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 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
There's some disagreement about the word "significantly" in the sentence "male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa". The word "significant" is used in the source, but the word is mentioned as "careful language" here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language.
One source, the WHO, mentions:
Data from three RCTs conducted in different countries showed a 59% (44%–70%) reduction in HIV incidence (efficacy) among circumcised men ages 15–49 years (11–13). The protective effect was seen soon after circumcision. The protective effect was confirmed in extended post-trial follow-up to six years of men in two of the three RCTs (in Kenya and Uganda) (27, 28). The estimated impact over the six years was a 66% (51%–76%) reduction in risk, which is close to the result of the “as-treated” analysis of the three RCTs. [1]
The second source is Siegfried et. al uses the term "significant", although some editors question if it could be statistical or clinical significance:
Three large RCTs of men from the general population were conducted in South Africa (N = 3 274), Uganda (N = 4 996) and Kenya (N = 2 784) between 2002 and 2006. All three trials were stopped early due to significant findings at interim analyses. We combined the survival estimates for all three trials at 12 months and also at 21 or 24 months in a meta-analysis using available case analyses using the random effects model. The resultant incidence risk ratio (IRR) was 0.50 at 12 months with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.34 to 0.72; and 0.46 at 21 or 24 months (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.62). These IRRs can be interpreted as a relative risk reduction of acquiring HIV of 50% at 12 months and 54% at 21 or 24 months following circumcision. There was little statistical heterogeneity between the trial results (chi(2) = 0.60; df = 2; p = 0.74 and chi(2) = 0.31; df = 2; p = 0.86) with the degree of heterogeneity quantified by the I(2) at 0% in both analyses. We investigated the sensitivity of the calculated IRRs and conducted meta-analyses of the reported IRRs, the reported per protocol IRRs, and reported full intention-to-treat analysis. The results obtained did not differ markedly from the available case meta-analysis, with
circumcision displaying significant protective effectsacross all analyses. We conducted a meta-analysis of the secondary outcomes measuring sexual behaviour for the Kenyan and Ugandan trials and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For the South African trial the mean number of sexual contacts at the 12-month visit was 5.9 in the circumcision group versus 5 in the control group, which was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). [2]
The options are:
Thoughts anyone?? Stix1776 ( talk) 16:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Option A is the best choice of the three. 59% is an estimate of the reduction in seroconversion — and will vary between studies — while "significant" accurately reflects the results of top-quality studies in the context of high risk areas. KlayCax ( talk) 00:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Stix1776 ( talk) 08:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Per this diff [27], @ Alexbrn:, I've asked your repeatedly. In what fashion are editors allowed to add non American medical bodies to this article?? Stix1776 ( talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
To absolutely disconnect this from your original edit and the unanswered questions. How can we add non American perspectives to the lead when your removed them? Stix1776 ( talk) 13:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Stix1776, please stop going back and adding material to earlier posts, it makes this discussion nearly impossible to follow. If you have a question for me ask it at the end of the section and I will respond there. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Very supportive of WP:GAR. Alexbrn, please stop with the personal attacks, though. Stix1776 ( talk) 00:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The sentence below should point out that the WHO only recommends circumcision for adolescents and adult males and does not make a recommendation for infants.
Change: "Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV; the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[12][14]"
To: "Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision for adolescents and men, but not infants; as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV; the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[12][14]"
Infants should not be included by generality when the WHO did not include them in the report recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E1E9:9A0A:FFCD:74AA ( talk) 08:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Lead wording on medical community's positions:
The present wording in the lead is as follows.
The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure. There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.
I suggest that it should be replaced with:
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness relating to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries. [The rest of the paragraph's wording being moved into the body with revised wording.]
The revised wording in body being:
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness relating to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries. The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. Discussions and disputes over prophylactic efficacy, consent, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up in these cases. [The original accidentally and unnecessarily duplicates "[bio]ethics" two times.] There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.
(The bold above being modified.)
Penile cancer in lead:
The present wording in the lead is as follows.
It also decreases the risk of rare cancer of the penis.
I suggest that it should be replaced with:
It also decreases the risk of penile cancer.
Having "cancer of the penis" rather than "penile cancer" seems simply loquacious. I have no strong feelings on whether "rare" should be included or not. It is an extremely rare form of cancer (even severe complications resulting from circumcision appear to be way more common than phimosis-induced penile cancer.) Whatever fits editoral discretion.
World Health Organization in "elective" body section:
The present wording in the "elective" section of the body is as follows.
According to the World Health Organization, "there are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy".
I suggest it should be replaced with:
According to the World Health Organization [blockquote if real]: "There are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy, and programmes that promote early infant male circumcision are likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes targeting adolescent boys and men." [end blockquote]
"Minor issues (that I have no strong opinions on)"
Editors opinions:
I see all of these changes as substantive improvements to the status quo. But because these edits have been challenged by Stix1776, let's get a consensus on the talk page from recent, active editors on here. MrOllie, Alexbrn, Prcc27, Stix1776, OntologicalTree, Dimadick, Jayjg, and Markworthen, Praxidicae, how do you feel about the changes? KlayCax ( talk) 17:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It is difficult to establish how many male circumcisions it would take to prevent a case of penile cancer, and at what cost economically and physically. One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications. The clinical value of the modest risk reduction from circumcision for a rare cancer is difficult to measure against the potential for complications from the procedure. In addition, these findings are likely to decrease with increasing rates of HPV vaccination in the United States. [33]
The opening sentence of this article mentions that this article is specifically about the "medical procedure" of removing the foreskin. I'm wondering why there is talk in this page on cultural and religious removal of the foreskin? As an example the Philippine Tuli ritual? Is this article about both medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin? If so, shouldn't the opening sentence say that? If not, then shouldn't discussions of things like Tuli be in a separate article about the non-medical removal of the foreskin?
Herro56 ( talk) 13:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
There are clearly risks inherent in any surgical procedure: for example, pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. With NTMC there are associated medical and psychological risks, although it is generally considered a low-risk procedure. Usually risks of surgery are offset by the medical benefits that ensue – where there are no clear medical benefits, some other justification is needed for exposing children to this risk.While this does not refer to Tuli nor any other ritualistic based circumcision by name, Tuli would be considered as part of this guidance due to it involving a non-therapeutic circumcision of a child for cultural reasons.
Male circumcision is one of the oldest surgical procedures known, traditionally undertaken as a mark of cultural identity or religious importance.Again doesn't mention Tuli by name, however like with the BMA guidance it would be considered as part of this guidance due to it occuring under "mark of cultural identity".
Circumcision is a surgical procedure that removes the foreskin from the human penis., with the same citations as present. That brings us into line with BMA and WHO guidance, I suspect other major public health bodies that I can't seem to find relevant guidance for at this time, which differentiates between medical and non-medical circumcisions, and keeps it clear that regardless of the underlying reason for a circumcision (be it medical or ritual) the procedure is surgical in nature. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty aghast at how strongly wikipedia recommends circumcision. There are so many sections in this article redundantly repeating the supposed health benefits of circumcison using dubious studies (and the same study sourced three different times). And nothing on Dr Kellogg's promotion of circumcison to prevent masturbation in boys? This article is a polemic on circumcison and it's a disservice to both Wikipedia and anyone reading it looking for an objective point of view. 2603:6000:B400:2EF1:AD31:5CD2:C2FD:C833 ( talk) 14:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This is clear sexism, as "female genital Mutilation" is clearly trying to sound dangerous, where as so is male genital mutilation, but the cirmumscion article for men is clearly biased about supporting it being illegalized for women but not for men.
So, to solve this issue, I propose we merge these articles into one, naming it "genital mutilation" and making circumcision redirect to here. 82.18.134.221 ( talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted infections. This includes decreased incidence rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significant reductions of HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer. Complication rates are higher when the procedure is performed on individuals that are older. A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common acute complications. Meatal stenosis is the most common long term complication. Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. There is a consensus among major medical organizations to recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV. [Note C]
Contained within Note C of Version #1:
There is a consensus among major medical organizations to recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV. The World Health Organization does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; major medical organizations have differing perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world.
Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted infections. For the latter, this includes decreased incidence rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significant reductions of HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. The WHO and UNAIDS recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. The WHO does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear. Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer. Complication rates are higher when the procedure is performed on individuals that are older. A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common acute complications. Meatal stenosis is the most common long term complication. Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but as a Jewish man, does any major Christian denomination actually support or recommend circumcision? Why the heck is it in the header? OntologicalTree ( talk) 23:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
31 references show up in the article. Somewhere, the article gets broken and prevents the hundred plus references from showing on the article. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:996C:4877:C2EF:3A72 ( talk) 04:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It should be an {{ excerpt}} of Prevalence of circumcision#Present. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Both of these articles could easily be merged into circumcision without any significant problems. There doesn't seem to be an independent reason for them to exist.
All of these could easily be merged into one, singular article. Or perhaps, similarly, merged into circumcision. No good reasons for them to exist as independent articles.
Fringe movement which even supporters state that presently "calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous". Comes off more across as a promotional page than anything else.
Don't meet standards of notability and has been overwhelmingly edited by users close to the organization. (As has been openly stated by those editing it.)
The latter organization no longer even exists.
organization no longer even existsis not a criterion for exclusion from WP.
Here are some of the sources I have for this:
This doesn't even cover the known phenomena of circumcision causing risky sexual behaviour due to the man thinking he's immune to STDS. Prevention of STDs is also just one of many myths that have been propagated by this article. Tiggy The Terrible ( talk) 20:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on the bioethics, cost-effectiveness, and the prophylactic efficacy related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by riskin the article. KlayCax ( talk) 19:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I just removed a statement that stated:
The overall prevalence of circumcision in South Korea has increased markedly in the second half of the 20th century, rising from near zero around 1950 to about 60% in 2000, with the most significant jumps in the last two decades of that time period.
This is probably due to the influence of the United States, which established a trusteeship for the country following World War II.
It goes on to cite the World Health Organization. But nothing within the citation claims that!
The strikethrough text itself appears to have been an unreferenced statement inserted by an IP editor on March 22, 2005. (Although earlier statements with similar wording existed.) I couldn't find any consensus within the literature on this statement — along with multiple citations already present within the article stating the exact opposite.
Such as p. 256-257 of Bolnick, Koyle & Yosha (2012) :
...[in] South Korea... where the operation became very popular in the second half of the twentieth century... while these authors attributed this to American influence, this seems unlikely since the age of circumcision matches more the practice in the Philippines and elsewhere in southeast Asia. Quoted anedoctal evidence mentions that the Korean Army favored the procedure during the Korean War, and also that many popular newspaper and magazine articles promoted circumcision in the 1950s.
Despite its impressive length this article (and other articles related to circumcision suffer from substantive problems:
I could keep going on and on. But this article probably needs to be downgraded to start. It has massive issues throughout and this isn't something that can be easily solved in a night. I'm aware that the main article achieved GA-status (before getting demoted) a few months ago. But I'm under the conviction that promoting it in the first place was a mistake: this article(s) needs major, major improvements.
Thanks, KlayCax ( talk) 07:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I read the two sources cited for this https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-2858-8_1 and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-020-00011-7 neither of them represent overwhelming support. There is guidelines for the procedure when a medical necessity but that is no different when an amputation is required. Even the first abstract writes "That is, circumcision confers some medical benefit but not enough to call for its routine application."
There is a recognition of the possible legality of circumcision in respective countries, though they come with various caveats and actual doubt as to whether religious justification would actually hold up, if for example in the EU it is brought to the European Court of Human Rights.
The second source is an advocacy and lobbying piece. Again made clear in the abstract "The final part of the article includes a proposal for humane male circumcision that considers religious sentiments and the rights of the child, aiming to strike a reasonable balance between competing interests. I hope the proposal will be debated in parliaments in the western world."
It also cites a BMA piece "The British Medical Association (2004) is supportive of allowing parents to make choices for their children" despite it being published in 2021, the most recent guidance BMA guidance is from 2019 https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf and while it doesn't outright condemn the religious/cultural practice, it certainly isn't "supportive of allowing parents to make choices for their children" for circumcision. From the 2019 guidelines:
"Furthermore, the harm of a person not having the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised or choose not to follow the traditions of his parents must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession, if he feels harmed by an irreversible non-therapeutic procedure."
This page has much wider problems, such as after the initial description it is immediately followed by a justification: "Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections. This includes decreasing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations".
If the page on domestic abuse followed the description with "beating your wife has been found to lower divorce rates and increase offspring education outcomes by 30%" it would be wildly inappropriate even if those statistics were somehow true.
But I just went in depth with at least those two sources which are referenced repeatedly, the second of which being openly lobbying is clearly inappropriate. Trying to falsely claim major medical organisations support your point of view isn't acceptable. BeardedChimp ( talk) 04:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I have some WP:POV concerns regarding the paragraph about the trials. “The circumcised group had a substantially lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group, and hence that it would be unethical to withhold…” Issue #1: we should not state an ethical view as factual. “…the treatment in light of overwhelming evidence of prophylactic efficacy” issue #2: non-therapeutic circumcision is considered prevention, not “treatment”; also, it is POV to exaggerate and say the evidence is “overwhelming”. At best, the evidence is “strong”. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
MC is... strongly supported by the data from three large RCTs conducted in Africaright before that. It directly mentions the three RCT trials as part of the
"overwhelming evidence"for circumcision in high risk contexts.
all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect.
