Talk:Circumcision

Another study which pours doubt over this article's stance on the sexual effect of circumcision

The view of this article is that (according to the lead) "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." I believe this does not reflect the current consensus.

I have spoken about this problem before : Talk:Circumcision/Archive_79#Summarizing_the_effects_of_circumcision_on_sexual_function

Here is a new primary study: PMID 23600924. Tremello (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS 101 - not usable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Most interesting Tremello. Alexbrn is quite mistaken in suggesting that the article is unusable. As he may have forgotten, the policy he cites states quite clearly that primary sources may be used to supplement secondary ones. The 10% figures in the article abstract on erectile dysfunction and on delayed orgasm are alarming and bear out what at least one of the Cutting Religions has acknowledged openly for thousands of years as both a purpose and a result of Circumcision- that cutting away the foreskin reduces sexual sensitivity and pleasure. At present under the control of a small but apparently determined group of editors, any mention of historical, or current evidence of, the deleterious effects of circumcision are quickly reverted. Despite this, Circumcision is becoming less popular in the world. We do not presently mention this fact in the article either.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS 101 again - we don't use primaries to undercut high-quality reliable secondaries, which have a settled take on this topic so far as I can see. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

well if you read what I wrote in the archive link above I dont think "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." reflects the secondary sources either. It is all adding up. I don't think this article can have this stance for much longer. Tremello (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

You may have a WP:CRYSTALBALL but Wikipedia can't make use of it. If/when high quality secondary sources do drift from where they are now, we will of course faithfully follow. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Is your crystal balling about the future development of this article so very different from that of the editor whom you direct your sarcasm at Alex?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes—it's safe to predict this page will continue to follow WP:PAGs since that at least is under our control. On which topic, we should confine our discussions here to proposing changes that might improve the article in line with those WP:PAGs. We're not, though, going to be using weak primary sources for sourcing dubious health content. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The royal "We"is not appropriate. Are you aware Alex of the distinction that WP policy makes between using a primary source to contradict a secondary one and using a primary source to supplement a secondary one ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre comment, since the proposed source is precisely being used as a primary source to contradict secondary sources used in this article, and therefore is a clear violation of WP:MEDRS. We're headed towards (if not already at) tendentious level of wikilwayering and WP:IDHT. Yobol (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, without a specific article content change suggestion, backed in WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable sources, this is an idle philosophical musing that really isn't an appropriate use of this article's Talk page. Zad68 15:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposed source has not been used Yobol. It's possible use has been discussed but not yet at length. The assertion from one editor containing the phrase "a settled take" on the subject is alarming. Perhaps the editor Tremello who kindly brought the article to our attention would like to attempt to outline a proposed wording for an article addition which would mention this new article without breaching the guideline of attaching too much weight to it and a second wording to support his/her assertion on the other deleterious effects of circumcision. What is important too is to not permit any group of editors, no matter how ancient, or eminent, or bemedalled to intimidate or stifle discussion and debate when it has any possibility of improving this very patchy article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It is incumbent on those proposing to use the source to make a specific proposal, per WP:TPG. If one has not been presented, it is therefore a violation of those guidelines. Your continued insinuation that there is a cabal is not helpful, and it would be more helpful if you provide a specific proposal rather continue your pontification on the talk page. Yobol (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. For general information: It is a normal part of Wikipedia to restrict editors who, within a certain topic area, consistently misunderstand and misapply content policies and guidelines, and who present persistent behavior problems, from editing within that topic area. Zad68 16:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tremello, and especially Tumadoireacht, how many times must you bring this topic up before you get the point? Actually, I think you do get the point; you're just not accepting of it. You don't have to accept it, unless trying to edit the article or other Wikipedia topics about it, but you don't have to beat a dead horse either. I don't see why others keep replying to you on this matter, since it's pretty much the same discussion over and over. And that qualifies for WP:Disruptive editing (on your parts, not theirs), in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but thank you, Tremello, for pointing to that archive above. I thank you because it led me to Talk:Circumcision/Archive 79#"Prevalence of circumcision" map, where Jookieapc (talk · contribs) commented with an inappropriate signature; it's not so much that his name is a play on Zad68's name that's the problem; it's that he linked to Zad68's name in part of his signature...as though we couldn't guess by the color and the "68" portion of his signature that he is mocking Zad68. If he posts with that signature again (I mean with the Zad68 link intact), I will do something about it (in other words, he will not be allowed to post with that link in his username again). Hopefully, he gets a ping about this via WP:Echo, and that can serve as his warning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2014‎ (UTC)

Flyer - please attempt to confine your remarks on this page to efforts to improve the article. Your continued Aunty remarks are impolite and not appropriate. I have no idea what your last entry is referring to but apart from its bizarre tone it has no place on this page. I ask you again also to attempt to understand the difference between contradicting and supplementing a secondary source. One of your fellow circumcision article editors used the verb "undercut" -I presume no pun was intended. A contrasting research finding need not necessarily contradict.

