formerip ( talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It may be necessary to take our concerns over at the circumcision talk page to Dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't think those arguing with us are willing to budge. Most of the remarks made by supporters of the current state of the article say things along the lines of, "it's fine as it is" or "I agree with Zad". Obviously we won't be making much headway with editors posting nothing but countenance for the existing revision without any arguments regarding our concerns. Let me know your feelings on this. ScienceApe ( talk) 14:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
DID MOVE------------------------------------
The circumcision article, as it stands, has to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. While it may seem neutral to some, it actually reflects the pro-circumcision culture of its editors.
The requirements that medical articles references be no more than five years old and be secondary sources eliminates many fine articles. It seems to be that the solution might be to have two articles - a pro-circumcision article and a pro-genital integrity article.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
1/ you may be in contravention of guidelines
2/ you may damage your own line of argument by reductionist contempt for the arguments made by other editors or what articles or subjects they choose to work on.
3/you invite such consideration of your own edit history.
On this latter point Plot Spoiler - your editing history interest in Pogroms, Arab Nuclear Power and the Middle East might lead an editor ( your own line of thought/attack) to form conclusions about links between you,fellow travellers, and a blanket pro circumcision stance. I largely try to avoid drawing conclusions even when observing patterns of individual editing or patterns of groups of editors who each pile into article talk pages to defend each others gate keeping of article content. Lets try instead to answer the points raised by each other instead. Forced circumcisions of non compliant adults(sometimes resulting in death), sale (or ritual disposal) of cut off foreskins (which are procured only through circumcision), and deaths or lifelong compromised health of children from oral genital contact with agents of a genital cutting religion in NYC are lacking any mention in the article, and yet a questionable halted study about adult circumcision and HIV in a region of one african country features in the lead of the article.
No one is denying that all four of these things happen. To quote Editor/Admin Zad/Zach "The presence of something in an article is a message to the reader that it is somehow connected and relevant." These deaths and activities ARE connected strongly to the practice of circumcision and relevant to consideration of it.
What we need to decide is how best to mention them in the article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 10:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is the rigid application of rules and the lack of any common sense.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means
The United States of America has a culture of circumcision. The medical articles published in the United States reflect that culture rather than medical science and tend to be biased in favor of circumcision. Articles published in non-US journals have a different tone.
Circumcised medical editors also tend to be biased in favor of circumcision and cannot even recognize their personal bias. It is extremely difficult to write about circumcision objectively because of the interplay of psychological, social, and sexual factors.
http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm#
The position statement by the AAP is designed to get more money into the pockets of doctors - pure and simple. Using that statement blindly is not good editing. It has been ripped apart by others but it still being blindly used as a supreme authority here.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-12_Svoboda-VanHowe.pdf
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-18_Frisch%20et%20al.pdf
There is abundant evidence in medical journals that male circumcision adversely affects male and female sexuality however the circumcision article provides the opposite information, based on a circumcision promotional article published by a group of doctors (the AAP) who pocket money from doing circumcision. There are 72 articles indexed on this page, the vast majority of which indicate sexual problems from circumcision but the Wikipedia article indicates the opposite.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
Obviously, something is wrong.
Wikipedia is published in many languages and so there are circumcision articles in several languages. They have an entirely different tone. There is something wrong with the English language article. For example, this passage from the Spanish Wikipedia has information that is excluded from the English version:
Posiciones de las organizaciones de salud sobre la circuncisión[editar · editar código]
"La Sociedad Sueca de Pediatría,16 la British Association of Paediatric Urologists17 la Sociedad Suiza de Cirugía Pediátrica18 y la Sociedad Alemana de Cirugía Pediátrica19 protestaron contra la circuncisión no terapéutica de los niños, destacando la ausencia de beneficios médicos, los riesgos de complicaciones y problemas relacionados con la ética y la integridad personal."
There aren't enough secondary sources in the medical literature that have been published in the last five years, so it is necessary to use older sources that are still valid and some primary sources. But that is not being done and the circumcision article stinks.
I reiterate my statement that this is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 18:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)As a side note, linking to an illegal copyright-violating copy of a source anywhere, whether at an activist website like cirp.org or not, is not allowed, see
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links_2. All such links to cirp.org and all other sites need to come out of all articles.
Zad
68
03:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I am actually beginning to think that there is indeed a bias on the part of Zad and other contributors that support him. He's being obstinate in regards to changes I have proposed that are from the source that is already cited in the article. The citation points out clear problems with the conclusion it reached in regards to sexual sensitivity as a result of circumcision, but Zad is unwilling to mention those problems in the lead. This is not acceptable, to leave out the problems of a conclusion a study has reached spins a preconceived bias. ScienceApe ( talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.[10] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11][12] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV-2 infections by 28%,[13] and is associated with reduced oncogenic HPV prevalence[14] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer,[5] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.[2][15] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications.[16] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[16][17]
This entire paragraph should be excised. There's really no reason for it to be in the intro as it adds too much information to the intro which should just be an overview of the various positions that different entities take on circumcision.
"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function."
This line is also using weasel words, and is highly subjective, citation or not. ScienceApe ( talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I fail to understand the point you are attempting to make this time 8211. Please elucidate. JUst because an editor is around a while is no reason to excuse poor behaviour. But polemics applied to improving the article is what we do here on the article talk pages and is to be commended not chastised !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope that I do not appear to be obsessive generally but rather simply intent on improving the article. If the article or editing causes such a strong response perhaps taking a break is no harm.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
well said Mr T.-I find, Taylornat, that editors who merrily provide policy references at the drop of a hat instead of directly addressing article improvement suggestions have often only the scantiest notion of the wording and intent of those policies. Citing policy titles is a poor substitute for collaborative work on making this sorry article better. Your choice of actually referring to the wording of the section of the policy is more useful.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Actually yes it is, I actually already looked at the original source which this article btw fails to link to even though it's on the internet. The source does clarify what it meant by "sexual function" because that by itself is weaseling. The article states the following:
"The literature review does not support the belief that male circumcision adversely affects penile sexual function or sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction, regardless of how these factors are defined.
Sexual Satisfaction and Sensitivity Literature since 1995 includes 2 good-quality randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of adult circumcision on sexual satisfaction and sensitivity in Uganda and Kenya, respectively.126,127 Among 5000 Ugandan participants, circumcised men reported significantly less pain on intercourse than uncircumcised men.126 At 2 years’ postcircumcision, sexual satisfaction had increased significantly from baseline measures in the control group (from 98% at baseline to 99.9%); satisfaction levels remained stable among the circumcised men (98.5% at baseline, 98.4% 2 years after the procedure). This study included no measures of time to ejaculation or sensory changes on the penis. In the Kenyan study (which had a nearly identical design and similar results), 64% of circumcised men reported much greater penile sensitivity postcircumcision.127 At the 2-year follow-up, 55% of circumcised men reported having an easier time reaching orgasm than they had precircumcision, although the findings did not reach statistical significance. The studies’ limitation is that the outcomes of interest were subjective, self-reported measures rather than objective measures.
Other studies in the area of function, sensation, and satisfaction have been less rigorous in design, and they fail to provide evidence that the circumcised penis has decreased sensitivity compared with the uncircumcised penis. There is both good and fair evidence that no statistically significant differences exist between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction.128–131 Sensation end points in these studies included subjective touch and pain sensation, response to the International Index of Erectile Function, the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory, pudendal nerve evoked potentials, and Intravaginal Ejaculatory Latency Times (IELTs).
There is fair evidence that men circumcised as adults demonstrate a higher threshold for light touch sensitivity with a static monofilament compared with uncircumcised men; these findings failed to attain statistical significance for most locations on the penis, however, and it is unclear that sensitivity to static monofilament (as opposed to dynamic stimulus) has any relevance to sexual satisfaction.132 There is fair evidence from a cross-sectional study of Korean men of decreased masturbatory pleasure after adult circumcision.133
Sexual Function There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men.131,134–136 There is fair evidence that no significant difference exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual function, as assessed by using the IELT.129
Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.
So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. I suggest there be a separate section on this. ScienceApe ( talk) 19:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For the wording itself, the article uses pretty much the same phrasing the sources use. The sources cited say:
Zad
68
04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)The citation for the sentence in the lead and the body of the text concerning sexual function is Footnote 18. This footnote details that the AAP Technical Report "addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision". It also clearly indicates that the findings of the other three sources are applicable only to adult males. I haven't looked at the Technical Report since March of this year or thereabouts. Is the summary of its findings contained in the footnote contested here? Or is it deemed insufficient, by some, as a source to support the current statements about sexual function without an age qualification? FiachraByrne ( talk) 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Male circumcision (from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around") [1] is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis. [2] [3] About one-third of males worldwide are circumcised. [1] [4] The procedure is most prevalent in the Muslim world and Israel (where it is near-universal), the United States and parts of Southeast Asia and Africa; it is relatively rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa and most of Asia. [1] The origin of circumcision is not known with certainty; the oldest documentary evidence for it comes from ancient Egypt. [1] Various theories have been proposed as to its origin, including as a religious sacrifice and as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood. [5] It is part of religious law in Judaism [6] and is an established practice in Islam, Coptic Christianity and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. [1] [7] [8] [9]
In a typical procedure, the foreskin is opened and then separated from the glans after inspection. The circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is removed. Topical or locally injected anesthesia may be used to reduce pain and physiologic stress. [10] For adults, general anesthesia is an option, and the procedure is often performed without a specialized circumcision device. The procedure is most often elected for religious reasons or personal preferences, [1] but may be indicated for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons. It is a treatment option for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs); [2] [11] it is contraindicated in cases of certain genital structure abnormalities or poor general health. [3] [11]
The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure. [12] Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. [13] [14]
There is evidence that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men.. [15] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa, [16] [17] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV. [16] Circumcision reduces the incidence of herpes simplex virus-2 infections, [18] and is associated with reduced oncogenic human papilloma virus prevalence [19] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer, [10] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions. [2] [20] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. Circumcisions performed by medical providers has a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications. [4] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited. [4] [21] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function. [22]
Zad
68
13:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Here is what the WP:LEAD that a number of editors have referred to says:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
I have highlighted the word "challenge"; it appears four times in that paragraph!
This is of course insane. If Wikipedia were an encyclopedia, which it is not, references would be given as appropriate, but not at the cost of making a text a horrid, unreadable mess. And that's what the paragraph in its current position is, though it would not be out of place much further down in the body of the text.