Overwhelming evidence, including three clinical trials, shows that male circumcision (MC) reduces the risk of HIV infection among men.
Only after the results of three RCTs were available was the public health community convinced that there was sufficient evidence to initiate provision of circumcision services in high prevalence areas
Circumcision of adult males is 70 percent effective in reducing transmission from females to males based on three RCTs... (very strong evidence).
Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated circumcision results in a 50–60% reduction in risk of acquiring HIV infection in heterosexual males. In three clinical trials performed in sub-Saharan Africa, uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group was offered immediate circumcision (treatment group) and those in the other group (control group) were offered circumcision at the end of the trial. All participants received HIV testing and counseling, condoms, and safe sex counseling. All three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence that circumcision offered a protective effect against HIV, and it was felt to be unethical to ask the control group to wait to be circumcised.
The evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men is strong. Results come from diverse settings, span 32 years (1986 to 2017), and are very consistent... Data from three RCTs.
fringe perspectives. KlayCax ( talk) 22:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo File:Covenant of Abraham.JPG was cropped on 17 May 2020, with the new version uploaded by the original uploader ( Chesdovi), saying "cropped, per talk". I don't know what talk that was referring to; I didn't easily find such a discussion. The caption in the article had included some descriptive details: "with a Mogen shield (on the table, next to the scalpel)". I just removed that part of the caption, because there is no Mogen device, scalpel or table visible in the cropped version. My impression is that the cropped version contains a lot less information than the uncropped one, so I would prefer the uncropped one. In the cropped version, all we see is the back of a man's head and a baby that is wearing a diaper and having its shirt pulled up by someone else's hands. I don't see anything in the picture that even identifies that what is happening is circumcision (in contrast to the uncropped version, which shows the instruments that will be used in the process). Which version do others prefer? — BarrelProof ( talk) 21:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ GenoV84:. We can't blanketly refer to circumcision as "genital mutilation" in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed repeatedly on the circumcision talk page and various RfC's ad nauseam: with a repeated consensus that it shouldn't be referred to as such in Wikivoice. As Martha Nussbaum famously summarized in Sex and Social Justice (1999):
Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', "female genital mutilation"... is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.
Blanketly changing "circumcision" to "child abuse" and "genital mutilation" is WP: Activism, WP: NPOV, and WP: Fringe. KlayCax ( talk) 22:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Btw, the appropriate talk page to discuss about the aforementioned edit warring is Talk:Circumcision controversies, not this one.I think either is fine. But I'll repost this thread on there. Whether it should be referred to as "mutilation" in Wikivoice affects a multitude of articles surrounding circumcision. KlayCax ( talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Wording choice A: (Move major medical organizations positions in developing nations into a note)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. [Within note] The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. [/End Note]
Wording choice B: (Completely eliminate major medical organizations positions in lead)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. [No note]
The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.[/No Note]
Wording choice C: (Status quo)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.
Wording choice D: (Modified lead)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries.
Wording choice E: (Status quo)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Circumcision has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The existing page states "Circumcised men are presently estimated to constitute around 38% of the world's population.[9][21][39][40] ". This is badly worded and is incorrect as worded. The figure is about one third of men, not one third of the world's population. The quoted sentence should read: "Circumcised men are presently estimated to constitute around 17% of the world's population.[9][21][39][40]" 180.150.36.246 ( talk) 08:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved by a unanimous consensus. No such user ( talk) 10:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Circumcision → Male circumcision – This article only covers the topic of male circumcision. Please note that female circumcision also exists. Due to that, I propose that " Circumcision" should become a disambiguation page. Male circumcision is only common in the US, Australia and Canada when regarding first world countries, and the term "circumcision" is therefore equally associated with both the male and female version in a large part of the world. 12u ( talk) 20:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.
Does this article come across as bias to anyone else?
Sections in the article frequently devolve into what seems like rants against the practice rather than an objective accounting. The summarization of the existing literature also seems skewed in an anti-circumcision way. As a Jewish person, it seems heavily skewed towards a liberalistic and Anglo-American perspective; other cultural and religious perspectives are totally ignored. OntologicalTree ( talk) 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
You're right, it's just the opposite. In the world the white American POV is pro-mutilation. Mhannigan ( talk) 05:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Can Wikivoice state that prophylactic and (religious/Jewish) religious circumcision is "genital mutilation", "sexual violence", and "abuse"?
Ongoing discussion on the circumcision controversies talk page. Disputed parts in bold.
Circumcision controversies page:
In Classical and Hellenistic civilization, Ancient Greeks and Romans posed great value on the beauty of nature, physical integrity, aesthetics, harmonious bodies and nudity, including the foreskin (see also Ancient Greek art), and were opposed to all forms of genital mutilation, including [Jewish religious] circumcision — an opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West and East that lasted at least through to the Middle Ages, according to Frederick Hodges.
Estimates of sexual violence page:
Historical and documented forms of sexual violence against male patients include the involvement of medical staff in the practice of male genital mutilation [circumcision] in the United States.
See the talk pages on both articles. GenoV84 states it doesn't violate WP: NPOV. I disagree. KlayCax ( talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The title of this Article should be changed to "Male genital mutilation" and the first lines should say something similar to the "Female Genital Mutilation" Article says "Male genital mutilation, also known as Male circumcision". The first section of the article should be what the procedure is. Then followed immediately by information about how it originated, why, and how uncommon the practice is throughout the World with statistical information to show that.
Unless done for a legitimate medical reason such as Phimosis, Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation. It is an unnecessary practice that originated out of delusional, barbaric religious fanaticism.
A new study from October of 2022 has also called in to question the claims of Circumcision aiding in a reduction of HIV transmission as the article claims in saying "Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections. This includes decreasing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations." Zoboili ( talk) 03:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed "rare" penile cancer again from the lead. I don't think there needs to be much write-up about this — since a similar conversation has already occurred on the foreskin talk page. However, I wanted to tag everyone involved in the previous conversation in case there was any concerns. Thanks. @ Prcc27: @ Bon Courage: @ Piccco:. KlayCax ( talk) 07:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @ Neveselbert:. Why did you state that Elsevier Health Sciences's Material Child Nursing Care, 7th Edition violates the tenets WP:MEDRS?
It's sourced from:
"The World Health Organization recognizes male circumcision as an important intervention in reducing the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV in men. The organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication."
A call for universal neonatal circumcision — with the exception of contraindication cases — has been the official policy of the WHO since 2010. KlayCax ( talk) 06:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
e.g. As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure
As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure
The organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication.It's hard to get more explicit than that. WP:MEDRS is passed.
"the organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication". Do you just want that quoted verbatim instead? Elsevier Health Sciences is one of multiple WP:MEDRS-compliant sources which have stated similar. (My academic resource states the same.)
Of course there's exceptions., the exception being that the supposed "benefits" are nowhere near enough to recommend doing it routinely. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
So you can't provide a source from the WHO itself confirming?Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia (2010) is widely viewed as a recommendation for universal circumcision from multiple reliable sources. (Along with other statements published by them.) At the very least, the statement
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesis not universally agreed upon by reliable sources. (My Up-To-Date guidance states the WHO does recommend it.)
The exception being that the supposed "benefits" are nowhere near enough to recommend doing it routinelyIn developed countries?
The decision to have a newborn male circumcised is very personal and should be made after careful consideration of the risks and benefits and cultural, religious, and personal preferences.Therefore, the statement
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesis broadly accurate. As for
In developed countries?, of course, though even in developing countries there is no consensus for a routine recommendation among the young. The WHO may have indicated such a recommendation in areas of high HIV prevalence, but this is still not explicitly stated by policy. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The World Health Organization now recommends that male circumcision be offered as an HIV prevention intervention... and recommends neonatal circumcision... should be an important component of prevention campaigns since "neonatal circumcision is a less complicated and risky procedure than circumcision performed in young boys, adolescents or adults [and] countries should consider how to promote neonatal circumcision in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner."- Acceptability of Infant Male Circumcision as Part of HIV Prevention and Male Reproductive Health Efforts in Gaborone, Botswana, and Surrounding Areas (2009); published in AIDS and Behavior.
though even in developing countries there is no consensus for a routine recommendation among the youngThe statement is exclusively about the World Health Organization. It doesn't claim that there is a consensus in the matter.
is broadly accurateElsevier Health Sciences (2022) guidelines explicitly disputes Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick's interpretation.
As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedureand
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesbeing removed from the article. Since Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) contradicts the first (although I argue it's outdated) and (Perry et al., 2022) Elsevier Health Sciences contradicts the other. Perhaps a note could also be added explaining the differing interpretations of the WHO's position. KlayCax ( talk) 18:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The current image in the article makes opponents of routine circumcision come across as kooky. (e.g. It gives off major "crazy guy with a sign on a street corner" vibes)
Is there any better pictures we could use? If not, I think it should be removed from the article entirely. KlayCax ( talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that significant parts of the present article directly state or otherwise imply that circumcision is a common religious rite for Christians.
To anyone with knowledge surrounding this topic or Christian theology in general: this is a massive red flag surrounding the article's accuracy.
Anglophonic and Filipino circumcision
Citations surrounding this seem to be poorly worded statements from an array of authors stating that circumcision is a common prophylactic, cultural, or social practice in areas where Christians live.
However, it should be obvious that this does not make it automatically a rite that is performed because of Christianity. Anglosphere circumcision is predominately performed out of a belief that it's prophylactic against disease ("e.g. healthier that way") or as a cultural thing. (e.g. "To fit in" or "to look like dad".) Filipino circumcision predated the arrival of Catholicism to the islands.
None of these instances of circumcision are considered "religious obligations" or anything of the like.
Coptic circumcision
The present article also seems to suggest that circumcision is considered a religious obligation in Coptic Christianity. This seems to be primarily based on a poorly worded (or just straight out incorrect) sentence from Robert S. Ellwood in The Encyclopedia of World Religions (2008). (Although not mentioned by Ellwood, it appears to be referring how many Copts see it as an important social and cultural rite.)
"It is obligatory among Jews, Muslims, and Coptic Christians."
Stating that the Coptic observance of circumcision is religious in nature is similarly incorrect.
Similar to how Anglophonic and Filipino circumcision is not linked to religious observance: they're not circumcised because they're Coptic Christians, they're circumcised because it's a part of Coptic culture. That's a profound and meaningful difference. No branch of Coptic Christianity obligates circumcision for religious reasons — and circumcision outside of immediate medical necessity is (to quickly summarize a complex topic) outright prohibited after baptism. The sentence also has other obvious problems. Male circumcision is only considered obligatory (exempting profound circumstances) in Judaism and certain Islamic schools of thought. It is not mandatory (to my knowledge) among any Protestant Christian denomination, in Coptic Christianity, and in certain Islamic schools of jurisprudence.
I'm not sure how this was published by Ellwood (2008). I'm not familar with his works or him. But this sentence is a massive, egregious error, despite being published by a reliable publisher (and an apparently well-respected in the field of religious studies) author. Not sure what's the exact Wikipolicy in cases such as this, but it seems obvious to me that it should be left out entirely.
Other sources on the matter:
It's also contradicted by a multitude of sources dating back to the 19th century. For example, Anecdota Oxoniensia. Semitic Series: Volume 7 (1895) states:
Circumcision on the eighth day is customary, but not obligatory; on the other hand, the Coptic church forbids [cultural] circumcision after baptism.
Among many other sources with similar statements up to the 2010s.
Additional note:
Katherine Hunting in Hunting (2012) seems to make another, similar problematic error surrounding Christian observance of circumcision.
Neonatal circumcision is the general practice among Jews, Christians, and many, but not all Muslims
I'm not sure what the statement "neonatal circumcision is the general practice among... Christians..."
comes from. But — from an historical, theological, and international perspective — it's similarly incorrect: a majority of Christian adherents around the world are not (and historically have not been) circumcised. Predominately, only those in Africa, the Phillippines, and the Anglosphere are; none for religious obligation.
KlayCax (
talk) 11:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that a substantive portion of citations in the article (and other articles related to circumcision) relate to sources which are either:
Unreliable or problematic "pro-circumcision" sources (e.g. Possible NPOV issues):
Problematic "anti-circumcision" sources (e.g. Possible NPOV issues):
Unreliable or problematic for other reasons (e.g. Are outdated, promote other fringe perspectives, et al.):
I'm not suggesting that these sources be prohibited entirely altogether throughout the article. But if there's another possible citation for the sentence: I'm under the conviction that these sources should be replaced altogether. I'm sure there's others I missed: but these are the most glaring examples. KlayCax ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been an overgoing, almost years-long dispute on the wording of this part of the lead. With one side stating that there is a consensus in the literature that circumcision definitely reduces STD's in certain contexts and reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections. The other saying that there is no consensus and that the lead should merely state that there is an "association" between circumcision and UTI/STD prevalence. A small minority of editors have gone further: stating that circumcision increases the incidence of STD's and UTI's: citing various sources.
Version #1:
Circumcision reduces rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections.
Version #2:
Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections
The RfC question:
Note that this is not a discussion on whether circumcision in developed nations is appropriate, ethical, or should be routine. (Or whether risks outset these metrics.)
Rather, it is asking on whether there a general agreement among sources that circumcision definitely reduces UTI's and certain STD's in certain contexts?