Instead, the "policy" betrays the true nature of Wikipedia as a Massive Multiple Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG). They are crawling all over Wikipedia, bands of fighters and lone wolves, all bent on planting their flag on top of the hill and blowing away the opposition. Wikipedia's policies are the rule book that tells the players what to do and not to do, on pain of being expelled from the game.
All in the service of enriching Jimbo Wales, with his $50k speaking fees, and serving as a shining example of turning what used to be paid jobs into free labor, which is why the corporations are so eager to pony up the $50k to hear Jimbo speak: he tells them how it's done.
Fuck Wikipedia, and fuck every shiny happy little Wikipedian. 82.113.121.160 ( talk) 04:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why the article is organized the way that it is currently. The article seems to be denigrating the importance of the religious aspects of circumcision when circumcision has been practiced throughout history primarily for religious purposes, not medical purposes. But yet the History and Society and Culture sections are down at the bottom of the page. The article seems to be pushing a POV about the medical aspects throughout, giving it undue weight. Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight ScienceApe ( talk) 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Cites | Authors | Title | Year | Source | GSRank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1605 | B Auvert, D Taljaard, E Lagarde, J Sobngwi-Tambekou | Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial | 2005 | PLoS medicine | 1 | |
1412 | RH Gray, G Kigozi, D Serwadda, F Makumbi, S Watya… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 2 | |
1447 | RC Bailey, S Moses, CB Parker, K Agot, I Maclean… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 3 | |
537 | HA Weiss, MA Quigley, RJ Hayes | Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2000 | Aids | 4 | |
614 | X Castellsagué, FX Bosch, N Munoz… | Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners | 2002 | New England journal … | 5 | |
237 | DT Halperin, RC Bailey | Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting | 1999 | The Lancet | 6 | |
216 | S Moses, JE Bradley, NJD Nagelkerke, AR Ronald… | Geographical patterns of male circumcision practices in Africa: association with HIV seroprevalence | 1990 | International journal of … | 7 | |
290 | S Moses, RC Bailey, AR Ronald | Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks | 1998 | Sexually transmitted infections | 8 | |
221 | J Bongaarts, P Reining, P Way, F Conant | The relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection in African populations | 1989 | Aids | 9 | |
227 | R Szabo, RV Short | How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? | 2000 | BMJ | 10 | |
293 | BG Williams, JO Lloyd-Smith, E Gouws, C Hankins… | The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa | 2006 | PLoS Medicine | 11 | |
273 | HA Weiss, SL Thomas, SK Munabi… | Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2006 | Sexually Transmitted … | 12 | |
324 | AAR Tobian, D Serwadda, TC Quinn… | Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis | 2009 | … England Journal of … | 13 | |
229 | RH Gray, N Kiwanuka, TC Quinn, NK Sewankambo… | Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda | 2000 | Aids | 14 | |
365 | N Siegfried, M Muller, J Volmink, J Deeks, M Egger… | Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Review) | 2007 | 15 | ||
152 | SJ Reynolds, ME Shepherd, AR Risbud… | Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India | 2004 | The Lancet | 16 | |
231 | N Westercamp, RC Bailey | Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review | 2007 | AIDS and Behavior | 17 | |
144 | B Donovan, I Bassett, NJ Bodsworth | Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting | 1994 | Genitourinary medicine" | 18 | |
162 | B Auvert, J Sobngwi-Tambekou… | Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm | 2009 | Journal of Infectious ... | 19 | |
139 | B Auvert, A Buve, E Lagarde, M Kahindo, J Chege… | Male circumcision and HIV infection in four cities in sub-Saharan Africa | 2001 | Aids | 20 |
Zad
68
01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I asked you if you think the medical reasons for circumcision are more important than the religious reasons?(emphasis added)-- you're asking me what I think. I ignored the question before and again now because it's irrelevant. What you or I think doesn't matter. Historically it has been shown that allowing development of this article's content to be directed by the personal views of editors is unsuccessful. The only thing that matters is Wikipedia policy applied to the sourcing. It is the only approach to development of an article such as this one that can result in content that complies with the WP:NPOV pillar and stays relatively stable, as this article has been for almost a year now.
Zad
68
14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
We organize medical articles per WP:MEDMOS and reference them per WP:MEDRS. Both these are consensus. And this article currently follows both as it should. We have an article on Religious male circumcision and it can be organized differently. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The cited source for this claim is " Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review", which seems to cite this claim from " Psychological trauma of circumcision in the phallic period could be avoided by using topical steroids." The latter has been cited twice while the former has been cited five times. So aside from the fact that it's psychoanalytic nonsense, it doesn't really seem noteworthy enough to include here. Nosewings ( talk) 22:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I find this extremely wierd. One reason is that it can be much easier to publish about some things than other things, and then there will be more publications just because it is easier to publish about that. Another reason is that controversial topics tend to generate a lot of publications. If something is well accepted and not controversial there are often less publications about that, but just because something is controversial it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Considering circumcision I think it is pretty obvious that the medical aspect is very controversial, so of course a lot of the publications are about the medical aspect. There are also tons of opportunities to do medical research on circumcision, and medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects of circumcision. How are you supposed to do research upon the legal/moral aspect of circumcision anyhow? Probably there are much more medical publications than legal/moral publications simply because there are much more opportunities to do medical research and publish about it. I also don't necessarily think you can solve the moral/legal problem with circumcision by doing research. What kind of research can possibly prove that infant mutilation is immoral? What kind of research can prove that theft, murder and rape is immoral? Are there lots of publications about the morality of theft/murder/rape? I doubt it, because it is not very controversial wheter is is immoral or not, and because you can't do research to prove if a thing is immoral or not. 84.210.15.173 ( talk) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)I made this argument before, that this is clearly a case of Ignore all rules. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. While wikipedia's rules for giving weight to the amount of citations is a good rule of thumb, it clearly does not apply here. It's not a far fetched guess to make that people are gaming wikipedia's rules to push a pro-circumcision bias under the auspices that the medical benefits support their pre-conceived biases. This is unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Circumcision is performed for religious and cultural reasons, and as such the article should give weight to that rather than the medical purposes. ScienceApe ( talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been a series of edits today that do not appear to improve the article's use of the sources, and so were reverted by myself and
Jmh649. The latest edit was
this, it modified "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." in the lead and in the body to state instead, According to the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.(citing four sources) Despite the AAP's positive stance on the procedure, their policy states that the "health benefits (of circumcision) are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."(citing the AAP policy statement). The issue with this proposed change are that 1) The current article content is cited to four sources, not just the AAP Technical Report, and the proposed edit misrepresents the sourcing by making it appear as only the AAP is stating this and giving undue weight to the AAP's policy statement that is not cited anywhere in the article currently; 2) It makes it appear as if the entire cost/benefit analysis being done is based on sex effects, which is not true; 3) The lack of recommendation of routine use of the procedure on neonates is not just the position of the AAP but of medical organizations worldwide, the article already covers this where it says "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males" and sourced to Bolnick, calling out the AAP here only again is redundant and is undue weight on the AAP.
Zad
68
13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to effectively highlight the fact that the damage circumcision does to men's sexual experiences (both physical and psychological) are highly disputed. It seems to only have references to a limited set of studies, performed by the AAP (which is often discredited due to its pro-circumcision biases [23]), with a weak statement of "doesn't seem to". There are many reports and studies that find circumcision reduces sensitivity and hinders sexual function as well as causing a number of psychological issue early and later in life [24] [25] [26] [27]. While I'm not saying the article should state that circumcision definitively does do damage, I think it is important to reference several sources and highlight the fact that many studies have shown circumcision has potentially negative side effect on sensitivity, sexual function, and psychological well being. The section seems very glossed over though it really is a component of the topic that is incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pod1989 ( talk • contribs)
I also pointed this out, that there were clear problems with the conclusions drawn, which were even highlighted by the ones who conducted the study.
Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.
So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. ScienceApe ( talk) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay I will put forth a suggestion. Source gives this as a summary of the quality of evidence regarding sexual function "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" [6] I guess we could add a summary of this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)I decided to see what popped with MEDRS filters on this topic (search terms: circumcision pleasure) after looking for a ref I needed in another article - the only thing that popped up was this, [29] a meta-analytic literature review which seems to support the material in the article. Might be worth adding, since it wasn't used as a source. [29] Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
References
WHO_2007_GTDPSA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lissauer_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).rudolph_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).weiss_2010_complications
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).alanis_2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).glass_1999
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Columbia_encyc_2011_circ
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).clark_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sawyer_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AAP_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).hay_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bolnick_2012_ch1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).caga-anan_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pinto_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).siegfried_Cochrane_2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).uthman_2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WHO_HIV_2007
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).wetmore_2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).hpv_prevalence
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ACS_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AAFP_2007
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sexual_function
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
DISCUSSION:
We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
SUMMARY:
Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I know we're all about properly sourced studies, but the conclusion seems obvious to me. Like most men in the US, I'm circumcised. Above the cut line, on the remaining inner foreskin, I have lots of sexual sensation. Immediately below the cut line, I have none. The shortest inner foreskin I've seen is 2 inches and the longest, at least 6 inches. Residual inner foreskin is typically 1.5" or less, depending on the style of the cut. If it's fair to assume that the nerve endings of the inner foreskin are evenly distributed (and based on my anecdotal experience as an older gay man that's encountered a rather large sample set of uncircumcised penises, this is a reasonable assumption), could we not say with certainty that losing any part of it represents a net loss in sensitivity? This isn't even accounting for the vast drop in glans sensitivity, without which none of us could wear underwear. Am I the only one who feels this way?
It seems to me that these studies are focused on very narrow definitions of what comprises sexual performance and satisfaction. (This is not unique to sexual studies; anyone proclaimed 'fully recovered' after an accident might take issue with that phrase.) If you only measured whether orgasm could be attained, you might easily conclude a penis wasn't even necessary. Likewise, when an individual compensates for a loss of sensitivity with a rough, high-friction grip, is it fair to say the experience is the same as if the shaft had four touching surfaces of sensitive, movable foreskin? My impression of the results of these 'it doesn't matter' studies is as a negative indictment of their methodology rather than a statement of empirical fact. Desinos ( talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A NPOV dicussion has been added to the NPOV Noticeboard regarding the content disputes found here. ScienceApe ( talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The criteria for removing the POV tag are: (from
Template:POV/doc#When_to_remove)
"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever:
As their is ongoing discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, these criteria have not been met; the tag should remove until those discussions are formally closed or become quiescent. NE Ent 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
As covered at the
WP:AN discussion
here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular
Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point" so the repeated re-adding of the article-wide tag is editing against consensus as evaluated by an outside administrator. Also the NPOV tag template documentation states "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." and as the NPOVN discussion states explicitly that the argument being made is ignoring the weight given in the reliable sourcing, this criterion isn't met.