A very similar RfC discussion is ongoing on the circumcision and HIV page. So editors here might want to check that out as well. Thanks! KlayCax ( talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add this to the lede as its a very reputable source. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00619-8 Tiggy The Terrible ( talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The suggested source is as reliable as anything else on the Circumcision page- It really isn't. See WP:MEDRS for how we evaluate medical sources on Wikipedia. MrOllie ( talk) 00:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A few months ago the statement in the lead:
Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on prophylactic efficacy related to the elective circumcision of minors.
Was changed into:
Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on prophylactic efficacy and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors.
As a compromise wording. But I honestly can't find many major medical organizations that take an official position on the matter at all — and it's not found in any sources.
Supportive:
Neutral:
Against:
Papers — among both supporters and critics of routine circumcision — generally comment on a "neutral stance" of major medical organization's as well. I can't find many organizations that actually come out and explicitly state it is ethical (outside of the American Medical Assocation/WHO) or unethical. (Outside of a few Dutch medical organizations.) KlayCax ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
not sure if the Bolnick source is where the bioethics claim comes from exclusively or notIt's not mentioned in any source. Reliable sources — from both supporters and critics — state that most major (and minor) medical organizations have not made any statements favoring or opposing the ethics of circumcising minors.
Without the “bioethics” sentence, there does not seem to be one.The lead states right after: There are varying cultural, ethical, and social views on the practice. I tagged Bon Courage because he was previously involved in the conversation.
Seven issues with the first paragraph alone:
1. Circumcision is only a “procedure” (embedded link to surgery as medical specialisation) in cases performed in a clinical setting. What proportion of global circumcisions are thus performed? What proportion are performed in non-clinical settings? 2. If it is a medical procedure, then why not use medical parlance: amputates, etc. instead of the euphemism “removes the foreskin” (and what about the frenulum? the extent of foreskin ”removal” is highly variable). According to my OED, the only pertinent definition of “removal” is: “the act of taking away entirely.” This is clearly not the case for, e.g. traditional cultural forms of circumcision which only remove a portion of foreskin. According to my New Oxford American Dictionary (Apple Mac OS) the only pertinent definition of “removal” is: “the action or taking away of something unwanted” – extremely misleading in the context of non-consensual, non-therapeutic foreskin amputation. Who says the foreskin is "unwanted"? Typically not the owner of the mutilated (to use the correct medical term) penis. 3. “the most common form of the procedure” -- needs citation 4. “anaesthesia is generally used” -- needs citation 5. It is NEVER “usually elective” in cases of neonatal/juvenile circumcision; rather, in all such cases it is clearly a non-consensual (and non-therapeutic) surgical intervention; at very least this requires clarification; that consent is issued by proxy, and not by the victim/survivor/”beneficiary” of penile surgery himself, especially among neonatal foreskin ”donors” 6. It is (or medico-ethically, should be) a LAST RESORT not “an option” for cases of phimosis … 7. It is pointless to give a neat summary/description of the procedure here. In neonatal cases, the child must be forcibly restrained, and his foreskin torn from the glans to which it is fused. Alas one of our most widely-read descriptors of this procedure has been effectively banned (Marilyn Milos gives an influential account of her experience as a paediatric nurse, but it seems because of her activism she is blacklisted here)
There are wildly different forms of male circumcision (and of male genital cutting more broadly). What unites them all, if anything, is a systematic disregard for human and children's welfare and rights, and the intentional decimation of human sexual potential and the capacity for pleasure.
Circumcision long predates the medical paradigm, and persists despite the failure of medical rationalisations. In Australia, the research (both for and against the practice) strongly suggests that a medical rationale is the least of all factors driving parental choice to circumcise. Why does Wikipedia so strongly insist on its dubious (to say the least) medical credentials? Any reader of Robert Darby's history of anglophone "medical" circumcision would rightly scoff. And to my knowledge, there is no better medical history than that of Darby.
Frankly, this page is a discredit to Wikipedia ... and I'm only at paragraph one. But if this is precisely how Wikipedia operates (an acronym - NPOV - eliminating the works of any scholar who happens also to be an activist) then what hope is there for a balanced perspective? The world's most prolific bioethicist (and critic) in matters of genital surgery, Brian Earp, doesn't warrant so much as a footnote? There's something terribly wrong with this picture, which gives a misleading account of the (putative) ethical acceptability of male circumcision. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The foreskin is removed just behind the head of the penis using a scalpel or surgical scissors.
The emphasis on male circumcision as a “medical” procedure is wholly unjustified. Not only does Wikipedia ignore the fact that the procedure is, literally, “the world’s most controversial surgery” (Gollaher 2000), one which predates the advent of modern or even ancient medicine by countless aeons; it also ignores the fact that – even in former British colonies such as Australia, where no professional medical body has ascribed a single therapeutic benefit since 1971 – parental choice to circumcise male children is motivated by anything but medical necessity. According to a study by circumcision providers themselves (Xu & Goldman 2008), “hygiene” and “family tradition” outstripped “medical reasons” by a factor of 3 and 2, respectively. Circumcision opponents go even further, observing that: “few parents have any clear reasons for wanting their sons circumcised and produce them only when challenged. The most common justifications turn out to be the supposed need to look like the father or peers and not to be teased in the proverbial locker room. If ‘health benefits’ are mentioned at all, they enter as an afterthought or when other arguments fail” (Darby 2005).
The Wikipedia entry for male circumcision turns all of this on its head. From its opening gambit, ostensible medical benefit is vigorously promoted as the underlying rationale for the procedure. No history, no cultural context; just a bald regurgitation of the culturally myopic pro-circumcision lobby’s desperately evidenced claims. This, to any informed reader, must smack of cultural bias.
Unlike their North American counterparts, neither Jews nor Muslims nor First Nations people from Africa or Oceania, submit their sons to circumcision for medical reasons. That’s a significant swathe of the world’s circumcising population. What would they make of Wikipedia’s wholly ethnocentric approach, not just to male circumcision, but to its traditional female counterpart? The underlying assumption – that male and female forms of genital cutting are anything but equivalent – makes sense only to a Westerner steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition.
In its pedantic adherence to authoritative forms of institutional knowledge, Wikipedia runs the risk of collaborating with, i.e. facilitating, neo-imperialism. A loose coalition of leading bioethicists and cultural anthropologists has comprehensively critiqued US- and WHO-sponsored programs to circumcise e.g. sub-Saharan Africa – precisely on account of their glaring ethnocentrism. Black foreskins have been highly prized by the medical establishment since Victorian times; see Remondino (mentioned elsewhere on this page) for details. The global foreskin harvest, driven by recent advances in biotechnology such as iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells), demands ever more intensive bioethical scrutiny, not less.
Wikipedia must ensure that its holdings of knowledge are culturally safe, and appropriate.
NB full citations available upon request. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
From its opening gambit, ostensible medical benefit is vigorously promoted as the underlying rationale for the procedure.The article never states that medical reasons are the primary reason. It states the opposite. It reads: "It is usually elective, performed as preventive healthcare, a religious rite, or cultural practice." and that Muslims make up at least 50% of circumcised individuals. Similarly, the article states that: Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of circumcising minors. That's remarkably far from a ringing endorsement.
Unlike their North American counterparts, neither Jews nor Muslims nor First Nations people from Africa or Oceania, submit their sons to circumcision for medical reasons. That’s a significant swathe of the world’s circumcising population.We repeatedly and directly state that in the article. Again, what are you objecting to?
In its pedantic adherence to authoritative forms of institutional knowledgeThen we need major medical organizations to state it. The fact that medical organizations in non-circumcising cultures overwhelmingly state that circumcision doesn't predominately affect sexual function (to respond to your post above) is why we can't state it.
makes sense only to a Westerner steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition.Judeo-Christian tradition? Christianity has no doctrine of circumcision and Jews make up a miniscule portion of the global circumcised population. Many Christian cultures have been outright hostile to the continued practice of circumcision: both religious and in a prophylactic sense. Most Western circumcision is secular.
The global foreskin harvest, driven by recent advances in biotechnology such as iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells), demands ever more intensive bioethical scrutiny, not less.As someone in the urology field, the vast majority of neonatal foreskins are incinerated as medical waste. They're not being routinely "harvested". They're cell lines from a miniscule portion (50 or less) of neonates.
Molly Glick. ‘Why Foreskin is a Hot Commodity in Science.’ Discover Magazine. 27 July 2021. Accessed 7 January 2023. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-human-foreskin-is-a-hot-commodity-in-science ), especially with the advent of iPSC technology. The pioneers of iPSC point to the need for a much higher standard of informed consent on the part of cell donors (i.e. NOT parental consent in lieu). If you have evidence that fewer than 50 neonates have powered a multibillion-dollar biotech boom, then by all means please adduce. Because, accessing knowledge of Big Pharma's financial and other operations is well-nigh impossible to those of us outside the loop. (Industry-insider information is prohibitively expensive!). In an era of gene therapy, pre-emptive foreskin amputation deprives the individual of a potential future therapeutic benefit: forget treating UTIs; how about cures for cancer, infertility, Parkinson's etc. -- if we are to believe the scientific hype.
@ Prcc27:, why did you delete projections about future global circumcision incidence/prevalence from the article? Isn't this a clear instance where WP: Crystal does not apply?
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included...
Seeing as how the vast majority of circumcisions are Islamic (anywhere from 50% to 70% of the total circumcised male population in the world) — rather than prophylactic — is it really that WP: Fringe or WP: Undue of a notion? From an international perspective: whatever Anglophonic medical organizations decide is relatively inconsequential to global circumcision incidence.
Even if all of the countries within the Anglosphere stopped it completely (bringing future incidence to 0%) — Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom — this is indisputably far offset by ongoing African and Islamic population growth. At least for the foreseeable future. (e.g. 2050. Where the projection ends.)
Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) is a reliable source/others have given similar projections. Others are from Jörg Albrecht (2021) and Basaran (2023). KlayCax ( talk) 06:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. How does that rule apply in this situation? It's not a fringe perspective. It's entirely in line with the literature. It's indisputable given the % of circumcisions performed for stated prophylactic, cultural, and religious circumcisions, along with where world population growth and demographic trends are going. Outside of the United States, Canada, and remnant continuation in Australia and New Zealand, prophylactic-justified circumcision is predominately uncommon throughout the world. It's obvious that the main trends in incidence relate to the percentage of Muslims in the global world population and African population growth. Even a theoretical total abandonment of circumcision within the Anglophonic world would barely make a notable change in rates.
The reason for the rise in MC prevalence could be attributed to the rising number of Muslims worldwide and to the initiation of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes encouraged by the WHO and the joint United Nations agency programs...I'm not going to overload you with references that state similar. But the rise in circumcision incidence stated by Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) is in line with the literature. What makes you think it's a fringe perspective?
I think what may be a little undue about this subsection is not necessarily the date of the publication, but the usage of only one source that emphasizes only on the rising tendencies of the phenomenon.
The logic behind the prediction (the rise of muslim population in the past decades and the probable continuation of this tendency) seems substantial. What this source fails to do, however, is showcase the different tendencies for religious and non-religious/cultural circumcision and the different regional tendencies, mainly in the Anglophonic world.
Indeed, the prevalence of the procedure may have been steady in Africa and the Middle East (mainly due to Muslim & Jewish faith), but in other regions, where the procedure was prevalent in the past for non religious reasons, the tendencies seem to be a lot different in the past few decades. Mainly in Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, maybe also in the USA and South Korea(?).
The prediction itself may not be mistaken. It tries to predict the numbers on a global level. Its weakness, however, is that by emphasizing on the global scale it doesn't give a clear image about the different regional tendencies in other places of the world.
Also, I think the point about the positive recommendations by medical organizations, may be little vague too, considering that these policies are constantly altered, renewed etc.
The challenge with this type of information is that it is constantly changing and needs to be regularly checked and updated with the latest data. Piccco ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"The reason for the rise in MC prevalence could be attributed to the rising number of Muslims worldwide and to the initiation of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes encouraged by the WHO and the joint United Nations agency programs".
What this source fails to do, however, is showcase the different tendencies for religious and non-religious/cultural circumcision and the different regional tendencies, mainly in the Anglophonic world.Zaghal and Rahman (2020) could help with that. As for the other part: adding future circumcision rates of various countries raises its own problems.
The question naturally arises, at least among certain sections of Wikipedia’s readership: What becomes of the amputated penile tissue? Across cultures the foreskin may be discarded, eaten, buried, sanctified as burnt offering, incinerated as medical waste, or collected for biotechnological ends (a lucrative output of cosmetics, engineered skin, and any number of biomedical research products). Obviously, nobody knows the fate of each and every foreskin, as there is extremely limited (typically zero) regulation of male genital-cutting practices.
(The only sources I can think of here would be anthropological texts, some of which may not pass some imagined “gold standard” of medical research for this topic? These same texts would also be of great benefit to understanding “origins” and “history” of male circumcision, to nominate two other sections sorely missing from this article.)
By including a few sentences on the fate of the amputated foreskin, something of the immense cultural, geographical and historical sweep of male circumcision would be conveyed. This information would help counter distortions generated by Eurocentric, Anglophone, and/or professional medical bias.
Caveat: the amputation and collection of healthy, functional tissue without knowledge or consent (e.g. in the case of neonatal circumcision) raises a number of ethical and legal concerns. Those could be addressed here, or in a separate section discussing said concerns more broadly. PS that’s not activism: just rudimentary jurisprudence and bioethics, on a firm foundation of scholarship, which have been routinely and actively suppressed from pro-circumcision arguments. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
“The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that circumcision should ‘only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation’” has been included in this article for several years, and is now being removed by a couple of users. To Bon Courage’s last point, I would say that WP:MEDRS does not necessarily apply to an *ethical* viewpoint. And regardless of this source, wouldn’t this source be MEDRS compliant (assuming MEDRS even applies here)? What is the common practice as far as archived sources, and why is the archived version being completely disregarded? As I said before, this viewpoint is WP:DUE, since it is a significant minority viewpoint. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead contains the following bit "Campaigns of Jewish ethnic, cultural, and religious persecution have repeatedly included bans on the practice as an attempted means of forceful assimilation, conversion, and ethnocide,[29][32][33] including in the Maccabean Revolt.[34][35]"
This is a ridiculous attempt at poisoning the well . It was probably true historically but there is no indication whatsoever that modern campaigners against circumcision are doing so because they're anti-jewish, so this is just a bad faith insertion. Whoever inserted this was fully aware of what they were doing. 2A02:A420:43:5E1D:DCFC:5E82:5EF9:5C83 ( talk) 04:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks like we are going back and forth regarding the female circumcision hatnote. Is there any reason why we wouldn’t want to clarify to readers, that this article is about male circumcision only? Prcc27 ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Is version #1 (new) or version #2 (old) of the second paragraph in the lead better?
Prcc27 recently reverted edits that I made to the lead. Objecting to:
Old wording:
and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. The WHO does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.
New wording:
There is a consensus among major medical organizations that adult circumcision significantly reduces HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. They take variant positions on the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV transmission among men who have sex with men and in the developed world.
While the specific mentions of the WHO/UNAIDS were steamlined into a sentence that encompassed other medical organziations. (British Medical Association, et al.)
Old wording:
Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of rare penile cancer.
New wording:
Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer.
Since the article takes a global perspective to circumcision — rather than local — saying that it is blanketly "rare"
across the world is inaccurate.
Kandeel (2007), for instance, states: The incidence of penile carcinoma ranges widely internationally. In many low and middle-income countries, "where poor hygiene is combined with a low circumcision incidence, it compromises one of the most common malignant conditions in men.
Similar statements can be found throughout the academic literature on penile cancer.
Old wording:
Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.
New wording:
Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors. [Details in body]
Trims down unnecessary wording for the lead. "Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors"
makes the second sentence relatively unnecessary, with the lead already starting to verge on "two long" as is.
The large majority of these changes seem like obvious improvements to the article. Tagging recent talk page contributors on this page: @ MrOllie:, @ Prcc27:, @ Bon courage:, @ Piccco:, @ Bluerasberry:, @ Spaully:, @ EvergreenFir:, @ Doc James:, @ Dashoopa:, @ Markworthen:. If an agreement can't be found, then this is going to have to go to RfC. KlayCax ( talk) 14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
"Effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear"is an actual case of SYNTH and is contradicted by the available citations within the article. The updated December 2022 RACP statement states that it is clear that circumcision doesn't have a significant prophylactic effect in developed nations. The 2012 AAP statement says it is clear that it does (At least that's the notion that they implicitly make). They both de facto state the evidence is
"clear". They just come to starkly differently conclusions about where it leads. That's one of the reasons why I believe the revised wording is a significant improvement. It fixes that issue.
"X list of medical organizations state it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while Y list of medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk"I'm just unsure how this wording isn't conveyed in the previous sentence. Or why it's necessary to include. 1.) Stacking the WHO on the "pro side" (which is true) 2.) "Regionalizing positions" in the lead probably gives off implications to readers that are likely misleading. (Such as the WHO believing benefits > risks in developed countries is a strong majority opinion within the academic literature. For instance. Or that there aren't prominent supporters or critics of the practice in both areas.) KlayCax ( talk) 02:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles have been sprinkled with assertations from a "foreskin regeneration organization" known as Foregen to argue that circumcision commonly causes psychological issues in circumcised men. Most of it was removed after @ MrOllie: made several edits. That being said, until today they were still claims that it made about circumcision and the foreskin that were present in the article until today. I removed more citations from the group here. Are they actually a reliable source? OntologicalTree ( talk) 00:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Go to talk of female genital mutilation. OntologicalTree ( talk) 04:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The German page on Wikipedia has been misleadingly edited to to assert that there's an agreement that pleasure is significantly reduced in circumcised men among major medical organizations/the scientific community. I realize it might be a bit gauche to ask for responses on other language Wikis. But I'm not fluent in German and want assurance that everything is fixed (and worded) properly.
See discussion here. KlayCax ( talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Many studies do not come to the same conclusion as the cited one — the data from African studies do support a preventative effect on HIV but the same cannot be said of HPV. Many of the studies reviewed by the cited study sample only the glans, which they admit is a confounding factor. Many of them also rely on self-reporting of circumcision status, which confounds the results. In a newer review of circumcision and STDs, Van Howe writes on HPV: “With the studies of any type of HPV, sampling only the glans trended toward being a factor ( and ). Glans only studies had a summary odds ratio of 1.82 (95% CI = 1.05–3.14), while studies with complete sampling had a summary odds ratio of 1.17 (95% CI = 0.98–1.40). Patient report of circumcision status was a statistically significant factor ( and ) with studies relying on physical examination to determine circumcision status having a summary odds ratio of 1.14 (95% CI = 0.97–1.35) and studies with a reliance on patient report as summary odds ratio of 2.11 (95% CI = 1.24–3.59). When both factors are included in a multivariate model (sampling and ; physical examination and ), the summary odds ratio for complete sampling of the penis combined with circumcision status determined by physical examination is 1.08 (95% CI = 0.93–1.24), and for sampling only the glans combined with determining circumcision status by patient report is 3.21 (95% CI = 1.62–6.36).
With high-risk HPV studies, sampling only the glans trended toward being a factor ( and ). Studies that sample only the glans had a summary odds ratio of 1.86 (95% CI = 0.9964–3.46), while studies with complete sampling had a summary odds ratio of 1.10 (95% CI = 0.88–1.37). Patient report of circumcision status was statistically significant ( and ) with physical examination studies having a summary odds ratio of 1.08 (95% CI = 0.88–1.32) and patient report studies having a summary odds ratio of 2.16 (95% CI = 1.18–3.99). When both factors are included in model (sampling and ; physical examination and ), the summary odds ratio for complete sampling combined with physical examination determination of circumcision status is 1.01 (95% CI = 0.84–1.22), while the summary odds ratio with sampling only the glans combined with depending on patient report to determine circumcision status is 3.45 (95% CI = 1.60–7.42).” https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/109846/
These claims on HPV and other non-HIV STDs should be better supported, removed, or information should be added noting their their findings are controversial and not supported by all research. Yoleaux ( talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Noticeable lack of mention on controversy, possible bias? 80.233.22.222 ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Our article currently claims that "renowned British physician Jonathan Hutchinson published his findings that Jews had a lower prevalence of certain venereal diseases in the city of London, particularly that of syphilis." This is false on two counts:
Here is all the data presented in Hutchinson's paper if anyone cares:
And here is Hutchinson's original paper itself for anyone that wants to read it. Both of my points above are already delineated in the second cited source for the sentence. Here's another secondary academic source that verifies both of these points: [37]. The other source for the sentence, Al-Salem 2016, is factually wrong and should be removed from that sentence. Nosferattus ( talk) 00:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Since there is so much confusion (on these :Talk pages, and on the Circumcision controversies: Talk pages) as to the extent of foreskin removal, perhaps that deserves clarification - across cultures, clinical practices, and throughout history in respect of the same culture (e.g. Judaism) - but primarily as a matter of medico-legal definition. For example, the Wikipedia articles might (for public benefit) include expert opinion on what constitutes excessive shaft skin removal, i.e. the most common form of a "botched" circumcision:
"[...] the bad news is, I've told this to a lot of people and sometimes I get shocked looks and [they] say "Oh, that's me!" If you have an erection and your scrotum is pulled forward significantly on the shaft and there's hair on the shaft--any significant amount of pubic hair on the shaft--[the] fact is you had a botched circumcision as a child. And it's because there is no "cut here" line [on the penis] and [because] the doctors frankly don't understand the anatomy and how the penile skin system works, so that even major textbooks on how to perform a circumcision, I think, are absolutely flat wrong; that's the most common thing that I see [as an expert circumcision injury litigator]: excessive shaft skin removal."
David Llewellyn. "Common circumcision injuries and their causes." Intact 2022: 16th International Symposium on Child Genital Cutting. 27 August, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teK2FstXzN0&list=PLUiUHQRcs8VvDezDnDqpLVju_spLqqNlm&index=12 Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Editors are once again attempting to weave together fringe information into articles surrounding male sexual anatomy. Absurdly implying that circumcised men have lost sexually important parts of their own penis or are otherwise dysfunctional. Unsurprisingly, the same anti-circumcision lexicon and "researchers" are back again.
The notion of a "ridged band" comes from an anti-circumcision activist, John Taylor, in the 1990s. The article on the matter was utterly absurd, unsourced, and overfilling with outright false information. Claiming that this mythical structure is supposedly responsible for the majority of male sexual pleasure, is overwhelmingly sensitive, the whole typical lingo.
Per @ Bon courage:
WP:MEDRS sources generally need to be secondary and recent. This is getting off-topic but yes, the term "ridged band" seems to have been taken up by John Taylor in the 1990s and became part of the circumcision activist lore (another vital anatomical structure that circumcision destroys!). Indeed on the front page of cirp.org viewers are encouraged to visit the "Ridged Band" web site. Yet, if we get up-to-date, the term seems to have no lasting mainstream currency and the only recent WP:MEDRS secondary independent source I can find (Cox et al. 2015. PMID 26185672) had this to say: The “ridged band” seems to be a name used for the concertinaed distal skin that becomes stretched for retraction over the glans. We consider that such a conformation is merely a matter of individual idiosyncrasy and not a universal feature. Furthermore, different illustrations of the so-called “ridged band” do not appear to show the same structure.. .So presenting it as a fact in Wikipedia, even identifying it (as something different even from the sources) on the opening image caption of our Foreskin article (before I zapped it) was, to put it mildly, problematic.
The AAP denies the notion of a "ridged band" as well. OntologicalTree ( talk) 23:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: keeps trying to have Wikipedia state that circumcised men are missing sexually sensitive areas of their body. This notion is inflammatory, discredited, and overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources. Per a recent December 2020 study:
Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation. In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality...
The American Academy of Pediatrics says similar. Why are we including WP: Fringe ideas? OntologicalTree ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthoodis itself inflammatory, discredited, and overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I notice that this article is still littered with references to the work of Brian Morris. (But curiously, all mention of his name seems to have been expunged from discussion here and on the Circumcision controversies :Talk page). Here are a few allegations that may be pertinent as regards probable bias. As published in a research footnote:
"While Morris is a prolific pro-circumcision activist, he is also a highly controversial figure who has been accused of academic misconduct. He has been accused of veiled self-referencing and citing his own letters to editors as evidence of published research (Earp 2013c; Svoboda and Van Howe 2013). It has been documented in the International Journal of Epidemiology that Morris has also been accused of disregarding the norm of confidentiality in the peer-review process and of pressuring journal editors to reject well-conducted studies if they suggest that circumcision may be harmful. Responding to one recent episode, a Danish sexual health researcher reported that Morris had been a ‘particularly discourteous reviewer who went to extremes to prevent our study from being published. In an email, Morris ... called people on his mailing list to arms against our study, openly admitting that he was the reviewer and that he had tried to get the paper rejected .... Breaking unwritten confidentiality and courtesy rules of the peer-review process, Morris distributed his slandering criticism of our study to people working for the same cause’ (Frisch 2013)."
Na'ama Carlin. Morality, Violence and Ritual Circumcision: Writing with Blood (London and New York: Routledge, 2023) p. 58
I will dig out the references if needed. NB, this book is by no means opposed to neonatal circumcision. But the author was compelled to point out Morris's dubious credentials in a footnote, in deference to academic honesty. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Neveselbert:. The positions of major medical organizations have shifted significantly since 2012-2014. That's why some of the things discussed in the GA-discussion from 2013 were removed from the article. My Elsevier urology resource says that the World Health Organization presently recommends universal circumcision for neonates. KlayCax ( talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The organization [WHO] recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication. Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick et al. is from 2012 (10 years beforehand) and therefore outdated. (ISBN: 978-1-4471-2857-1) Other academic resources in my urology program state the same. KlayCax ( talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesremains accurate on account of the citations provided, per WP:V. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
the agency does not comment on information from unofficial or non-CDC sourcesand that
there are websites that state whether information that's circulating in the media is true or false. For example, Snopes.com is a site that report rumors or hoaxes.Clearly, this response would imply that they make no such recommendation, which they characterised in their response as
possible online misinformation. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 23 March 2023 (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 80 | ← | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 |
There's some disagreement about the word "significantly" in the sentence "male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa". The word "significant" is used in the source, but the word is mentioned as "careful language" here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language.