Zad
68
14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ? Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have stated for thousands of years that one of the purposes of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
When I compare this article with the one in the German Wikipedia, I miss some topics.
For instance the whole subject of "not as good effects", as often occurring Meatostenosis or the loss of most Meissner's corpuscle.
I think wide parts of that do not have the NPOV. This should be marked on the article page, and not in the talk page. 77.64.179.160 ( talk) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that English Wikipedia has much higher standards for sourcing, especially for biomedical information. Please see
WP:MEDRS.
Zad
68
20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)If we are omitting key information by over zealous and partial application of the Med edit guidelines and fetishising on the recently published here perhaps we should say not that our standards here are higher but that they are certainly different or that our agenda is as currently exercised.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the protection that User:John Reaves has put on the page. No one has been making any content changes to the article. The sole purpose of that protection is to prevent anyone from putting a NPOV template on the article even though there's a NPOV discussion going on right now. This is unacceptable, and abuse of admin powers. ScienceApe ( talk) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
More experienced editors assure me that having a "See Also" section in an article such as this one is not cool and they will not countenance it. I disagree and think an exception should be made. However as this is unlikely to fly-there are so many such related articles that I wonder is there a need for a map or Tony Buzan-like family tree illustrating these articles or some other way of showing their availability other than refs buried in the text body of the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 11:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There's this, which is placed at the bottom of the article. FiachraByrne ( talk) 12:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A third resource that will provide what you're requesting is
Category:Circumcision.
Zad
68
More edit warring over the POV tag, more protection. It follows this edit by Alexbrn; I couldn't disagree more with them (I believe there is a POV issue identified on the talk page, and in one of Hans's edit summaries) or with Doc James's earlier edit summary, but as an admin I am not allowed to pick and choose which version to protect, and waiting until Hans or someone else reverts is dishonest. Besides, we're going for a walk in a minute.
Anyway, full protection for a week. Maybe an RfC is called for. Maybe you should call Jimbo (I believe he gave out his cell number?) and ask him to step in (was that dumb painting of him made with a circumcised cock?) Yes, you all really should work this out. Tone down the rhetoric and try to see it from the other's perspective. Drmies ( talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen a single argument why some people think they have the right to mutilate other bodies without their adult consent. Children are obviously not mature enough to know wheter it is a good or bad idea to become mutilated. Children can also easily be manipulated into doing stupid things simply by offering them candies. I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies. Fortunately that is illegal. By the same reasoning it should oviously be illegal to mutilate children, because we don't know what children are going to think when they grow up. I am sure there are tons of people that feel like their rights were violated when they were mutilated as children. I think physical mutilation of children is just as seriously wrong as sexual abuse of children. Leave the kids alone, and stop this nonsensical propaganda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) revised 13 Jan
The term mutilation is often used on this topic in other contexts ( Female_genital_mutilation) and the term is applied regularly to male circumcision in Europe, so its not neccisarily a POV issue for him to use that term here. Mutilation is a significant POV, particularly outside of the US, but we do require WP:RS to satisfy WP:V. Advocacy groups in the US and Europe are acceptable only to document that "person X said Y" - so one would need high-quality medical or media sources to bring into the article (which I would think it should be no problem to find due to how common this POV outside the US) Wikipedia does not edit on what is "right" or "moral", as there are many opinions about what "right" and "moral" actually is. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That pesky global Jewish conspiracy again. FYI, this kind of comment does absolutely nothing to persuade others. If you want to change the article, find some reliable sources ( WP:MEDRS) and then seek consensus via the talk page. Otherwise, kindly do not waste others' time by posting your own opinions here. Lesion ( talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The answer is the same as the last dozen or so time you have brought up these same things. Wikipedia does cover these topics at
Ethics of circumcision,
Forced circumcision,
Foreskin and
Brit milah respectively. This article is a
WP:SUMMARY-style overview of the main points of the topic, per the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing; once again you are directed to please see
WP:NPOV for an explanation. Not every last bit of detail about every aspect of the topic will be covered in the main overview article in a summary-style constellation of articles. What goes where and with what emphasis is determined by the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing, it does not go by how important individual Wikipedia editors think it should be, this is covered explicitly at
WP:NPOV.
Zad
68
15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
@Lesion - National Newspapers and Local Health Authorities and Court Records ARE reliable secondary sources and cover the omitted topics mentioned by me above.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies hid this discussion.
[7] I have reverted as the criticism is perfectly justified. The present article is severely biased and written exclusively from the prevailing American POV. The take on circumcision in Europe is quite different. Especially in Scandinavia, where the IP that started the discussion is from, circumcision is generally considered an atavistic, violent, perverse practice that infringes on children's rights. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands are somewhere in the middle, but even in Germany non-medical circumcision of minors is a tricky business, legally, precisely because it is useless violence inflicted on victims who cannot consent. That's why Germany 'needed' a law that now legalises it. And which, according to experts, is either invalid or also legalises the mildest form of female genital mutilation.
So long as the article is as biased as it is, it will be inviting angry comments. It's something that always happens to badly written articles on controversial subjects. (It also happens to well written articles on such subjects, but not as often, and it's easier to deal with the comments.) Hans Adler 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at Ethics of circumcision and Circumcision controversies? This article should just summarize them. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I see there is a question of balance in the article. By simply scrolling the text I don't see the overall article to be very unbalanced.
On the other hand I do see that the lede is stuffed with unnecessary detail, some of which are even from primary sources. Please move the detail into the corresponding sections. In particular, the whole "2009 Cochrane" paragraph seems out of place. On the other hand I have an impression that lede does not properly summarize the whole article.
Please do not forget that the lede is article summary, especially for such a big one. - Altenmann >t 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Has there been done any studies on how the medical benefits correlate with personal hygiene? I would assume that populations with better hygiene have less medical benefits from being circumcised. If people wash their genitals with a proper soap sufficiently often I would assume that many of the same medical benefits can be attained. Probably even to a higher degree. 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The article as currently maintained has little or no material on the psychoanalytic, sociological or other analysis of what would lead a nation like america or two major religions to continue the custom so readily. There may be links between it (circumcision) and fear of contamination/disease or notions about hygiene as you mention, though as Woody Allen said - sex is dirty only if you are doing it right ! . Circumcision has had the additional historical function of being used to distinguish one's tribe from uncut tribes and as an inflicted act on conquered enemies akin to a symbolic castration(like eunuchs). There exisits a vocal active coterie of editors who feel that this "flagship" article should focus primarily on selected aspects of contemporary medical practice around the act of circumcision rather than as an overview of the phenomenon. There are others of us who contest this idea. As Circumcision is sacred to several religions one has to be mindful of the limited capacity of some to discuss it or write about it objectively and additionally endeavour to discuss it with some sensitivity and respect toward their mindset. The fact that circumcision is diminishing in popularity has not made it into the article yet , nor any tables of stats showing its decline in USA and elsewhere --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
contribs | |||||
|
I just got surgery for penile cancer, so have done a lot of research. HPV is a minority of penile cancers, and males are not being vaccinated. I recommend removing: "(and may get more rare with increasing HPV vaccination rates)". If requested I will get the appropriate research. Bob the goodwin ( talk) 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Study Confirms Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation
Is this study from the British Journal of Urology International a reliable source?-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Eh... editors that understand the nervous system quite well would probably be familiar with cortical maps and, particularly relevant to this argument, sensory cortical remapping, which more or less invalidates this argument/line of reasoning. Biological systems, particularly neural ones, are a lot more complicated than stimulus-response. It's almost always followed by some form of dynamic feedback loop. Ignoring that, the nerve endings beneath the foreskin are far more numerous and dense, so I'm not sure it's a valid argument either way. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Having followed this discussion, it's seems that whether one supports or opposes the practice, the removal of foreskin is not of the same order anatomically and physiologically of the "circumcision" to which females in some cultures are subjected. To distinguish between the two, the use of "mutilation" should probably be confined to the scope of "female circumcision". That appears to be the norm in medical journals, and I didn't notice that the article to which I linked was a 'press release' or that there were already related studies cited in the article. I don't intend this as a statement of opinion on the possible adverse effects of circumcision, but to defer to RS.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)To start with the "A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis..." paragraph is much too detailed for the lede and should be cut or one or two sentences merged into the prior paragraph. Thoughts? -- NeilN talk to me 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Recommend also " Balanitis xerotica obliterans occurs in 1 in every 300 or 1000 males, 98% of which are uncircumsized. 4-8% of those develop penilie cancer."