One source, the WHO, mentions:
Data from three RCTs conducted in different countries showed a 59% (44%–70%) reduction in HIV incidence (efficacy) among circumcised men ages 15–49 years (11–13). The protective effect was seen soon after circumcision. The protective effect was confirmed in extended post-trial follow-up to six years of men in two of the three RCTs (in Kenya and Uganda) (27, 28). The estimated impact over the six years was a 66% (51%–76%) reduction in risk, which is close to the result of the “as-treated” analysis of the three RCTs. [1]
The second source is Siegfried et. al uses the term "significant", although some editors question if it could be statistical or clinical significance:
Three large RCTs of men from the general population were conducted in South Africa (N = 3 274), Uganda (N = 4 996) and Kenya (N = 2 784) between 2002 and 2006. All three trials were stopped early due to significant findings at interim analyses. We combined the survival estimates for all three trials at 12 months and also at 21 or 24 months in a meta-analysis using available case analyses using the random effects model. The resultant incidence risk ratio (IRR) was 0.50 at 12 months with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.34 to 0.72; and 0.46 at 21 or 24 months (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.62). These IRRs can be interpreted as a relative risk reduction of acquiring HIV of 50% at 12 months and 54% at 21 or 24 months following circumcision. There was little statistical heterogeneity between the trial results (chi(2) = 0.60; df = 2; p = 0.74 and chi(2) = 0.31; df = 2; p = 0.86) with the degree of heterogeneity quantified by the I(2) at 0% in both analyses. We investigated the sensitivity of the calculated IRRs and conducted meta-analyses of the reported IRRs, the reported per protocol IRRs, and reported full intention-to-treat analysis. The results obtained did not differ markedly from the available case meta-analysis, with
circumcision displaying significant protective effectsacross all analyses. We conducted a meta-analysis of the secondary outcomes measuring sexual behaviour for the Kenyan and Ugandan trials and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For the South African trial the mean number of sexual contacts at the 12-month visit was 5.9 in the circumcision group versus 5 in the control group, which was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). [2]
The options are:
Thoughts anyone?? Stix1776 ( talk) 16:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Option A is the best choice of the three. 59% is an estimate of the reduction in seroconversion — and will vary between studies — while "significant" accurately reflects the results of top-quality studies in the context of high risk areas. KlayCax ( talk) 00:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Stix1776 ( talk) 08:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Per this diff [27], @ Alexbrn:, I've asked your repeatedly. In what fashion are editors allowed to add non American medical bodies to this article?? Stix1776 ( talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
To absolutely disconnect this from your original edit and the unanswered questions. How can we add non American perspectives to the lead when your removed them? Stix1776 ( talk) 13:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Stix1776, please stop going back and adding material to earlier posts, it makes this discussion nearly impossible to follow. If you have a question for me ask it at the end of the section and I will respond there. - MrOllie ( talk) 13:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Very supportive of WP:GAR. Alexbrn, please stop with the personal attacks, though. Stix1776 ( talk) 00:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The sentence below should point out that the WHO only recommends circumcision for adolescents and adult males and does not make a recommendation for infants.
Change: "Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV; the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[12][14]"
To: "Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision for adolescents and men, but not infants; as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV; the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[12][14]"
Infants should not be included by generality when the WHO did not include them in the report recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E1E9:9A0A:FFCD:74AA ( talk) 08:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Lead wording on medical community's positions:
The present wording in the lead is as follows.
The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure. There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.
I suggest that it should be replaced with:
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness relating to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries. [The rest of the paragraph's wording being moved into the body with revised wording.]
The revised wording in body being:
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness relating to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries. The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. Discussions and disputes over prophylactic efficacy, consent, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up in these cases. [The original accidentally and unnecessarily duplicates "[bio]ethics" two times.] There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.
(The bold above being modified.)
Penile cancer in lead:
The present wording in the lead is as follows.
It also decreases the risk of rare cancer of the penis.
I suggest that it should be replaced with:
It also decreases the risk of penile cancer.
Having "cancer of the penis" rather than "penile cancer" seems simply loquacious. I have no strong feelings on whether "rare" should be included or not. It is an extremely rare form of cancer (even severe complications resulting from circumcision appear to be way more common than phimosis-induced penile cancer.) Whatever fits editoral discretion.
World Health Organization in "elective" body section:
The present wording in the "elective" section of the body is as follows.
According to the World Health Organization, "there are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy".
I suggest it should be replaced with:
According to the World Health Organization [blockquote if real]: "There are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy, and programmes that promote early infant male circumcision are likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes targeting adolescent boys and men." [end blockquote]
"Minor issues (that I have no strong opinions on)"
Editors opinions:
I see all of these changes as substantive improvements to the status quo. But because these edits have been challenged by Stix1776, let's get a consensus on the talk page from recent, active editors on here. MrOllie, Alexbrn, Prcc27, Stix1776, OntologicalTree, Dimadick, Jayjg, and Markworthen, Praxidicae, how do you feel about the changes? KlayCax ( talk) 17:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It is difficult to establish how many male circumcisions it would take to prevent a case of penile cancer, and at what cost economically and physically. One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications. The clinical value of the modest risk reduction from circumcision for a rare cancer is difficult to measure against the potential for complications from the procedure. In addition, these findings are likely to decrease with increasing rates of HPV vaccination in the United States. [33]
The opening sentence of this article mentions that this article is specifically about the "medical procedure" of removing the foreskin. I'm wondering why there is talk in this page on cultural and religious removal of the foreskin? As an example the Philippine Tuli ritual? Is this article about both medical and non-medical removal of the foreskin? If so, shouldn't the opening sentence say that? If not, then shouldn't discussions of things like Tuli be in a separate article about the non-medical removal of the foreskin?
Herro56 ( talk) 13:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
There are clearly risks inherent in any surgical procedure: for example, pain, bleeding, surgical mishap and complications of anaesthesia. With NTMC there are associated medical and psychological risks, although it is generally considered a low-risk procedure. Usually risks of surgery are offset by the medical benefits that ensue – where there are no clear medical benefits, some other justification is needed for exposing children to this risk.While this does not refer to Tuli nor any other ritualistic based circumcision by name, Tuli would be considered as part of this guidance due to it involving a non-therapeutic circumcision of a child for cultural reasons.
Male circumcision is one of the oldest surgical procedures known, traditionally undertaken as a mark of cultural identity or religious importance.Again doesn't mention Tuli by name, however like with the BMA guidance it would be considered as part of this guidance due to it occuring under "mark of cultural identity".
Circumcision is a surgical procedure that removes the foreskin from the human penis., with the same citations as present. That brings us into line with BMA and WHO guidance, I suspect other major public health bodies that I can't seem to find relevant guidance for at this time, which differentiates between medical and non-medical circumcisions, and keeps it clear that regardless of the underlying reason for a circumcision (be it medical or ritual) the procedure is surgical in nature. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I am pretty aghast at how strongly wikipedia recommends circumcision. There are so many sections in this article redundantly repeating the supposed health benefits of circumcison using dubious studies (and the same study sourced three different times). And nothing on Dr Kellogg's promotion of circumcison to prevent masturbation in boys? This article is a polemic on circumcison and it's a disservice to both Wikipedia and anyone reading it looking for an objective point of view. 2603:6000:B400:2EF1:AD31:5CD2:C2FD:C833 ( talk) 14:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This is clear sexism, as "female genital Mutilation" is clearly trying to sound dangerous, where as so is male genital mutilation, but the cirmumscion article for men is clearly biased about supporting it being illegalized for women but not for men.
So, to solve this issue, I propose we merge these articles into one, naming it "genital mutilation" and making circumcision redirect to here. 82.18.134.221 ( talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 14:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted infections. This includes decreased incidence rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significant reductions of HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer. Complication rates are higher when the procedure is performed on individuals that are older. A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common acute complications. Meatal stenosis is the most common long term complication. Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. There is a consensus among major medical organizations to recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV. [Note C]
Contained within Note C of Version #1:
There is a consensus among major medical organizations to recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV. The World Health Organization does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; major medical organizations have differing perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world.
Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted infections. For the latter, this includes decreased incidence rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significant reductions of HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. The WHO and UNAIDS recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. The WHO does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear. Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer. Complication rates are higher when the procedure is performed on individuals that are older. A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common acute complications. Meatal stenosis is the most common long term complication. Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but as a Jewish man, does any major Christian denomination actually support or recommend circumcision? Why the heck is it in the header? OntologicalTree ( talk) 23:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
31 references show up in the article. Somewhere, the article gets broken and prevents the hundred plus references from showing on the article. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:996C:4877:C2EF:3A72 ( talk) 04:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
It should be an {{ excerpt}} of Prevalence of circumcision#Present. — Guarapiranga ☎ 07:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Both of these articles could easily be merged into circumcision without any significant problems. There doesn't seem to be an independent reason for them to exist.
All of these could easily be merged into one, singular article. Or perhaps, similarly, merged into circumcision. No good reasons for them to exist as independent articles.
Fringe movement which even supporters state that presently "calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous". Comes off more across as a promotional page than anything else.
Don't meet standards of notability and has been overwhelmingly edited by users close to the organization. (As has been openly stated by those editing it.)
The latter organization no longer even exists.
organization no longer even existsis not a criterion for exclusion from WP.
Here are some of the sources I have for this:
This doesn't even cover the known phenomena of circumcision causing risky sexual behaviour due to the man thinking he's immune to STDS. Prevention of STDs is also just one of many myths that have been propagated by this article. Tiggy The Terrible ( talk) 20:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on the bioethics, cost-effectiveness, and the prophylactic efficacy related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by riskin the article. KlayCax ( talk) 19:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I just removed a statement that stated:
The overall prevalence of circumcision in South Korea has increased markedly in the second half of the 20th century, rising from near zero around 1950 to about 60% in 2000, with the most significant jumps in the last two decades of that time period.
This is probably due to the influence of the United States, which established a trusteeship for the country following World War II.
It goes on to cite the World Health Organization. But nothing within the citation claims that!
The strikethrough text itself appears to have been an unreferenced statement inserted by an IP editor on March 22, 2005. (Although earlier statements with similar wording existed.) I couldn't find any consensus within the literature on this statement — along with multiple citations already present within the article stating the exact opposite.
Such as p. 256-257 of Bolnick, Koyle & Yosha (2012) :
...[in] South Korea... where the operation became very popular in the second half of the twentieth century... while these authors attributed this to American influence, this seems unlikely since the age of circumcision matches more the practice in the Philippines and elsewhere in southeast Asia. Quoted anedoctal evidence mentions that the Korean Army favored the procedure during the Korean War, and also that many popular newspaper and magazine articles promoted circumcision in the 1950s.
Despite its impressive length this article (and other articles related to circumcision suffer from substantive problems:
I could keep going on and on. But this article probably needs to be downgraded to start. It has massive issues throughout and this isn't something that can be easily solved in a night. I'm aware that the main article achieved GA-status (before getting demoted) a few months ago. But I'm under the conviction that promoting it in the first place was a mistake: this article(s) needs major, major improvements.
Thanks, KlayCax ( talk) 07:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I read the two sources cited for this https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-2858-8_1 and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43545-020-00011-7 neither of them represent overwhelming support. There is guidelines for the procedure when a medical necessity but that is no different when an amputation is required. Even the first abstract writes "That is, circumcision confers some medical benefit but not enough to call for its routine application."
There is a recognition of the possible legality of circumcision in respective countries, though they come with various caveats and actual doubt as to whether religious justification would actually hold up, if for example in the EU it is brought to the European Court of Human Rights.
The second source is an advocacy and lobbying piece. Again made clear in the abstract "The final part of the article includes a proposal for humane male circumcision that considers religious sentiments and the rights of the child, aiming to strike a reasonable balance between competing interests. I hope the proposal will be debated in parliaments in the western world."
It also cites a BMA piece "The British Medical Association (2004) is supportive of allowing parents to make choices for their children" despite it being published in 2021, the most recent guidance BMA guidance is from 2019 https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf and while it doesn't outright condemn the religious/cultural practice, it certainly isn't "supportive of allowing parents to make choices for their children" for circumcision. From the 2019 guidelines:
"Furthermore, the harm of a person not having the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised or choose not to follow the traditions of his parents must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual’s relationship with his parents and the medical profession, if he feels harmed by an irreversible non-therapeutic procedure."
This page has much wider problems, such as after the initial description it is immediately followed by a justification: "Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections. This includes decreasing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations".
If the page on domestic abuse followed the description with "beating your wife has been found to lower divorce rates and increase offspring education outcomes by 30%" it would be wildly inappropriate even if those statistics were somehow true.
But I just went in depth with at least those two sources which are referenced repeatedly, the second of which being openly lobbying is clearly inappropriate. Trying to falsely claim major medical organisations support your point of view isn't acceptable. BeardedChimp ( talk) 04:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I have some WP:POV concerns regarding the paragraph about the trials. “The circumcised group had a substantially lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group, and hence that it would be unethical to withhold…” Issue #1: we should not state an ethical view as factual. “…the treatment in light of overwhelming evidence of prophylactic efficacy” issue #2: non-therapeutic circumcision is considered prevention, not “treatment”; also, it is POV to exaggerate and say the evidence is “overwhelming”. At best, the evidence is “strong”. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
MC is... strongly supported by the data from three large RCTs conducted in Africaright before that. It directly mentions the three RCT trials as part of the
"overwhelming evidence"for circumcision in high risk contexts.
all three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence of circumcision's protective effect.
Overwhelming evidence, including three clinical trials, shows that male circumcision (MC) reduces the risk of HIV infection among men.
Only after the results of three RCTs were available was the public health community convinced that there was sufficient evidence to initiate provision of circumcision services in high prevalence areas
Circumcision of adult males is 70 percent effective in reducing transmission from females to males based on three RCTs... (very strong evidence).
Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated circumcision results in a 50–60% reduction in risk of acquiring HIV infection in heterosexual males. In three clinical trials performed in sub-Saharan Africa, uncircumcised men were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group was offered immediate circumcision (treatment group) and those in the other group (control group) were offered circumcision at the end of the trial. All participants received HIV testing and counseling, condoms, and safe sex counseling. All three trials were stopped early due to the overwhelming evidence that circumcision offered a protective effect against HIV, and it was felt to be unethical to ask the control group to wait to be circumcised.
The evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men is strong. Results come from diverse settings, span 32 years (1986 to 2017), and are very consistent... Data from three RCTs.
fringe perspectives. KlayCax ( talk) 22:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo File:Covenant of Abraham.JPG was cropped on 17 May 2020, with the new version uploaded by the original uploader ( Chesdovi), saying "cropped, per talk". I don't know what talk that was referring to; I didn't easily find such a discussion. The caption in the article had included some descriptive details: "with a Mogen shield (on the table, next to the scalpel)". I just removed that part of the caption, because there is no Mogen device, scalpel or table visible in the cropped version. My impression is that the cropped version contains a lot less information than the uncropped one, so I would prefer the uncropped one. In the cropped version, all we see is the back of a man's head and a baby that is wearing a diaper and having its shirt pulled up by someone else's hands. I don't see anything in the picture that even identifies that what is happening is circumcision (in contrast to the uncropped version, which shows the instruments that will be used in the process). Which version do others prefer? — BarrelProof ( talk) 21:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
@ GenoV84:. We can't blanketly refer to circumcision as "genital mutilation" in Wikivoice. This has already been discussed repeatedly on the circumcision talk page and various RfC's ad nauseam: with a repeated consensus that it shouldn't be referred to as such in Wikivoice. As Martha Nussbaum famously summarized in Sex and Social Justice (1999):
Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', "female genital mutilation"... is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.
Blanketly changing "circumcision" to "child abuse" and "genital mutilation" is WP: Activism, WP: NPOV, and WP: Fringe. KlayCax ( talk) 22:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Btw, the appropriate talk page to discuss about the aforementioned edit warring is Talk:Circumcision controversies, not this one.I think either is fine. But I'll repost this thread on there. Whether it should be referred to as "mutilation" in Wikivoice affects a multitude of articles surrounding circumcision. KlayCax ( talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Wording choice A: (Move major medical organizations positions in developing nations into a note)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. [Within note] The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. [/End Note]
Wording choice B: (Completely eliminate major medical organizations positions in lead)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. [No note]
The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.[/No Note]
Wording choice C: (Status quo)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.
Wording choice D: (Modified lead)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries.
Wording choice E: (Status quo)
Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Circumcision has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The existing page states "Circumcised men are presently estimated to constitute around 38% of the world's population.[9][21][39][40] ". This is badly worded and is incorrect as worded. The figure is about one third of men, not one third of the world's population. The quoted sentence should read: "Circumcised men are presently estimated to constitute around 17% of the world's population.[9][21][39][40]" 180.150.36.246 ( talk) 08:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved by a unanimous consensus. No such user ( talk) 10:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Circumcision → Male circumcision – This article only covers the topic of male circumcision. Please note that female circumcision also exists. Due to that, I propose that " Circumcision" should become a disambiguation page. Male circumcision is only common in the US, Australia and Canada when regarding first world countries, and the term "circumcision" is therefore equally associated with both the male and female version in a large part of the world. 12u ( talk) 20:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision.
Does this article come across as bias to anyone else?
Sections in the article frequently devolve into what seems like rants against the practice rather than an objective accounting. The summarization of the existing literature also seems skewed in an anti-circumcision way. As a Jewish person, it seems heavily skewed towards a liberalistic and Anglo-American perspective; other cultural and religious perspectives are totally ignored. OntologicalTree ( talk) 17:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
You're right, it's just the opposite. In the world the white American POV is pro-mutilation. Mhannigan ( talk) 05:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Can Wikivoice state that prophylactic and (religious/Jewish) religious circumcision is "genital mutilation", "sexual violence", and "abuse"?
Ongoing discussion on the circumcision controversies talk page. Disputed parts in bold.
Circumcision controversies page:
In Classical and Hellenistic civilization, Ancient Greeks and Romans posed great value on the beauty of nature, physical integrity, aesthetics, harmonious bodies and nudity, including the foreskin (see also Ancient Greek art), and were opposed to all forms of genital mutilation, including [Jewish religious] circumcision — an opposition inherited by the canon and secular legal systems of the Christian West and East that lasted at least through to the Middle Ages, according to Frederick Hodges.
Estimates of sexual violence page:
Historical and documented forms of sexual violence against male patients include the involvement of medical staff in the practice of male genital mutilation [circumcision] in the United States.
See the talk pages on both articles. GenoV84 states it doesn't violate WP: NPOV. I disagree. KlayCax ( talk) 01:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The title of this Article should be changed to "Male genital mutilation" and the first lines should say something similar to the "Female Genital Mutilation" Article says "Male genital mutilation, also known as Male circumcision". The first section of the article should be what the procedure is. Then followed immediately by information about how it originated, why, and how uncommon the practice is throughout the World with statistical information to show that.
Unless done for a legitimate medical reason such as Phimosis, Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation. It is an unnecessary practice that originated out of delusional, barbaric religious fanaticism.
A new study from October of 2022 has also called in to question the claims of Circumcision aiding in a reduction of HIV transmission as the article claims in saying "Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections. This includes decreasing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations." Zoboili ( talk) 03:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I removed "rare" penile cancer again from the lead. I don't think there needs to be much write-up about this — since a similar conversation has already occurred on the foreskin talk page. However, I wanted to tag everyone involved in the previous conversation in case there was any concerns. Thanks. @ Prcc27: @ Bon Courage: @ Piccco:. KlayCax ( talk) 07:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @ Neveselbert:. Why did you state that Elsevier Health Sciences's Material Child Nursing Care, 7th Edition violates the tenets WP:MEDRS?
It's sourced from:
"The World Health Organization recognizes male circumcision as an important intervention in reducing the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV in men. The organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication."
A call for universal neonatal circumcision — with the exception of contraindication cases — has been the official policy of the WHO since 2010. KlayCax ( talk) 06:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
e.g. As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure
As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure
The organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication.It's hard to get more explicit than that. WP:MEDRS is passed.
"the organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication". Do you just want that quoted verbatim instead? Elsevier Health Sciences is one of multiple WP:MEDRS-compliant sources which have stated similar. (My academic resource states the same.)
Of course there's exceptions., the exception being that the supposed "benefits" are nowhere near enough to recommend doing it routinely. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
So you can't provide a source from the WHO itself confirming?Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia (2010) is widely viewed as a recommendation for universal circumcision from multiple reliable sources. (Along with other statements published by them.) At the very least, the statement
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesis not universally agreed upon by reliable sources. (My Up-To-Date guidance states the WHO does recommend it.)
The exception being that the supposed "benefits" are nowhere near enough to recommend doing it routinelyIn developed countries?
The decision to have a newborn male circumcised is very personal and should be made after careful consideration of the risks and benefits and cultural, religious, and personal preferences.Therefore, the statement
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesis broadly accurate. As for
In developed countries?, of course, though even in developing countries there is no consensus for a routine recommendation among the young. The WHO may have indicated such a recommendation in areas of high HIV prevalence, but this is still not explicitly stated by policy. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The World Health Organization now recommends that male circumcision be offered as an HIV prevention intervention... and recommends neonatal circumcision... should be an important component of prevention campaigns since "neonatal circumcision is a less complicated and risky procedure than circumcision performed in young boys, adolescents or adults [and] countries should consider how to promote neonatal circumcision in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner."- Acceptability of Infant Male Circumcision as Part of HIV Prevention and Male Reproductive Health Efforts in Gaborone, Botswana, and Surrounding Areas (2009); published in AIDS and Behavior.
though even in developing countries there is no consensus for a routine recommendation among the youngThe statement is exclusively about the World Health Organization. It doesn't claim that there is a consensus in the matter.
is broadly accurateElsevier Health Sciences (2022) guidelines explicitly disputes Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick's interpretation.
As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedureand
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesbeing removed from the article. Since Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) contradicts the first (although I argue it's outdated) and (Perry et al., 2022) Elsevier Health Sciences contradicts the other. Perhaps a note could also be added explaining the differing interpretations of the WHO's position. KlayCax ( talk) 18:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The current image in the article makes opponents of routine circumcision come across as kooky. (e.g. It gives off major "crazy guy with a sign on a street corner" vibes)
Is there any better pictures we could use? If not, I think it should be removed from the article entirely. KlayCax ( talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I've recently noticed that significant parts of the present article directly state or otherwise imply that circumcision is a common religious rite for Christians.
To anyone with knowledge surrounding this topic or Christian theology in general: this is a massive red flag surrounding the article's accuracy.
Anglophonic and Filipino circumcision
Citations surrounding this seem to be poorly worded statements from an array of authors stating that circumcision is a common prophylactic, cultural, or social practice in areas where Christians live.
However, it should be obvious that this does not make it automatically a rite that is performed because of Christianity. Anglosphere circumcision is predominately performed out of a belief that it's prophylactic against disease ("e.g. healthier that way") or as a cultural thing. (e.g. "To fit in" or "to look like dad".) Filipino circumcision predated the arrival of Catholicism to the islands.
None of these instances of circumcision are considered "religious obligations" or anything of the like.
Coptic circumcision
The present article also seems to suggest that circumcision is considered a religious obligation in Coptic Christianity. This seems to be primarily based on a poorly worded (or just straight out incorrect) sentence from Robert S. Ellwood in The Encyclopedia of World Religions (2008). (Although not mentioned by Ellwood, it appears to be referring how many Copts see it as an important social and cultural rite.)
"It is obligatory among Jews, Muslims, and Coptic Christians."
Stating that the Coptic observance of circumcision is religious in nature is similarly incorrect.
Similar to how Anglophonic and Filipino circumcision is not linked to religious observance: they're not circumcised because they're Coptic Christians, they're circumcised because it's a part of Coptic culture. That's a profound and meaningful difference. No branch of Coptic Christianity obligates circumcision for religious reasons — and circumcision outside of immediate medical necessity is (to quickly summarize a complex topic) outright prohibited after baptism. The sentence also has other obvious problems. Male circumcision is only considered obligatory (exempting profound circumstances) in Judaism and certain Islamic schools of thought. It is not mandatory (to my knowledge) among any Protestant Christian denomination, in Coptic Christianity, and in certain Islamic schools of jurisprudence.
I'm not sure how this was published by Ellwood (2008). I'm not familar with his works or him. But this sentence is a massive, egregious error, despite being published by a reliable publisher (and an apparently well-respected in the field of religious studies) author. Not sure what's the exact Wikipolicy in cases such as this, but it seems obvious to me that it should be left out entirely.
Other sources on the matter:
It's also contradicted by a multitude of sources dating back to the 19th century. For example, Anecdota Oxoniensia. Semitic Series: Volume 7 (1895) states:
Circumcision on the eighth day is customary, but not obligatory; on the other hand, the Coptic church forbids [cultural] circumcision after baptism.
Among many other sources with similar statements up to the 2010s.
Additional note:
Katherine Hunting in Hunting (2012) seems to make another, similar problematic error surrounding Christian observance of circumcision.
Neonatal circumcision is the general practice among Jews, Christians, and many, but not all Muslims
I'm not sure what the statement "neonatal circumcision is the general practice among... Christians..."
comes from. But — from an historical, theological, and international perspective — it's similarly incorrect: a majority of Christian adherents around the world are not (and historically have not been) circumcised. Predominately, only those in Africa, the Phillippines, and the Anglosphere are; none for religious obligation.
KlayCax (
talk) 11:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that a substantive portion of citations in the article (and other articles related to circumcision) relate to sources which are either:
Unreliable or problematic "pro-circumcision" sources (e.g. Possible NPOV issues):
Problematic "anti-circumcision" sources (e.g. Possible NPOV issues):
Unreliable or problematic for other reasons (e.g. Are outdated, promote other fringe perspectives, et al.):
I'm not suggesting that these sources be prohibited entirely altogether throughout the article. But if there's another possible citation for the sentence: I'm under the conviction that these sources should be replaced altogether. I'm sure there's others I missed: but these are the most glaring examples. KlayCax ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
There has been an overgoing, almost years-long dispute on the wording of this part of the lead. With one side stating that there is a consensus in the literature that circumcision definitely reduces STD's in certain contexts and reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections. The other saying that there is no consensus and that the lead should merely state that there is an "association" between circumcision and UTI/STD prevalence. A small minority of editors have gone further: stating that circumcision increases the incidence of STD's and UTI's: citing various sources.
Version #1:
Circumcision reduces rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections.
Version #2:
Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections
The RfC question:
Note that this is not a discussion on whether circumcision in developed nations is appropriate, ethical, or should be routine. (Or whether risks outset these metrics.)