I just had surgery for that cancer, so I know it is a risk factor people want to know about in plain English. Only after discussing benefits in US should we put in an equally short summary of AIDS benefits. Bob the goodwin ( talk) 06:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)I find it so wierd that they don't have a Norwegian wikipedia article about this. Everybody in Norway have foreskin. It is called "Sekundær fimose" in Norway. I get only 236 hits in google. If it is such a common occurance among uncircumcised men, why aren't more Norwegians writing about it? Anyhow, it says "Patients have overcome and minimized it by soaking it in hydrogen peroxide 3% solution." Zanthius ( talk) 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There should be a small paragraph about the ethical and legal questions in the introduction. The sentence "Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.", seems too thin. I also don't think the section about "Ethical and legal issues" belongs in the end of the article. It should be much farther up. It also seems somewhat ridiculous that there is a section for "Economic considerations". Remove it, and mention it briefly somewhere else. For example where it is written about HIV. I also strongly advice Zad68 to take this criticism seriously, otherwise I think this debate is going to continue forever. 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Further to recent discussion on article weight and criticism of database selection here are the results of a record search across several databases. Selected date range was 1997-present as coverage of non-STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) sources improves in Scopus and Web of Science after this date. The number of publications in this subject (probably in most subjects) increases markedly from the mid-1990s in any case. The JSTOR and Project Muse database search results differ considerable from the Scopus and Web of Science ones as, aside from the fact that they predominantly index Arts, Humanities and Social Science sources, they are derived from a complete content search rather than a subject/topic search. This will inflate the figures (lots of false positives where coverage of the actual subject is trivial). Results are indicative rather than determining, etc, for questions of weight, and direct comparison of these databases may be questionable in any case. FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation Database | Medical Records | Non-Medical Records | Total Records |
---|---|---|---|
Scopus [a] | 2987 | 387 | 3374 |
PubMed [b] | 2474 | - | 2474 |
Project Muse [c] | 111 | 2351 | 2462 |
JSTOR [d] | 517 | 3822 | 4339 |
Research area | Number of Records | Percentage of total (2361) |
---|---|---|
UROLOGY NEPHROLOGY | 405 | 17.154 % |
INFECTIOUS DISEASES | 390 | 16.518 |
PEDIATRICS | 344 | 14.570 |
IMMUNOLOGY | 280 | 11.859 |
PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH | 252 | 10.673 |
GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE | 218 | 9.233 |
SURGERY | 159 | 6.734 |
BIOMEDICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES | 120 | 5.083 |
VIROLOGY | 99 | 4.193 |
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES SERVICES | 81 | 3.431 |
All Records | 2361 | 100 |
Research area | Number of Records | Percentage of total records (3374) | Percentage of total subject areas (4311) |
---|---|---|---|
Medicine | 2987 | 88.5 % | 69.3 % |
Immunology and Microbiology | 264 | 7.8 | 6.1 |
Social Sciences | 206 | 6.1 | 4.8 |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 176 | 5.2 | 4.1 |
Arts and Humanities | 134 | 4.0 | 3.1 |
Nursing | 111 | 3.3 | 2.6 |
Psychology | 84 | 2.5 | 1.9 |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 75 | 2.2 | 1.7 |
Undefined | 75 | 2.2 | 1.7 |
Pharmacology | 43 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
All Records | 3374 |
Research area | Number of Records | Percentage of total records (2462) |
---|---|---|
Area and Ethnic Studies | 772 | 31.4 % |
Religion | 611 | 24.8 |
Literature | 542 | 22.0 |
History | 454 | 18.4 |
Areas and Ethnic Studies/Jewish Studies | 433 | 17.6 |
Social Sciences | 367 | 14.9 |
Religion/Judaism | 235 | 9.5 |
Studies by time period | 218 | 8.9 |
Religion/Christianity | 193 | 7.8 |
Women's Studies, Gender and Sexuality | 149 | 6.1 |
Area and Ethnic Studies/African Studies | 147 | 6.0 |
Philosophy | 126 | 5.1 |
Literature/English Literature | 114 | 4.6 |
Medicine and Health | 111 | 4.5 |
All records | 2462 |
Research area | Number of Records |
---|---|
Medicine | 2474 |
Research Area | Number of Records |
---|---|
Medical | 517 |
Non Medical | 3822 |
Religion | 874 |
History | 795 |
Anthropology | 357 |
Jewish Studies | 337 |
Sociology | 279 |
Total | 4339 |
Zad
68
03:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC) ...and is there any way to tell how much duplication there is across the result sets??
Zad
68
03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Fiachra, remember the results from Harzing's Publish or Perish:
Cites | Authors | Title | Year | Source | GSRank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1605 | B Auvert, D Taljaard, E Lagarde, J Sobngwi-Tambekou | Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial | 2005 | PLoS medicine | 1 | |
1412 | RH Gray, G Kigozi, D Serwadda, F Makumbi, S Watya… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 2 | |
1447 | RC Bailey, S Moses, CB Parker, K Agot, I Maclean… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 3 | |
537 | HA Weiss, MA Quigley, RJ Hayes | Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2000 | Aids | 4 | |
614 | X Castellsagué, FX Bosch, N Munoz… | Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners | 2002 | New England journal … | 5 | |
237 | DT Halperin, RC Bailey | Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting | 1999 | The Lancet | 6 | |
216 | S Moses, JE Bradley, NJD Nagelkerke, AR Ronald… | Geographical patterns of male circumcision practices in Africa: association with HIV seroprevalence | 1990 | International journal of … | 7 | |
290 | S Moses, RC Bailey, AR Ronald | Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks | 1998 | Sexually transmitted infections | 8 | |
221 | J Bongaarts, P Reining, P Way, F Conant | The relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection in African populations | 1989 | Aids | 9 | |
227 | R Szabo, RV Short | How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? | 2000 | BMJ | 10 | |
293 | BG Williams, JO Lloyd-Smith, E Gouws, C Hankins… | The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa | 2006 | PLoS Medicine | 11 | |
273 | HA Weiss, SL Thomas, SK Munabi… | Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2006 | Sexually Transmitted … | 12 | |
324 | AAR Tobian, D Serwadda, TC Quinn… | Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis | 2009 | … England Journal of … | 13 | |
229 | RH Gray, N Kiwanuka, TC Quinn, NK Sewankambo… | Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda | 2000 | Aids | 14 | |
365 | N Siegfried, M Muller, J Volmink, J Deeks, M Egger… | Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Review) | 2007 | 15 | ||
152 | SJ Reynolds, ME Shepherd, AR Risbud… | Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India | 2004 | The Lancet | 16 | |
231 | N Westercamp, RC Bailey | Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review | 2007 | AIDS and Behavior | 17 | |
144 | B Donovan, I Bassett, NJ Bodsworth | Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting | 1994 | Genitourinary medicine" | 18 | |
162 | B Auvert, J Sobngwi-Tambekou… | Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm | 2009 | Journal of Infectious ... | 19 | |
139 | B Auvert, A Buve, E Lagarde, M Kahindo, J Chege… | Male circumcision and HIV infection in four cities in sub-Saharan Africa | 2001 | Aids | 20 |
Can you comment on whether these results are also still relevant to this discussion, or are these new bibliometrics you produced of superior quality and utility such that the Harzing's results aren't relevant?
Zad
68
14:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Words | Percentage | |
Technique | 457 | 7,68% |
Positive Effects | 1350 | 22,68% |
Adverse effects | 219 | 3,68% |
Prevalence | 490 | 8,23% |
History | 1647 | 27,67% |
Cultures and religions | 692 | 11,63% |
Ethical and legal issues | 713 | 11,98% |
Economic considerations | 384 | 6,45% |
Total | 5952 | 100,00% |
How does this fit with the source distribution found by FiachraByrne? 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Regardless of the weight distribution, I think this article is sup-optimally organized. The economic considerations should be located after the positive effects section, as it derives from studies in that section. I also think cultures and religions can be merged with the last section in History (modern times). And then there can be a separate section just for Ethical and Legal issues. Also. Shouldn't there be a section about the possible function of the foreskin in this article? Maybe the adverse effects section can be merged with a "possible function of foreskin" section? Or we can make a new section called "Possible function of foreskin and adverse effects". 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Given the sourcing distribution it'd more be an argument for making the summaries in the non-medical sections tighter. The non-medical sections have expanded over time. This is the lead article in a WP:SUMMARY-style constellation of articles, there are full-blown articles going into specific coverage of the many society and culture aspects, like religion, ethics and law, plus medical aspects like HIV. See the "Main" links within the article.
Yobol, agree with that assessment of the source distribution, based on the data provided I don't see an overwhelming case to reconfigure this article.
Zad
68
20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
As someone who's not really involved in this article, and not connected with WP:MED, but just developed a mild interest in the subject on a drive by, having seen the NPOV argument last week, I just wanted to query whether the ratio of coverage between Positive Effects and Adverse effects, as detailed above, (a 6.16 to 1 ratio) is really a fair reflection of the relative material or the medical evidence devoted to each? Many "secondary" sources I've looked at, (inverted commas because they may not meet the WP:MEDRS bar that seems to be quite a high one), such as the British Medical Association's guidance document, [14] imply that the jury is out on whether there is a net benefit or a net adverse affect. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the placement of the content about the function, the trouble with the suggestion to move it to the adverse effects section is that it's not just the adverse effects that are related to it, the entirety of the effects section is related to it too.
Zad
68
03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how was Turkmenistan chosen as the possible location of the image? The original caption at the Library of Congress website says [15] "Customs of Central Asians. Circumcision". In subjects it lists " Turkic peoples". From what I know, there are five countries in Central Asia and four of those are Turkic speaking (except Tajikstan, where a dialect of Persian is spoken). The only thing that could have made someone, not very familiar with the region, think it's Turkmenistan is the line "Turkestanskīĭ alʹbom" in the 'Notes' section. Turkestanski means Turkestani in Russian, which is not the same Turkmenistani. -- Երևանցի talk 05:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | Archive 76 | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | → | Archive 85 |
Foreskin-based medical and consumer products[edit]
Foreskins obtained from circumcision procedures are frequently used by biochemical and micro-anatomical researchers to study the structure and proteins of human skin. In particular, foreskins obtained from newborns have been found to be useful in the manufacturing of more human skin.[55] Human growth factors derived from newborns' foreskins are used to make a commercial anti-wrinkle skin cream, TNS Recovery Complex.[56](subscription required) Foreskins of babies are also used for skin graft tissue,[57][58][59] and for β-interferon-based drugs.[60] Foreskin fibroblasts have been used in biomedical research.[61]
This section above,currently in the foreskin article really belongs here in the circumcision article, as these uses of foreskins arise from circumcision and not from the simple existence of foreskins. (Also the long section in the foreskin article that at least references the arguments about sexual pleasure for men and women with and without a foreskin attached belongs here too. !)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 07:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)I'll take this response to mean that once again there will be no satisfactory sources forthcoming.
Zad
68
02:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
After hospital circumcision, the foreskin may be used in biomedical research,[14] consumer skin-care products,[15] skin grafts,[16][17][18] or β-interferon-based drugs.[19] In parts of Africa, the foreskin may be dipped in brandy and eaten by the patient, eaten by the circumciser, or fed to animals.[20] According to Jewish law, after a Brit milah, the foreskin should be buried.[21]
Zad
68
13:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The assertions that one would need reliable secondary sources to talk about the cutting edge of research made possible by circumcision, is, of course, absurd.
I agree, it seems like a case of, 'I don't want to, and you can't make me'. Not exactly in line with the founding principles, and rather constricting of information. Tftobin ( talk) 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2013/10/04/circoncision-religieuse-israel-condamne-une-resolution-du-conseil-de-l-europe_3490410_3224.html--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 01:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Google News search on search term "Council of Europe circumcision". ← ZScarpia 09:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/israel-court-fines-woman-refusing-circumcise-son
Is this worthy of inclusion in this circumcision article ? - I believe that it is. It is yet another indication that circumcision is cultural and political rather than medical.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 09:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
12:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Here are some newspapers and news agencies who have covered this landmark case for your perusal and that of other interested editors too. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/and-finally/woman-fined-over-noncircumcision-29793251.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/woman-fined-nis-500day-for-failing-to-circumcise-son/
http://rt.com/news/israeli-woman-fined-circumcise-346/
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.560245
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201311262130-0023216
et cetera et cetera.