Rather, it is asking on whether there a general agreement among sources that circumcision definitely reduces UTI's and certain STD's in certain contexts?
A very similar RfC discussion is ongoing on the circumcision and HIV page. So editors here might want to check that out as well. Thanks! KlayCax ( talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to add this to the lede as its a very reputable source. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00619-8 Tiggy The Terrible ( talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The suggested source is as reliable as anything else on the Circumcision page- It really isn't. See WP:MEDRS for how we evaluate medical sources on Wikipedia. MrOllie ( talk) 00:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A few months ago the statement in the lead:
Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on prophylactic efficacy related to the elective circumcision of minors.
Was changed into:
Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on prophylactic efficacy and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors.
As a compromise wording. But I honestly can't find many major medical organizations that take an official position on the matter at all — and it's not found in any sources.
Supportive:
Neutral:
Against:
Papers — among both supporters and critics of routine circumcision — generally comment on a "neutral stance" of major medical organization's as well. I can't find many organizations that actually come out and explicitly state it is ethical (outside of the American Medical Assocation/WHO) or unethical. (Outside of a few Dutch medical organizations.) KlayCax ( talk) 22:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
not sure if the Bolnick source is where the bioethics claim comes from exclusively or notIt's not mentioned in any source. Reliable sources — from both supporters and critics — state that most major (and minor) medical organizations have not made any statements favoring or opposing the ethics of circumcising minors.
Without the “bioethics” sentence, there does not seem to be one.The lead states right after: There are varying cultural, ethical, and social views on the practice. I tagged Bon Courage because he was previously involved in the conversation.
Seven issues with the first paragraph alone:
1. Circumcision is only a “procedure” (embedded link to surgery as medical specialisation) in cases performed in a clinical setting. What proportion of global circumcisions are thus performed? What proportion are performed in non-clinical settings? 2. If it is a medical procedure, then why not use medical parlance: amputates, etc. instead of the euphemism “removes the foreskin” (and what about the frenulum? the extent of foreskin ”removal” is highly variable). According to my OED, the only pertinent definition of “removal” is: “the act of taking away entirely.” This is clearly not the case for, e.g. traditional cultural forms of circumcision which only remove a portion of foreskin. According to my New Oxford American Dictionary (Apple Mac OS) the only pertinent definition of “removal” is: “the action or taking away of something unwanted” – extremely misleading in the context of non-consensual, non-therapeutic foreskin amputation. Who says the foreskin is "unwanted"? Typically not the owner of the mutilated (to use the correct medical term) penis. 3. “the most common form of the procedure” -- needs citation 4. “anaesthesia is generally used” -- needs citation 5. It is NEVER “usually elective” in cases of neonatal/juvenile circumcision; rather, in all such cases it is clearly a non-consensual (and non-therapeutic) surgical intervention; at very least this requires clarification; that consent is issued by proxy, and not by the victim/survivor/”beneficiary” of penile surgery himself, especially among neonatal foreskin ”donors” 6. It is (or medico-ethically, should be) a LAST RESORT not “an option” for cases of phimosis … 7. It is pointless to give a neat summary/description of the procedure here. In neonatal cases, the child must be forcibly restrained, and his foreskin torn from the glans to which it is fused. Alas one of our most widely-read descriptors of this procedure has been effectively banned (Marilyn Milos gives an influential account of her experience as a paediatric nurse, but it seems because of her activism she is blacklisted here)
There are wildly different forms of male circumcision (and of male genital cutting more broadly). What unites them all, if anything, is a systematic disregard for human and children's welfare and rights, and the intentional decimation of human sexual potential and the capacity for pleasure.
Circumcision long predates the medical paradigm, and persists despite the failure of medical rationalisations. In Australia, the research (both for and against the practice) strongly suggests that a medical rationale is the least of all factors driving parental choice to circumcise. Why does Wikipedia so strongly insist on its dubious (to say the least) medical credentials? Any reader of Robert Darby's history of anglophone "medical" circumcision would rightly scoff. And to my knowledge, there is no better medical history than that of Darby.
Frankly, this page is a discredit to Wikipedia ... and I'm only at paragraph one. But if this is precisely how Wikipedia operates (an acronym - NPOV - eliminating the works of any scholar who happens also to be an activist) then what hope is there for a balanced perspective? The world's most prolific bioethicist (and critic) in matters of genital surgery, Brian Earp, doesn't warrant so much as a footnote? There's something terribly wrong with this picture, which gives a misleading account of the (putative) ethical acceptability of male circumcision. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The foreskin is removed just behind the head of the penis using a scalpel or surgical scissors.
The emphasis on male circumcision as a “medical” procedure is wholly unjustified. Not only does Wikipedia ignore the fact that the procedure is, literally, “the world’s most controversial surgery” (Gollaher 2000), one which predates the advent of modern or even ancient medicine by countless aeons; it also ignores the fact that – even in former British colonies such as Australia, where no professional medical body has ascribed a single therapeutic benefit since 1971 – parental choice to circumcise male children is motivated by anything but medical necessity. According to a study by circumcision providers themselves (Xu & Goldman 2008), “hygiene” and “family tradition” outstripped “medical reasons” by a factor of 3 and 2, respectively. Circumcision opponents go even further, observing that: “few parents have any clear reasons for wanting their sons circumcised and produce them only when challenged. The most common justifications turn out to be the supposed need to look like the father or peers and not to be teased in the proverbial locker room. If ‘health benefits’ are mentioned at all, they enter as an afterthought or when other arguments fail” (Darby 2005).
The Wikipedia entry for male circumcision turns all of this on its head. From its opening gambit, ostensible medical benefit is vigorously promoted as the underlying rationale for the procedure. No history, no cultural context; just a bald regurgitation of the culturally myopic pro-circumcision lobby’s desperately evidenced claims. This, to any informed reader, must smack of cultural bias.
Unlike their North American counterparts, neither Jews nor Muslims nor First Nations people from Africa or Oceania, submit their sons to circumcision for medical reasons. That’s a significant swathe of the world’s circumcising population. What would they make of Wikipedia’s wholly ethnocentric approach, not just to male circumcision, but to its traditional female counterpart? The underlying assumption – that male and female forms of genital cutting are anything but equivalent – makes sense only to a Westerner steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition.
In its pedantic adherence to authoritative forms of institutional knowledge, Wikipedia runs the risk of collaborating with, i.e. facilitating, neo-imperialism. A loose coalition of leading bioethicists and cultural anthropologists has comprehensively critiqued US- and WHO-sponsored programs to circumcise e.g. sub-Saharan Africa – precisely on account of their glaring ethnocentrism. Black foreskins have been highly prized by the medical establishment since Victorian times; see Remondino (mentioned elsewhere on this page) for details. The global foreskin harvest, driven by recent advances in biotechnology such as iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells), demands ever more intensive bioethical scrutiny, not less.
Wikipedia must ensure that its holdings of knowledge are culturally safe, and appropriate.
NB full citations available upon request. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
From its opening gambit, ostensible medical benefit is vigorously promoted as the underlying rationale for the procedure.The article never states that medical reasons are the primary reason. It states the opposite. It reads: "It is usually elective, performed as preventive healthcare, a religious rite, or cultural practice." and that Muslims make up at least 50% of circumcised individuals. Similarly, the article states that: Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of circumcising minors. That's remarkably far from a ringing endorsement.
Unlike their North American counterparts, neither Jews nor Muslims nor First Nations people from Africa or Oceania, submit their sons to circumcision for medical reasons. That’s a significant swathe of the world’s circumcising population.We repeatedly and directly state that in the article. Again, what are you objecting to?
In its pedantic adherence to authoritative forms of institutional knowledgeThen we need major medical organizations to state it. The fact that medical organizations in non-circumcising cultures overwhelmingly state that circumcision doesn't predominately affect sexual function (to respond to your post above) is why we can't state it.
makes sense only to a Westerner steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition.Judeo-Christian tradition? Christianity has no doctrine of circumcision and Jews make up a miniscule portion of the global circumcised population. Many Christian cultures have been outright hostile to the continued practice of circumcision: both religious and in a prophylactic sense. Most Western circumcision is secular.
The global foreskin harvest, driven by recent advances in biotechnology such as iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells), demands ever more intensive bioethical scrutiny, not less.As someone in the urology field, the vast majority of neonatal foreskins are incinerated as medical waste. They're not being routinely "harvested". They're cell lines from a miniscule portion (50 or less) of neonates.
Molly Glick. ‘Why Foreskin is a Hot Commodity in Science.’ Discover Magazine. 27 July 2021. Accessed 7 January 2023. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-human-foreskin-is-a-hot-commodity-in-science ), especially with the advent of iPSC technology. The pioneers of iPSC point to the need for a much higher standard of informed consent on the part of cell donors (i.e. NOT parental consent in lieu). If you have evidence that fewer than 50 neonates have powered a multibillion-dollar biotech boom, then by all means please adduce. Because, accessing knowledge of Big Pharma's financial and other operations is well-nigh impossible to those of us outside the loop. (Industry-insider information is prohibitively expensive!). In an era of gene therapy, pre-emptive foreskin amputation deprives the individual of a potential future therapeutic benefit: forget treating UTIs; how about cures for cancer, infertility, Parkinson's etc. -- if we are to believe the scientific hype.
@ Prcc27:, why did you delete projections about future global circumcision incidence/prevalence from the article? Isn't this a clear instance where WP: Crystal does not apply?
Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included...
Seeing as how the vast majority of circumcisions are Islamic (anywhere from 50% to 70% of the total circumcised male population in the world) — rather than prophylactic — is it really that WP: Fringe or WP: Undue of a notion? From an international perspective: whatever Anglophonic medical organizations decide is relatively inconsequential to global circumcision incidence.
Even if all of the countries within the Anglosphere stopped it completely (bringing future incidence to 0%) — Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom — this is indisputably far offset by ongoing African and Islamic population growth. At least for the foreseeable future. (e.g. 2050. Where the projection ends.)
Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) is a reliable source/others have given similar projections. Others are from Jörg Albrecht (2021) and Basaran (2023). KlayCax ( talk) 06:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. How does that rule apply in this situation? It's not a fringe perspective. It's entirely in line with the literature. It's indisputable given the % of circumcisions performed for stated prophylactic, cultural, and religious circumcisions, along with where world population growth and demographic trends are going. Outside of the United States, Canada, and remnant continuation in Australia and New Zealand, prophylactic-justified circumcision is predominately uncommon throughout the world. It's obvious that the main trends in incidence relate to the percentage of Muslims in the global world population and African population growth. Even a theoretical total abandonment of circumcision within the Anglophonic world would barely make a notable change in rates.
The reason for the rise in MC prevalence could be attributed to the rising number of Muslims worldwide and to the initiation of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes encouraged by the WHO and the joint United Nations agency programs...I'm not going to overload you with references that state similar. But the rise in circumcision incidence stated by Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) is in line with the literature. What makes you think it's a fringe perspective?
I think what may be a little undue about this subsection is not necessarily the date of the publication, but the usage of only one source that emphasizes only on the rising tendencies of the phenomenon.
The logic behind the prediction (the rise of muslim population in the past decades and the probable continuation of this tendency) seems substantial. What this source fails to do, however, is showcase the different tendencies for religious and non-religious/cultural circumcision and the different regional tendencies, mainly in the Anglophonic world.
Indeed, the prevalence of the procedure may have been steady in Africa and the Middle East (mainly due to Muslim & Jewish faith), but in other regions, where the procedure was prevalent in the past for non religious reasons, the tendencies seem to be a lot different in the past few decades. Mainly in Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, maybe also in the USA and South Korea(?).
The prediction itself may not be mistaken. It tries to predict the numbers on a global level. Its weakness, however, is that by emphasizing on the global scale it doesn't give a clear image about the different regional tendencies in other places of the world.
Also, I think the point about the positive recommendations by medical organizations, may be little vague too, considering that these policies are constantly altered, renewed etc.
The challenge with this type of information is that it is constantly changing and needs to be regularly checked and updated with the latest data. Piccco ( talk) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"The reason for the rise in MC prevalence could be attributed to the rising number of Muslims worldwide and to the initiation of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes encouraged by the WHO and the joint United Nations agency programs".
What this source fails to do, however, is showcase the different tendencies for religious and non-religious/cultural circumcision and the different regional tendencies, mainly in the Anglophonic world.Zaghal and Rahman (2020) could help with that. As for the other part: adding future circumcision rates of various countries raises its own problems.
The question naturally arises, at least among certain sections of Wikipedia’s readership: What becomes of the amputated penile tissue? Across cultures the foreskin may be discarded, eaten, buried, sanctified as burnt offering, incinerated as medical waste, or collected for biotechnological ends (a lucrative output of cosmetics, engineered skin, and any number of biomedical research products). Obviously, nobody knows the fate of each and every foreskin, as there is extremely limited (typically zero) regulation of male genital-cutting practices.
(The only sources I can think of here would be anthropological texts, some of which may not pass some imagined “gold standard” of medical research for this topic? These same texts would also be of great benefit to understanding “origins” and “history” of male circumcision, to nominate two other sections sorely missing from this article.)
By including a few sentences on the fate of the amputated foreskin, something of the immense cultural, geographical and historical sweep of male circumcision would be conveyed. This information would help counter distortions generated by Eurocentric, Anglophone, and/or professional medical bias.