Perhaps this case belongs in a new "legal ramifications" section for the article, or a new "forced circumcision " section. What do other editors think ? Anybody care/dare to propose a wording -or care/dare be bold (as we are enjoined to do by WP) and go ahead and edit it in ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)This stupid woman obviously didn't read the Wikipedia article on circumcision, or she'd know that she's robbing her son of virtual immortality. I'm surprised they didn't hang her. Formerip ( talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It may be necessary to take our concerns over at the circumcision talk page to Dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't think those arguing with us are willing to budge. Most of the remarks made by supporters of the current state of the article say things along the lines of, "it's fine as it is" or "I agree with Zad". Obviously we won't be making much headway with editors posting nothing but countenance for the existing revision without any arguments regarding our concerns. Let me know your feelings on this. ScienceApe ( talk) 14:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
DID MOVE------------------------------------
The circumcision article, as it stands, has to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. While it may seem neutral to some, it actually reflects the pro-circumcision culture of its editors.
The requirements that medical articles references be no more than five years old and be secondary sources eliminates many fine articles. It seems to be that the solution might be to have two articles - a pro-circumcision article and a pro-genital integrity article.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
1/ you may be in contravention of guidelines
2/ you may damage your own line of argument by reductionist contempt for the arguments made by other editors or what articles or subjects they choose to work on.
3/you invite such consideration of your own edit history.
On this latter point Plot Spoiler - your editing history interest in Pogroms, Arab Nuclear Power and the Middle East might lead an editor ( your own line of thought/attack) to form conclusions about links between you,fellow travellers, and a blanket pro circumcision stance. I largely try to avoid drawing conclusions even when observing patterns of individual editing or patterns of groups of editors who each pile into article talk pages to defend each others gate keeping of article content. Lets try instead to answer the points raised by each other instead. Forced circumcisions of non compliant adults(sometimes resulting in death), sale (or ritual disposal) of cut off foreskins (which are procured only through circumcision), and deaths or lifelong compromised health of children from oral genital contact with agents of a genital cutting religion in NYC are lacking any mention in the article, and yet a questionable halted study about adult circumcision and HIV in a region of one african country features in the lead of the article.
No one is denying that all four of these things happen. To quote Editor/Admin Zad/Zach "The presence of something in an article is a message to the reader that it is somehow connected and relevant." These deaths and activities ARE connected strongly to the practice of circumcision and relevant to consideration of it.
What we need to decide is how best to mention them in the article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 10:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The real problem is the rigid application of rules and the lack of any common sense.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_%22Ignore_all_rules%22_means
The United States of America has a culture of circumcision. The medical articles published in the United States reflect that culture rather than medical science and tend to be biased in favor of circumcision. Articles published in non-US journals have a different tone.
Circumcised medical editors also tend to be biased in favor of circumcision and cannot even recognize their personal bias. It is extremely difficult to write about circumcision objectively because of the interplay of psychological, social, and sexual factors.
http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm#
The position statement by the AAP is designed to get more money into the pockets of doctors - pure and simple. Using that statement blindly is not good editing. It has been ripped apart by others but it still being blindly used as a supreme authority here.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-12_Svoboda-VanHowe.pdf
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2013-03-18_Frisch%20et%20al.pdf
There is abundant evidence in medical journals that male circumcision adversely affects male and female sexuality however the circumcision article provides the opposite information, based on a circumcision promotional article published by a group of doctors (the AAP) who pocket money from doing circumcision. There are 72 articles indexed on this page, the vast majority of which indicate sexual problems from circumcision but the Wikipedia article indicates the opposite.
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/
Obviously, something is wrong.
Wikipedia is published in many languages and so there are circumcision articles in several languages. They have an entirely different tone. There is something wrong with the English language article. For example, this passage from the Spanish Wikipedia has information that is excluded from the English version:
Posiciones de las organizaciones de salud sobre la circuncisión[editar · editar código]
"La Sociedad Sueca de Pediatría,16 la British Association of Paediatric Urologists17 la Sociedad Suiza de Cirugía Pediátrica18 y la Sociedad Alemana de Cirugía Pediátrica19 protestaron contra la circuncisión no terapéutica de los niños, destacando la ausencia de beneficios médicos, los riesgos de complicaciones y problemas relacionados con la ética y la integridad personal."
There aren't enough secondary sources in the medical literature that have been published in the last five years, so it is necessary to use older sources that are still valid and some primary sources. But that is not being done and the circumcision article stinks.
I reiterate my statement that this is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia.
Sugarcube73 ( talk) 18:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
23:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)As a side note, linking to an illegal copyright-violating copy of a source anywhere, whether at an activist website like cirp.org or not, is not allowed, see
Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links_2. All such links to cirp.org and all other sites need to come out of all articles.
Zad
68
03:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I am actually beginning to think that there is indeed a bias on the part of Zad and other contributors that support him. He's being obstinate in regards to changes I have proposed that are from the source that is already cited in the article. The citation points out clear problems with the conclusion it reached in regards to sexual sensitivity as a result of circumcision, but Zad is unwilling to mention those problems in the lead. This is not acceptable, to leave out the problems of a conclusion a study has reached spins a preconceived bias. ScienceApe ( talk) 16:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months.[10] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa,[11][12] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV.[11] Circumcision reduces the incidence of HSV-2 infections by 28%,[13] and is associated with reduced oncogenic HPV prevalence[14] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer,[5] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions.[2][15] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. A 2010 review of literature worldwide found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications.[16] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[16][17]
This entire paragraph should be excised. There's really no reason for it to be in the intro as it adds too much information to the intro which should just be an overview of the various positions that different entities take on circumcision.
"Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function."
This line is also using weasel words, and is highly subjective, citation or not. ScienceApe ( talk) 02:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I fail to understand the point you are attempting to make this time 8211. Please elucidate. JUst because an editor is around a while is no reason to excuse poor behaviour. But polemics applied to improving the article is what we do here on the article talk pages and is to be commended not chastised !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I hope that I do not appear to be obsessive generally but rather simply intent on improving the article. If the article or editing causes such a strong response perhaps taking a break is no harm.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 15:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
well said Mr T.-I find, Taylornat, that editors who merrily provide policy references at the drop of a hat instead of directly addressing article improvement suggestions have often only the scantiest notion of the wording and intent of those policies. Citing policy titles is a poor substitute for collaborative work on making this sorry article better. Your choice of actually referring to the wording of the section of the policy is more useful.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 19:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Actually yes it is, I actually already looked at the original source which this article btw fails to link to even though it's on the internet. The source does clarify what it meant by "sexual function" because that by itself is weaseling. The article states the following:
"The literature review does not support the belief that male circumcision adversely affects penile sexual function or sensitivity, or sexual satisfaction, regardless of how these factors are defined.
Sexual Satisfaction and Sensitivity Literature since 1995 includes 2 good-quality randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of adult circumcision on sexual satisfaction and sensitivity in Uganda and Kenya, respectively.126,127 Among 5000 Ugandan participants, circumcised men reported significantly less pain on intercourse than uncircumcised men.126 At 2 years’ postcircumcision, sexual satisfaction had increased significantly from baseline measures in the control group (from 98% at baseline to 99.9%); satisfaction levels remained stable among the circumcised men (98.5% at baseline, 98.4% 2 years after the procedure). This study included no measures of time to ejaculation or sensory changes on the penis. In the Kenyan study (which had a nearly identical design and similar results), 64% of circumcised men reported much greater penile sensitivity postcircumcision.127 At the 2-year follow-up, 55% of circumcised men reported having an easier time reaching orgasm than they had precircumcision, although the findings did not reach statistical significance. The studies’ limitation is that the outcomes of interest were subjective, self-reported measures rather than objective measures.
Other studies in the area of function, sensation, and satisfaction have been less rigorous in design, and they fail to provide evidence that the circumcised penis has decreased sensitivity compared with the uncircumcised penis. There is both good and fair evidence that no statistically significant differences exist between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction.128–131 Sensation end points in these studies included subjective touch and pain sensation, response to the International Index of Erectile Function, the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory, pudendal nerve evoked potentials, and Intravaginal Ejaculatory Latency Times (IELTs).
There is fair evidence that men circumcised as adults demonstrate a higher threshold for light touch sensitivity with a static monofilament compared with uncircumcised men; these findings failed to attain statistical significance for most locations on the penis, however, and it is unclear that sensitivity to static monofilament (as opposed to dynamic stimulus) has any relevance to sexual satisfaction.132 There is fair evidence from a cross-sectional study of Korean men of decreased masturbatory pleasure after adult circumcision.133
Sexual Function There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men.131,134–136 There is fair evidence that no significant difference exists between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual function, as assessed by using the IELT.129
Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.
So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. I suggest there be a separate section on this. ScienceApe ( talk) 19:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For the wording itself, the article uses pretty much the same phrasing the sources use. The sources cited say:
Zad
68
04:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)The citation for the sentence in the lead and the body of the text concerning sexual function is Footnote 18. This footnote details that the AAP Technical Report "addresses sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction without qualification by age of circumcision". It also clearly indicates that the findings of the other three sources are applicable only to adult males. I haven't looked at the Technical Report since March of this year or thereabouts. Is the summary of its findings contained in the footnote contested here? Or is it deemed insufficient, by some, as a source to support the current statements about sexual function without an age qualification? FiachraByrne ( talk) 22:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Male circumcision (from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around") [1] is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis. [2] [3] About one-third of males worldwide are circumcised. [1] [4] The procedure is most prevalent in the Muslim world and Israel (where it is near-universal), the United States and parts of Southeast Asia and Africa; it is relatively rare in Europe, Latin America, parts of Southern Africa and most of Asia. [1] The origin of circumcision is not known with certainty; the oldest documentary evidence for it comes from ancient Egypt. [1] Various theories have been proposed as to its origin, including as a religious sacrifice and as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood. [5] It is part of religious law in Judaism [6] and is an established practice in Islam, Coptic Christianity and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. [1] [7] [8] [9]
In a typical procedure, the foreskin is opened and then separated from the glans after inspection. The circumcision device (if used) is placed, and then the foreskin is removed. Topical or locally injected anesthesia may be used to reduce pain and physiologic stress. [10] For adults, general anesthesia is an option, and the procedure is often performed without a specialized circumcision device. The procedure is most often elected for religious reasons or personal preferences, [1] but may be indicated for both therapeutic and prophylactic reasons. It is a treatment option for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic urinary tract infections (UTIs); [2] [11] it is contraindicated in cases of certain genital structure abnormalities or poor general health. [3] [11]
The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks. No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure. [12] Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. [13] [14]
There is evidence that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men.. [15] The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa, [16] [17] where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV. [16] Circumcision reduces the incidence of herpes simplex virus-2 infections, [18] and is associated with reduced oncogenic human papilloma virus prevalence [19] and a reduced risk of both UTIs and penile cancer, [10] but routine circumcision is not justified for the prevention of those conditions. [2] [20] Studies of its protective effects against other sexually transmitted infections have been inconclusive. Circumcisions performed by medical providers has a median complication rate of 1.5% for newborns and 6% for older children, with few severe complications. [4] Bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited. [4] [21] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function. [22]
Zad
68
13:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Here is what the WP:LEAD that a number of editors have referred to says:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
I have highlighted the word "challenge"; it appears four times in that paragraph!
This is of course insane. If Wikipedia were an encyclopedia, which it is not, references would be given as appropriate, but not at the cost of making a text a horrid, unreadable mess. And that's what the paragraph in its current position is, though it would not be out of place much further down in the body of the text.
Instead, the "policy" betrays the true nature of Wikipedia as a Massive Multiple Online Roleplaying Game (MMORPG). They are crawling all over Wikipedia, bands of fighters and lone wolves, all bent on planting their flag on top of the hill and blowing away the opposition. Wikipedia's policies are the rule book that tells the players what to do and not to do, on pain of being expelled from the game.
All in the service of enriching Jimbo Wales, with his $50k speaking fees, and serving as a shining example of turning what used to be paid jobs into free labor, which is why the corporations are so eager to pony up the $50k to hear Jimbo speak: he tells them how it's done.
Fuck Wikipedia, and fuck every shiny happy little Wikipedian. 82.113.121.160 ( talk) 04:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why the article is organized the way that it is currently. The article seems to be denigrating the importance of the religious aspects of circumcision when circumcision has been practiced throughout history primarily for religious purposes, not medical purposes. But yet the History and Society and Culture sections are down at the bottom of the page. The article seems to be pushing a POV about the medical aspects throughout, giving it undue weight. Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight ScienceApe ( talk) 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Cites | Authors | Title | Year | Source | GSRank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1605 | B Auvert, D Taljaard, E Lagarde, J Sobngwi-Tambekou | Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial | 2005 | PLoS medicine | 1 | |
1412 | RH Gray, G Kigozi, D Serwadda, F Makumbi, S Watya… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 2 | |
1447 | RC Bailey, S Moses, CB Parker, K Agot, I Maclean… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 3 | |
537 | HA Weiss, MA Quigley, RJ Hayes | Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2000 | Aids | 4 | |
614 | X Castellsagué, FX Bosch, N Munoz… | Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners | 2002 | New England journal … | 5 | |
237 | DT Halperin, RC Bailey | Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting | 1999 | The Lancet | 6 | |
216 | S Moses, JE Bradley, NJD Nagelkerke, AR Ronald… | Geographical patterns of male circumcision practices in Africa: association with HIV seroprevalence | 1990 | International journal of … | 7 | |
290 | S Moses, RC Bailey, AR Ronald | Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks | 1998 | Sexually transmitted infections | 8 | |
221 | J Bongaarts, P Reining, P Way, F Conant | The relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection in African populations | 1989 | Aids | 9 | |
227 | R Szabo, RV Short | How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? | 2000 | BMJ | 10 | |
293 | BG Williams, JO Lloyd-Smith, E Gouws, C Hankins… | The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa | 2006 | PLoS Medicine | 11 | |
273 | HA Weiss, SL Thomas, SK Munabi… | Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2006 | Sexually Transmitted … | 12 | |
324 | AAR Tobian, D Serwadda, TC Quinn… | Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis | 2009 | … England Journal of … | 13 | |
229 | RH Gray, N Kiwanuka, TC Quinn, NK Sewankambo… | Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda | 2000 | Aids | 14 | |
365 | N Siegfried, M Muller, J Volmink, J Deeks, M Egger… | Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Review) | 2007 | 15 | ||
152 | SJ Reynolds, ME Shepherd, AR Risbud… | Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India | 2004 | The Lancet | 16 | |
231 | N Westercamp, RC Bailey | Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review | 2007 | AIDS and Behavior | 17 | |
144 | B Donovan, I Bassett, NJ Bodsworth | Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting | 1994 | Genitourinary medicine" | 18 | |
162 | B Auvert, J Sobngwi-Tambekou… | Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm | 2009 | Journal of Infectious ... | 19 | |
139 | B Auvert, A Buve, E Lagarde, M Kahindo, J Chege… | Male circumcision and HIV infection in four cities in sub-Saharan Africa | 2001 | Aids | 20 |
Zad
68
01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I asked you if you think the medical reasons for circumcision are more important than the religious reasons?(emphasis added)-- you're asking me what I think. I ignored the question before and again now because it's irrelevant. What you or I think doesn't matter. Historically it has been shown that allowing development of this article's content to be directed by the personal views of editors is unsuccessful. The only thing that matters is Wikipedia policy applied to the sourcing. It is the only approach to development of an article such as this one that can result in content that complies with the WP:NPOV pillar and stays relatively stable, as this article has been for almost a year now.
Zad
68
14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
We organize medical articles per WP:MEDMOS and reference them per WP:MEDRS. Both these are consensus. And this article currently follows both as it should. We have an article on Religious male circumcision and it can be organized differently. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The cited source for this claim is " Safety and Efficacy of Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review", which seems to cite this claim from " Psychological trauma of circumcision in the phallic period could be avoided by using topical steroids." The latter has been cited twice while the former has been cited five times. So aside from the fact that it's psychoanalytic nonsense, it doesn't really seem noteworthy enough to include here. Nosewings ( talk) 22:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I find this extremely wierd. One reason is that it can be much easier to publish about some things than other things, and then there will be more publications just because it is easier to publish about that. Another reason is that controversial topics tend to generate a lot of publications. If something is well accepted and not controversial there are often less publications about that, but just because something is controversial it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Considering circumcision I think it is pretty obvious that the medical aspect is very controversial, so of course a lot of the publications are about the medical aspect. There are also tons of opportunities to do medical research on circumcision, and medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects of circumcision. How are you supposed to do research upon the legal/moral aspect of circumcision anyhow? Probably there are much more medical publications than legal/moral publications simply because there are much more opportunities to do medical research and publish about it. I also don't necessarily think you can solve the moral/legal problem with circumcision by doing research. What kind of research can possibly prove that infant mutilation is immoral? What kind of research can prove that theft, murder and rape is immoral? Are there lots of publications about the morality of theft/murder/rape? I doubt it, because it is not very controversial wheter is is immoral or not, and because you can't do research to prove if a thing is immoral or not. 84.210.15.173 ( talk) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)I made this argument before, that this is clearly a case of Ignore all rules. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. While wikipedia's rules for giving weight to the amount of citations is a good rule of thumb, it clearly does not apply here. It's not a far fetched guess to make that people are gaming wikipedia's rules to push a pro-circumcision bias under the auspices that the medical benefits support their pre-conceived biases. This is unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Circumcision is performed for religious and cultural reasons, and as such the article should give weight to that rather than the medical purposes. ScienceApe ( talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been a series of edits today that do not appear to improve the article's use of the sources, and so were reverted by myself and
Jmh649. The latest edit was
this, it modified "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." in the lead and in the body to state instead, According to the
American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.(citing four sources) Despite the AAP's positive stance on the procedure, their policy states that the "health benefits (of circumcision) are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."(citing the AAP policy statement). The issue with this proposed change are that 1) The current article content is cited to four sources, not just the AAP Technical Report, and the proposed edit misrepresents the sourcing by making it appear as only the AAP is stating this and giving undue weight to the AAP's policy statement that is not cited anywhere in the article currently; 2) It makes it appear as if the entire cost/benefit analysis being done is based on sex effects, which is not true; 3) The lack of recommendation of routine use of the procedure on neonates is not just the position of the AAP but of medical organizations worldwide, the article already covers this where it says "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males" and sourced to Bolnick, calling out the AAP here only again is redundant and is undue weight on the AAP.
Zad
68
13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to effectively highlight the fact that the damage circumcision does to men's sexual experiences (both physical and psychological) are highly disputed. It seems to only have references to a limited set of studies, performed by the AAP (which is often discredited due to its pro-circumcision biases [23]), with a weak statement of "doesn't seem to". There are many reports and studies that find circumcision reduces sensitivity and hinders sexual function as well as causing a number of psychological issue early and later in life [24] [25] [26] [27]. While I'm not saying the article should state that circumcision definitively does do damage, I think it is important to reference several sources and highlight the fact that many studies have shown circumcision has potentially negative side effect on sensitivity, sexual function, and psychological well being. The section seems very glossed over though it really is a component of the topic that is incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pod1989 ( talk • contribs)
I also pointed this out, that there were clear problems with the conclusions drawn, which were even highlighted by the ones who conducted the study.
Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.
So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. ScienceApe ( talk) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay I will put forth a suggestion. Source gives this as a summary of the quality of evidence regarding sexual function "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" [6] I guess we could add a summary of this. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)I decided to see what popped with MEDRS filters on this topic (search terms: circumcision pleasure) after looking for a ref I needed in another article - the only thing that popped up was this, [29] a meta-analytic literature review which seems to support the material in the article. Might be worth adding, since it wasn't used as a source. [29] Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
References
WHO_2007_GTDPSA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lissauer_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).rudolph_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).weiss_2010_complications
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).alanis_2004
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).glass_1999
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Columbia_encyc_2011_circ
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).clark_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sawyer_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AAP_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).hay_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bolnick_2012_ch1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).caga-anan_2011
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pinto_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).siegfried_Cochrane_2009
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).uthman_2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WHO_HIV_2007
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).wetmore_2010
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).hpv_prevalence
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ACS_2012
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).AAFP_2007
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).sexual_function
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
DISCUSSION:
We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
SUMMARY:
Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
I know we're all about properly sourced studies, but the conclusion seems obvious to me. Like most men in the US, I'm circumcised. Above the cut line, on the remaining inner foreskin, I have lots of sexual sensation. Immediately below the cut line, I have none. The shortest inner foreskin I've seen is 2 inches and the longest, at least 6 inches. Residual inner foreskin is typically 1.5" or less, depending on the style of the cut. If it's fair to assume that the nerve endings of the inner foreskin are evenly distributed (and based on my anecdotal experience as an older gay man that's encountered a rather large sample set of uncircumcised penises, this is a reasonable assumption), could we not say with certainty that losing any part of it represents a net loss in sensitivity? This isn't even accounting for the vast drop in glans sensitivity, without which none of us could wear underwear. Am I the only one who feels this way?