Caveat: the amputation and collection of healthy, functional tissue without knowledge or consent (e.g. in the case of neonatal circumcision) raises a number of ethical and legal concerns. Those could be addressed here, or in a separate section discussing said concerns more broadly. PS that’s not activism: just rudimentary jurisprudence and bioethics, on a firm foundation of scholarship, which have been routinely and actively suppressed from pro-circumcision arguments. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
“The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that circumcision should ‘only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation’” has been included in this article for several years, and is now being removed by a couple of users. To Bon Courage’s last point, I would say that WP:MEDRS does not necessarily apply to an *ethical* viewpoint. And regardless of this source, wouldn’t this source be MEDRS compliant (assuming MEDRS even applies here)? What is the common practice as far as archived sources, and why is the archived version being completely disregarded? As I said before, this viewpoint is WP:DUE, since it is a significant minority viewpoint. Prcc27 ( talk) 19:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead contains the following bit "Campaigns of Jewish ethnic, cultural, and religious persecution have repeatedly included bans on the practice as an attempted means of forceful assimilation, conversion, and ethnocide,[29][32][33] including in the Maccabean Revolt.[34][35]"
This is a ridiculous attempt at poisoning the well . It was probably true historically but there is no indication whatsoever that modern campaigners against circumcision are doing so because they're anti-jewish, so this is just a bad faith insertion. Whoever inserted this was fully aware of what they were doing. 2A02:A420:43:5E1D:DCFC:5E82:5EF9:5C83 ( talk) 04:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks like we are going back and forth regarding the female circumcision hatnote. Is there any reason why we wouldn’t want to clarify to readers, that this article is about male circumcision only? Prcc27 ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Is version #1 (new) or version #2 (old) of the second paragraph in the lead better?
Prcc27 recently reverted edits that I made to the lead. Objecting to:
Old wording:
and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. The WHO does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.
New wording:
There is a consensus among major medical organizations that adult circumcision significantly reduces HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. They take variant positions on the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV transmission among men who have sex with men and in the developed world.
While the specific mentions of the WHO/UNAIDS were steamlined into a sentence that encompassed other medical organziations. (British Medical Association, et al.)
Old wording:
Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of rare penile cancer.
New wording:
Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer.
Since the article takes a global perspective to circumcision — rather than local — saying that it is blanketly "rare"
across the world is inaccurate.
Kandeel (2007), for instance, states: The incidence of penile carcinoma ranges widely internationally. In many low and middle-income countries, "where poor hygiene is combined with a low circumcision incidence, it compromises one of the most common malignant conditions in men.
Similar statements can be found throughout the academic literature on penile cancer.
Old wording:
Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.
New wording:
Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors. [Details in body]
Trims down unnecessary wording for the lead. "Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors"
makes the second sentence relatively unnecessary, with the lead already starting to verge on "two long" as is.
The large majority of these changes seem like obvious improvements to the article. Tagging recent talk page contributors on this page: @ MrOllie:, @ Prcc27:, @ Bon courage:, @ Piccco:, @ Bluerasberry:, @ Spaully:, @ EvergreenFir:, @ Doc James:, @ Dashoopa:, @ Markworthen:. If an agreement can't be found, then this is going to have to go to RfC. KlayCax ( talk) 14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
"Effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear"is an actual case of SYNTH and is contradicted by the available citations within the article. The updated December 2022 RACP statement states that it is clear that circumcision doesn't have a significant prophylactic effect in developed nations. The 2012 AAP statement says it is clear that it does (At least that's the notion that they implicitly make). They both de facto state the evidence is
"clear". They just come to starkly differently conclusions about where it leads. That's one of the reasons why I believe the revised wording is a significant improvement. It fixes that issue.
"X list of medical organizations state it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while Y list of medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk"I'm just unsure how this wording isn't conveyed in the previous sentence. Or why it's necessary to include. 1.) Stacking the WHO on the "pro side" (which is true) 2.) "Regionalizing positions" in the lead probably gives off implications to readers that are likely misleading. (Such as the WHO believing benefits > risks in developed countries is a strong majority opinion within the academic literature. For instance. Or that there aren't prominent supporters or critics of the practice in both areas.) KlayCax ( talk) 02:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Articles have been sprinkled with assertations from a "foreskin regeneration organization" known as Foregen to argue that circumcision commonly causes psychological issues in circumcised men. Most of it was removed after @ MrOllie: made several edits. That being said, until today they were still claims that it made about circumcision and the foreskin that were present in the article until today. I removed more citations from the group here. Are they actually a reliable source? OntologicalTree ( talk) 00:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Go to talk of female genital mutilation. OntologicalTree ( talk) 04:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The German page on Wikipedia has been misleadingly edited to to assert that there's an agreement that pleasure is significantly reduced in circumcised men among major medical organizations/the scientific community. I realize it might be a bit gauche to ask for responses on other language Wikis. But I'm not fluent in German and want assurance that everything is fixed (and worded) properly.
See discussion here. KlayCax ( talk) 00:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Many studies do not come to the same conclusion as the cited one — the data from African studies do support a preventative effect on HIV but the same cannot be said of HPV. Many of the studies reviewed by the cited study sample only the glans, which they admit is a confounding factor. Many of them also rely on self-reporting of circumcision status, which confounds the results. In a newer review of circumcision and STDs, Van Howe writes on HPV: “With the studies of any type of HPV, sampling only the glans trended toward being a factor ( and ). Glans only studies had a summary odds ratio of 1.82 (95% CI = 1.05–3.14), while studies with complete sampling had a summary odds ratio of 1.17 (95% CI = 0.98–1.40). Patient report of circumcision status was a statistically significant factor ( and ) with studies relying on physical examination to determine circumcision status having a summary odds ratio of 1.14 (95% CI = 0.97–1.35) and studies with a reliance on patient report as summary odds ratio of 2.11 (95% CI = 1.24–3.59). When both factors are included in a multivariate model (sampling and ; physical examination and ), the summary odds ratio for complete sampling of the penis combined with circumcision status determined by physical examination is 1.08 (95% CI = 0.93–1.24), and for sampling only the glans combined with determining circumcision status by patient report is 3.21 (95% CI = 1.62–6.36).
With high-risk HPV studies, sampling only the glans trended toward being a factor ( and ). Studies that sample only the glans had a summary odds ratio of 1.86 (95% CI = 0.9964–3.46), while studies with complete sampling had a summary odds ratio of 1.10 (95% CI = 0.88–1.37). Patient report of circumcision status was statistically significant ( and ) with physical examination studies having a summary odds ratio of 1.08 (95% CI = 0.88–1.32) and patient report studies having a summary odds ratio of 2.16 (95% CI = 1.18–3.99). When both factors are included in model (sampling and ; physical examination and ), the summary odds ratio for complete sampling combined with physical examination determination of circumcision status is 1.01 (95% CI = 0.84–1.22), while the summary odds ratio with sampling only the glans combined with depending on patient report to determine circumcision status is 3.45 (95% CI = 1.60–7.42).” https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/109846/
These claims on HPV and other non-HIV STDs should be better supported, removed, or information should be added noting their their findings are controversial and not supported by all research. Yoleaux ( talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Noticeable lack of mention on controversy, possible bias? 80.233.22.222 ( talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Our article currently claims that "renowned British physician Jonathan Hutchinson published his findings that Jews had a lower prevalence of certain venereal diseases in the city of London, particularly that of syphilis." This is false on two counts:
Here is all the data presented in Hutchinson's paper if anyone cares:
And here is Hutchinson's original paper itself for anyone that wants to read it. Both of my points above are already delineated in the second cited source for the sentence. Here's another secondary academic source that verifies both of these points: [37]. The other source for the sentence, Al-Salem 2016, is factually wrong and should be removed from that sentence. Nosferattus ( talk) 00:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Since there is so much confusion (on these :Talk pages, and on the Circumcision controversies: Talk pages) as to the extent of foreskin removal, perhaps that deserves clarification - across cultures, clinical practices, and throughout history in respect of the same culture (e.g. Judaism) - but primarily as a matter of medico-legal definition. For example, the Wikipedia articles might (for public benefit) include expert opinion on what constitutes excessive shaft skin removal, i.e. the most common form of a "botched" circumcision:
"[...] the bad news is, I've told this to a lot of people and sometimes I get shocked looks and [they] say "Oh, that's me!" If you have an erection and your scrotum is pulled forward significantly on the shaft and there's hair on the shaft--any significant amount of pubic hair on the shaft--[the] fact is you had a botched circumcision as a child. And it's because there is no "cut here" line [on the penis] and [because] the doctors frankly don't understand the anatomy and how the penile skin system works, so that even major textbooks on how to perform a circumcision, I think, are absolutely flat wrong; that's the most common thing that I see [as an expert circumcision injury litigator]: excessive shaft skin removal."
David Llewellyn. "Common circumcision injuries and their causes." Intact 2022: 16th International Symposium on Child Genital Cutting. 27 August, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teK2FstXzN0&list=PLUiUHQRcs8VvDezDnDqpLVju_spLqqNlm&index=12 Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 04:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Editors are once again attempting to weave together fringe information into articles surrounding male sexual anatomy. Absurdly implying that circumcised men have lost sexually important parts of their own penis or are otherwise dysfunctional. Unsurprisingly, the same anti-circumcision lexicon and "researchers" are back again.
The notion of a "ridged band" comes from an anti-circumcision activist, John Taylor, in the 1990s. The article on the matter was utterly absurd, unsourced, and overfilling with outright false information. Claiming that this mythical structure is supposedly responsible for the majority of male sexual pleasure, is overwhelmingly sensitive, the whole typical lingo.
Per @ Bon courage:
WP:MEDRS sources generally need to be secondary and recent. This is getting off-topic but yes, the term "ridged band" seems to have been taken up by John Taylor in the 1990s and became part of the circumcision activist lore (another vital anatomical structure that circumcision destroys!). Indeed on the front page of cirp.org viewers are encouraged to visit the "Ridged Band" web site. Yet, if we get up-to-date, the term seems to have no lasting mainstream currency and the only recent WP:MEDRS secondary independent source I can find (Cox et al. 2015. PMID 26185672) had this to say: The “ridged band” seems to be a name used for the concertinaed distal skin that becomes stretched for retraction over the glans. We consider that such a conformation is merely a matter of individual idiosyncrasy and not a universal feature. Furthermore, different illustrations of the so-called “ridged band” do not appear to show the same structure.. .So presenting it as a fact in Wikipedia, even identifying it (as something different even from the sources) on the opening image caption of our Foreskin article (before I zapped it) was, to put it mildly, problematic.
The AAP denies the notion of a "ridged band" as well. OntologicalTree ( talk) 23:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: keeps trying to have Wikipedia state that circumcised men are missing sexually sensitive areas of their body. This notion is inflammatory, discredited, and overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources. Per a recent December 2020 study:
Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation. In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality...
The American Academy of Pediatrics says similar. Why are we including WP: Fringe ideas? OntologicalTree ( talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthoodis itself inflammatory, discredited, and overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I notice that this article is still littered with references to the work of Brian Morris. (But curiously, all mention of his name seems to have been expunged from discussion here and on the Circumcision controversies :Talk page). Here are a few allegations that may be pertinent as regards probable bias. As published in a research footnote:
"While Morris is a prolific pro-circumcision activist, he is also a highly controversial figure who has been accused of academic misconduct. He has been accused of veiled self-referencing and citing his own letters to editors as evidence of published research (Earp 2013c; Svoboda and Van Howe 2013). It has been documented in the International Journal of Epidemiology that Morris has also been accused of disregarding the norm of confidentiality in the peer-review process and of pressuring journal editors to reject well-conducted studies if they suggest that circumcision may be harmful. Responding to one recent episode, a Danish sexual health researcher reported that Morris had been a ‘particularly discourteous reviewer who went to extremes to prevent our study from being published. In an email, Morris ... called people on his mailing list to arms against our study, openly admitting that he was the reviewer and that he had tried to get the paper rejected .... Breaking unwritten confidentiality and courtesy rules of the peer-review process, Morris distributed his slandering criticism of our study to people working for the same cause’ (Frisch 2013)."
Na'ama Carlin. Morality, Violence and Ritual Circumcision: Writing with Blood (London and New York: Routledge, 2023) p. 58
I will dig out the references if needed. NB, this book is by no means opposed to neonatal circumcision. But the author was compelled to point out Morris's dubious credentials in a footnote, in deference to academic honesty. Prunella Vulgaris ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Neveselbert:. The positions of major medical organizations have shifted significantly since 2012-2014. That's why some of the things discussed in the GA-discussion from 2013 were removed from the article. My Elsevier urology resource says that the World Health Organization presently recommends universal circumcision for neonates. KlayCax ( talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The organization [WHO] recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication. Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick et al. is from 2012 (10 years beforehand) and therefore outdated. (ISBN: 978-1-4471-2857-1) Other academic resources in my urology program state the same. KlayCax ( talk) 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
No major medical organization recommends circumcising all malesremains accurate on account of the citations provided, per WP:V. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
the agency does not comment on information from unofficial or non-CDC sourcesand that
there are websites that state whether information that's circulating in the media is true or false. For example, Snopes.com is a site that report rumors or hoaxes.Clearly, this response would imply that they make no such recommendation, which they characterised in their response as
possible online misinformation. ‑‑ Neveselbert ( talk · contribs · email) 13:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)