It seems to me that these studies are focused on very narrow definitions of what comprises sexual performance and satisfaction. (This is not unique to sexual studies; anyone proclaimed 'fully recovered' after an accident might take issue with that phrase.) If you only measured whether orgasm could be attained, you might easily conclude a penis wasn't even necessary. Likewise, when an individual compensates for a loss of sensitivity with a rough, high-friction grip, is it fair to say the experience is the same as if the shaft had four touching surfaces of sensitive, movable foreskin? My impression of the results of these 'it doesn't matter' studies is as a negative indictment of their methodology rather than a statement of empirical fact. Desinos ( talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A NPOV dicussion has been added to the NPOV Noticeboard regarding the content disputes found here. ScienceApe ( talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The criteria for removing the POV tag are: (from
Template:POV/doc#When_to_remove)
"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever:
As their is ongoing discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, these criteria have not been met; the tag should remove until those discussions are formally closed or become quiescent. NE Ent 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
As covered at the
WP:AN discussion
here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular
Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point" so the repeated re-adding of the article-wide tag is editing against consensus as evaluated by an outside administrator. Also the NPOV tag template documentation states "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public." and as the NPOVN discussion states explicitly that the argument being made is ignoring the weight given in the reliable sourcing, this criterion isn't met.
Zad
68
14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ? Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have stated for thousands of years that one of the purposes of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
When I compare this article with the one in the German Wikipedia, I miss some topics.
For instance the whole subject of "not as good effects", as often occurring Meatostenosis or the loss of most Meissner's corpuscle.
I think wide parts of that do not have the NPOV. This should be marked on the article page, and not in the talk page. 77.64.179.160 ( talk) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that English Wikipedia has much higher standards for sourcing, especially for biomedical information. Please see
WP:MEDRS.
Zad
68
20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)If we are omitting key information by over zealous and partial application of the Med edit guidelines and fetishising on the recently published here perhaps we should say not that our standards here are higher but that they are certainly different or that our agenda is as currently exercised.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with the protection that User:John Reaves has put on the page. No one has been making any content changes to the article. The sole purpose of that protection is to prevent anyone from putting a NPOV template on the article even though there's a NPOV discussion going on right now. This is unacceptable, and abuse of admin powers. ScienceApe ( talk) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
More experienced editors assure me that having a "See Also" section in an article such as this one is not cool and they will not countenance it. I disagree and think an exception should be made. However as this is unlikely to fly-there are so many such related articles that I wonder is there a need for a map or Tony Buzan-like family tree illustrating these articles or some other way of showing their availability other than refs buried in the text body of the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 11:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 12:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
There's this, which is placed at the bottom of the article. FiachraByrne ( talk) 12:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
A third resource that will provide what you're requesting is
Category:Circumcision.
Zad
68
More edit warring over the POV tag, more protection. It follows this edit by Alexbrn; I couldn't disagree more with them (I believe there is a POV issue identified on the talk page, and in one of Hans's edit summaries) or with Doc James's earlier edit summary, but as an admin I am not allowed to pick and choose which version to protect, and waiting until Hans or someone else reverts is dishonest. Besides, we're going for a walk in a minute.
Anyway, full protection for a week. Maybe an RfC is called for. Maybe you should call Jimbo (I believe he gave out his cell number?) and ask him to step in (was that dumb painting of him made with a circumcised cock?) Yes, you all really should work this out. Tone down the rhetoric and try to see it from the other's perspective. Drmies ( talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen a single argument why some people think they have the right to mutilate other bodies without their adult consent. Children are obviously not mature enough to know wheter it is a good or bad idea to become mutilated. Children can also easily be manipulated into doing stupid things simply by offering them candies. I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies. Fortunately that is illegal. By the same reasoning it should oviously be illegal to mutilate children, because we don't know what children are going to think when they grow up. I am sure there are tons of people that feel like their rights were violated when they were mutilated as children. I think physical mutilation of children is just as seriously wrong as sexual abuse of children. Leave the kids alone, and stop this nonsensical propaganda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) revised 13 Jan
The term mutilation is often used on this topic in other contexts ( Female_genital_mutilation) and the term is applied regularly to male circumcision in Europe, so its not neccisarily a POV issue for him to use that term here. Mutilation is a significant POV, particularly outside of the US, but we do require WP:RS to satisfy WP:V. Advocacy groups in the US and Europe are acceptable only to document that "person X said Y" - so one would need high-quality medical or media sources to bring into the article (which I would think it should be no problem to find due to how common this POV outside the US) Wikipedia does not edit on what is "right" or "moral", as there are many opinions about what "right" and "moral" actually is. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That pesky global Jewish conspiracy again. FYI, this kind of comment does absolutely nothing to persuade others. If you want to change the article, find some reliable sources ( WP:MEDRS) and then seek consensus via the talk page. Otherwise, kindly do not waste others' time by posting your own opinions here. Lesion ( talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The answer is the same as the last dozen or so time you have brought up these same things. Wikipedia does cover these topics at
Ethics of circumcision,
Forced circumcision,
Foreskin and
Brit milah respectively. This article is a
WP:SUMMARY-style overview of the main points of the topic, per the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing; once again you are directed to please see
WP:NPOV for an explanation. Not every last bit of detail about every aspect of the topic will be covered in the main overview article in a summary-style constellation of articles. What goes where and with what emphasis is determined by the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing, it does not go by how important individual Wikipedia editors think it should be, this is covered explicitly at
WP:NPOV.
Zad
68
15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
@Lesion - National Newspapers and Local Health Authorities and Court Records ARE reliable secondary sources and cover the omitted topics mentioned by me above.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Drmies hid this discussion.
[7] I have reverted as the criticism is perfectly justified. The present article is severely biased and written exclusively from the prevailing American POV. The take on circumcision in Europe is quite different. Especially in Scandinavia, where the IP that started the discussion is from, circumcision is generally considered an atavistic, violent, perverse practice that infringes on children's rights. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands are somewhere in the middle, but even in Germany non-medical circumcision of minors is a tricky business, legally, precisely because it is useless violence inflicted on victims who cannot consent. That's why Germany 'needed' a law that now legalises it. And which, according to experts, is either invalid or also legalises the mildest form of female genital mutilation.
So long as the article is as biased as it is, it will be inviting angry comments. It's something that always happens to badly written articles on controversial subjects. (It also happens to well written articles on such subjects, but not as often, and it's easier to deal with the comments.) Hans Adler 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you looked at Ethics of circumcision and Circumcision controversies? This article should just summarize them. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As I see there is a question of balance in the article. By simply scrolling the text I don't see the overall article to be very unbalanced.
On the other hand I do see that the lede is stuffed with unnecessary detail, some of which are even from primary sources. Please move the detail into the corresponding sections. In particular, the whole "2009 Cochrane" paragraph seems out of place. On the other hand I have an impression that lede does not properly summarize the whole article.
Please do not forget that the lede is article summary, especially for such a big one. - Altenmann >t 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Has there been done any studies on how the medical benefits correlate with personal hygiene? I would assume that populations with better hygiene have less medical benefits from being circumcised. If people wash their genitals with a proper soap sufficiently often I would assume that many of the same medical benefits can be attained. Probably even to a higher degree. 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The article as currently maintained has little or no material on the psychoanalytic, sociological or other analysis of what would lead a nation like america or two major religions to continue the custom so readily. There may be links between it (circumcision) and fear of contamination/disease or notions about hygiene as you mention, though as Woody Allen said - sex is dirty only if you are doing it right ! . Circumcision has had the additional historical function of being used to distinguish one's tribe from uncut tribes and as an inflicted act on conquered enemies akin to a symbolic castration(like eunuchs). There exisits a vocal active coterie of editors who feel that this "flagship" article should focus primarily on selected aspects of contemporary medical practice around the act of circumcision rather than as an overview of the phenomenon. There are others of us who contest this idea. As Circumcision is sacred to several religions one has to be mindful of the limited capacity of some to discuss it or write about it objectively and additionally endeavour to discuss it with some sensitivity and respect toward their mindset. The fact that circumcision is diminishing in popularity has not made it into the article yet , nor any tables of stats showing its decline in USA and elsewhere --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
contribs | |||||
|
I just got surgery for penile cancer, so have done a lot of research. HPV is a minority of penile cancers, and males are not being vaccinated. I recommend removing: "(and may get more rare with increasing HPV vaccination rates)". If requested I will get the appropriate research. Bob the goodwin ( talk) 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Study Confirms Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation
Is this study from the British Journal of Urology International a reliable source?-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Eh... editors that understand the nervous system quite well would probably be familiar with cortical maps and, particularly relevant to this argument, sensory cortical remapping, which more or less invalidates this argument/line of reasoning. Biological systems, particularly neural ones, are a lot more complicated than stimulus-response. It's almost always followed by some form of dynamic feedback loop. Ignoring that, the nerve endings beneath the foreskin are far more numerous and dense, so I'm not sure it's a valid argument either way. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Having followed this discussion, it's seems that whether one supports or opposes the practice, the removal of foreskin is not of the same order anatomically and physiologically of the "circumcision" to which females in some cultures are subjected. To distinguish between the two, the use of "mutilation" should probably be confined to the scope of "female circumcision". That appears to be the norm in medical journals, and I didn't notice that the article to which I linked was a 'press release' or that there were already related studies cited in the article. I don't intend this as a statement of opinion on the possible adverse effects of circumcision, but to defer to RS.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)To start with the "A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis..." paragraph is much too detailed for the lede and should be cut or one or two sentences merged into the prior paragraph. Thoughts? -- NeilN talk to me 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Recommend also " Balanitis xerotica obliterans occurs in 1 in every 300 or 1000 males, 98% of which are uncircumsized. 4-8% of those develop penilie cancer."
I just had surgery for that cancer, so I know it is a risk factor people want to know about in plain English. Only after discussing benefits in US should we put in an equally short summary of AIDS benefits. Bob the goodwin ( talk) 06:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)I find it so wierd that they don't have a Norwegian wikipedia article about this. Everybody in Norway have foreskin. It is called "Sekundær fimose" in Norway. I get only 236 hits in google. If it is such a common occurance among uncircumcised men, why aren't more Norwegians writing about it? Anyhow, it says "Patients have overcome and minimized it by soaking it in hydrogen peroxide 3% solution." Zanthius ( talk) 22:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There should be a small paragraph about the ethical and legal questions in the introduction. The sentence "Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.", seems too thin. I also don't think the section about "Ethical and legal issues" belongs in the end of the article. It should be much farther up. It also seems somewhat ridiculous that there is a section for "Economic considerations". Remove it, and mention it briefly somewhere else. For example where it is written about HIV. I also strongly advice Zad68 to take this criticism seriously, otherwise I think this debate is going to continue forever. 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Further to recent discussion on article weight and criticism of database selection here are the results of a record search across several databases. Selected date range was 1997-present as coverage of non-STM (Science, Technology and Medicine) sources improves in Scopus and Web of Science after this date. The number of publications in this subject (probably in most subjects) increases markedly from the mid-1990s in any case. The JSTOR and Project Muse database search results differ considerable from the Scopus and Web of Science ones as, aside from the fact that they predominantly index Arts, Humanities and Social Science sources, they are derived from a complete content search rather than a subject/topic search. This will inflate the figures (lots of false positives where coverage of the actual subject is trivial). Results are indicative rather than determining, etc, for questions of weight, and direct comparison of these databases may be questionable in any case. FiachraByrne ( talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Citation Database | Medical Records | Non-Medical Records | Total Records |
---|---|---|---|
Scopus [a] | 2987 | 387 | 3374 |
PubMed [b] | 2474 | - | 2474 |
Project Muse [c] | 111 | 2351 | 2462 |
JSTOR [d] | 517 | 3822 | 4339 |
Research area | Number of Records | Percentage of total (2361) |
---|---|---|
UROLOGY NEPHROLOGY | 405 | 17.154 % |
INFECTIOUS DISEASES | 390 | 16.518 |
PEDIATRICS | 344 | 14.570 |
IMMUNOLOGY | 280 | 11.859 |
PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH | 252 | 10.673 |
GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE | 218 | 9.233 |
SURGERY | 159 | 6.734 |
BIOMEDICAL SOCIAL SCIENCES | 120 | 5.083 |
VIROLOGY | 99 | 4.193 |
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES SERVICES | 81 | 3.431 |
All Records | 2361 | 100 |
Research area | Number of Records | Percentage of total records (3374) | Percentage of total subject areas (4311) |
---|---|---|---|
Medicine | 2987 | 88.5 % | 69.3 % |
Immunology and Microbiology | 264 | 7.8 | 6.1 |
Social Sciences | 206 | 6.1 | 4.8 |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 176 | 5.2 | 4.1 |
Arts and Humanities | 134 | 4.0 | 3.1 |
Nursing | 111 | 3.3 | 2.6 |
Psychology | 84 | 2.5 | 1.9 |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 75 | 2.2 | 1.7 |
Undefined | 75 | 2.2 | 1.7 |
Pharmacology | 43 | 1.3 | 1.0 |
All Records | 3374 |
Research area | Number of Records | Percentage of total records (2462) |
---|---|---|
Area and Ethnic Studies | 772 | 31.4 % |
Religion | 611 | 24.8 |
Literature | 542 | 22.0 |
History | 454 | 18.4 |
Areas and Ethnic Studies/Jewish Studies | 433 | 17.6 |
Social Sciences | 367 | 14.9 |
Religion/Judaism | 235 | 9.5 |
Studies by time period | 218 | 8.9 |
Religion/Christianity | 193 | 7.8 |
Women's Studies, Gender and Sexuality | 149 | 6.1 |
Area and Ethnic Studies/African Studies | 147 | 6.0 |
Philosophy | 126 | 5.1 |
Literature/English Literature | 114 | 4.6 |
Medicine and Health | 111 | 4.5 |
All records | 2462 |
Research area | Number of Records |
---|---|
Medicine | 2474 |
Research Area | Number of Records |
---|---|
Medical | 517 |
Non Medical | 3822 |
Religion | 874 |
History | 795 |
Anthropology | 357 |
Jewish Studies | 337 |
Sociology | 279 |
Total | 4339 |
Zad
68
03:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC) ...and is there any way to tell how much duplication there is across the result sets??
Zad
68
03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Fiachra, remember the results from Harzing's Publish or Perish:
Cites | Authors | Title | Year | Source | GSRank | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1605 | B Auvert, D Taljaard, E Lagarde, J Sobngwi-Tambekou | Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial | 2005 | PLoS medicine | 1 | |
1412 | RH Gray, G Kigozi, D Serwadda, F Makumbi, S Watya… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 2 | |
1447 | RC Bailey, S Moses, CB Parker, K Agot, I Maclean… | Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial | 2007 | The Lancet | 3 | |
537 | HA Weiss, MA Quigley, RJ Hayes | Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2000 | Aids | 4 | |
614 | X Castellsagué, FX Bosch, N Munoz… | Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners | 2002 | New England journal … | 5 | |
237 | DT Halperin, RC Bailey | Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting | 1999 | The Lancet | 6 | |
216 | S Moses, JE Bradley, NJD Nagelkerke, AR Ronald… | Geographical patterns of male circumcision practices in Africa: association with HIV seroprevalence | 1990 | International journal of … | 7 | |
290 | S Moses, RC Bailey, AR Ronald | Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks | 1998 | Sexually transmitted infections | 8 | |
221 | J Bongaarts, P Reining, P Way, F Conant | The relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection in African populations | 1989 | Aids | 9 | |
227 | R Szabo, RV Short | How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? | 2000 | BMJ | 10 | |
293 | BG Williams, JO Lloyd-Smith, E Gouws, C Hankins… | The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa | 2006 | PLoS Medicine | 11 | |
273 | HA Weiss, SL Thomas, SK Munabi… | Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis | 2006 | Sexually Transmitted … | 12 | |
324 | AAR Tobian, D Serwadda, TC Quinn… | Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis | 2009 | … England Journal of … | 13 | |
229 | RH Gray, N Kiwanuka, TC Quinn, NK Sewankambo… | Male circumcision and HIV acquisition and transmission: cohort studies in Rakai, Uganda | 2000 | Aids | 14 | |
365 | N Siegfried, M Muller, J Volmink, J Deeks, M Egger… | Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men (Review) | 2007 | 15 | ||
152 | SJ Reynolds, ME Shepherd, AR Risbud… | Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India | 2004 | The Lancet | 16 | |
231 | N Westercamp, RC Bailey | Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: a review | 2007 | AIDS and Behavior | 17 | |
144 | B Donovan, I Bassett, NJ Bodsworth | Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting | 1994 | Genitourinary medicine" | 18 | |
162 | B Auvert, J Sobngwi-Tambekou… | Effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of high-risk human papillomavirus in young men: results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Orange Farm | 2009 | Journal of Infectious ... | 19 | |
139 | B Auvert, A Buve, E Lagarde, M Kahindo, J Chege… | Male circumcision and HIV infection in four cities in sub-Saharan Africa | 2001 | Aids | 20 |
Can you comment on whether these results are also still relevant to this discussion, or are these new bibliometrics you produced of superior quality and utility such that the Harzing's results aren't relevant?
Zad
68
14:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Words | Percentage | |
Technique | 457 | 7,68% |
Positive Effects | 1350 | 22,68% |
Adverse effects | 219 | 3,68% |
Prevalence | 490 | 8,23% |
History | 1647 | 27,67% |
Cultures and religions | 692 | 11,63% |
Ethical and legal issues | 713 | 11,98% |
Economic considerations | 384 | 6,45% |
Total | 5952 | 100,00% |
How does this fit with the source distribution found by FiachraByrne? 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 19:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Regardless of the weight distribution, I think this article is sup-optimally organized. The economic considerations should be located after the positive effects section, as it derives from studies in that section. I also think cultures and religions can be merged with the last section in History (modern times). And then there can be a separate section just for Ethical and Legal issues. Also. Shouldn't there be a section about the possible function of the foreskin in this article? Maybe the adverse effects section can be merged with a "possible function of foreskin" section? Or we can make a new section called "Possible function of foreskin and adverse effects". 84.210.13.40 ( talk) 19:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
19:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Given the sourcing distribution it'd more be an argument for making the summaries in the non-medical sections tighter. The non-medical sections have expanded over time. This is the lead article in a WP:SUMMARY-style constellation of articles, there are full-blown articles going into specific coverage of the many society and culture aspects, like religion, ethics and law, plus medical aspects like HIV. See the "Main" links within the article.
Yobol, agree with that assessment of the source distribution, based on the data provided I don't see an overwhelming case to reconfigure this article.
Zad
68
20:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
As someone who's not really involved in this article, and not connected with WP:MED, but just developed a mild interest in the subject on a drive by, having seen the NPOV argument last week, I just wanted to query whether the ratio of coverage between Positive Effects and Adverse effects, as detailed above, (a 6.16 to 1 ratio) is really a fair reflection of the relative material or the medical evidence devoted to each? Many "secondary" sources I've looked at, (inverted commas because they may not meet the WP:MEDRS bar that seems to be quite a high one), such as the British Medical Association's guidance document, [14] imply that the jury is out on whether there is a net benefit or a net adverse affect. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the placement of the content about the function, the trouble with the suggestion to move it to the adverse effects section is that it's not just the adverse effects that are related to it, the entirety of the effects section is related to it too.
Zad
68
03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how was Turkmenistan chosen as the possible location of the image? The original caption at the Library of Congress website says [15] "Customs of Central Asians. Circumcision". In subjects it lists " Turkic peoples". From what I know, there are five countries in Central Asia and four of those are Turkic speaking (except Tajikstan, where a dialect of Persian is spoken). The only thing that could have made someone, not very familiar with the region, think it's Turkmenistan is the line "Turkestanskīĭ alʹbom" in the 'Notes' section. Turkestanski means Turkestani in Russian, which is not the same Turkmenistani. -- Երևանցի talk 05:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)