In terms of policy violation( Is "violation" an excessively strong verb for a guideline - perhaps the strength of the condemnation in its sentiment is inversely proportional to the weakness of the argument ..) I will refer you to this paragraph in the policy you so frequently cite

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

and ask that you re-examine your own condemnations, dismissals, contempts and threats in the light of it.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah, my comments above are quite appropriate. Your WP:Disruptive editing, "I can't drop the stick" editing, and WP:Single purpose account editing (all of that combined) at the Circumcision article and its talk page are not. The productive editors of this talk page indeed need to start ignoring you until you make a problematic edit to the Circumcision article. And I have no idea what "policy [I] so frequently cite" you are referring to. Something tells me that you are confusing a guideline with a policy or with an essay, or an essay with a policy or with a guideline, especially given that the vast majority of your Wikipedia editing is confined to exhausting editors at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer -Your ignorance of the policy you so frequently cite is suggested by your not recognizing it when its content is quoted to you as above . Something tells me you that you cite policy more often than read it, or indeed observe it, but opinions are as common as Clint Eastwood's metaphor. You are, I presume familiar with the injunction to use this page to improve the article ? If you need to refresh your memory it is available at the page top. I hope that familiarizing yourself with it will not prove too 'exhausting". It is a positive sign that you at least read the policy excerpt which I quoted for your benefit, even if only to employ the word exhausted. Please desist from attempting to intimidate good faith editors, especially junior ones, who come to this article in attempts to improve its shoddy imbalance. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

As many editors at this site know, I am very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I adhere to them (usually anyway;WP:Ignore all rules should be used sparingly). You, on the other hand, are not/do not. Your "policy you so frequently cite" commentary is silly because, as I've noted to you before, I barely comment on this talk page. Here is a link to prove it. I every now and then comment at this talk page, and I certainly have not frequently cited any policy at it. Compare that link to a link regarding your participation at this talk page. Clearly, you are far ahead of me when it comes to commenting at this talk page. You are told repeatedly what the deal is -- to follow the WP:MEDRS guideline (yes, that's a guideline, not a policy, just in case you aren't sure). And you have repeatedly rebelled against it. Yes, you are a WP:Disruptive editor as far as the Circumcision article and its talk page goes, a WP:Disruptive editor who exhausts the good editors of this article and talk page. As for the rest of what you stated... Nah. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC

Your nine edits this month alone belie your "barely there" asssertion above Flyer. Circumcision is largely not a medical phenomenon but a cultural one. If you feel that any editor is disruptive there is a process for having that opinion examined and acted upon. But this page is not the place. Here we try to improve the article content. Have you had a chance to examine the film "Cut - Slicing through the Myths of Circumcision" referenced above ? Do you think mentioning it would improve the article ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL, my nine (now ten) edits this month that are all located in this section replying to you. As always, you are wrong when it comes to me. And to state that "[c]ircumcision is largely not a medical phenomenon" is also wrong. I'll let you get back to pestering people now. Flyer22 (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction" is what it says on the adverse effects sections. That might not be true.. [1], [2]. Prcc27 (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Medical information on Wikipedia is based on WP:MEDRS; we use high quality secondary studies, not primary studies such as those you have linked to. Yobol (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Yobol: Will this work then..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I assume you're asking seriously; the Daily Mail is the canonical example of an unreliable source for health topics. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Oh.. I'll try harder to find a more reliable source then. Prcc27 (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That primary study mentioned in the Daily Mail article Prcc27 simply bears out what at least one cutting religion has acknowledged for thousands of years - that both a purpose and a result of cutting off a substantial portion of the sensitive penis tip reduces sensation and leads to an evenly scarred or " keratinized" dried penis head. With all its faults as a sensational tabloid, nevertheless the Daily Mail has managed to provide in that short article an overview of the current situation regarding Circumcision that is superior to this WP article ! I wonder whether the "Good Article" status which this article currently erroneously enjoys should be rescinded until such time as the huge and obvious omissions in both content and referencing in the WP Circumcision article are corrected ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it reliable enough..? If so, then we should definitely use this article! Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not meet WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the references for this article are "medical' nor should they be as Circumcision is a cultural practice primarily. Therefore not all future references need to be taking account of the medical information guidelines on WP. Over-referencing mis-referencing or Blanket referencing WP:MEDRS (for most every proposed new edit) by a small group of editors has severely hampered the development of this article which continues to have no reference to the declining popularity of Circumcision or to forced circumcisions around the world, to mention two of the dozens of weird gaps in the article. At least the Daily Mail article has the merit of mentioning the former.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of sexual function is clearly medical related. If an editor wants to propose non-medical content based on that source, they need to be explicit about what they propose. Yobol (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The article refers to a survey of circumcision victims and non victims and seems to confirm the long held belief that foreskin deprived penises are less sensitive.. 1800 men were handed leaflets at a Belgian railway station to which they responded. It is not recorded whether any of them were medical workers. Perhaps we should include a paragraph, as so many WP articles do, which begins " A non-scientific survey was conducted....... to include this information.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a survey about medical effects, and any discussion about medical effects is covered by MEDRS. Again, if you have a specific edit to suggest, please do so. Yobol (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a danger that you are attempting to medicalize a part of human experience that predates medicine and will outlive it ? Does a man need a doctor to advise him on how his penis feels with and without a foreskin ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you multiple times before, this is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Do you have a specific proposal for the use of this source, or not? Yobol (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Look north nine lines to see proposal. My question about attempting to medicalize a survey of subjective human experience remains unsurprisingly unaddressed. Do you support this proposal ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no specific proposal, just inappropriate commentary, per usual. Please be specific as to what your proposed change to this article is and which source you want to source that change to. Yobol (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that you amended your reply to cut this:

Note that I have already responded to your survey question, noting that a survey of medical information (sexual function) does not need to be "medicalized" because it already is medical in nature."

on the grounds that that part of your reply is "off topic material" .Hardly. A surveyor handing out leaflets asking about subjective experience of penis sensitivity of the cut men and the uncut men has nothing to do with the medical industry despite the results being collated by a doctor. Is it possible that you resist the mention of the survey by wrongly citing WP:MEDRS because you dislike the results? Try to imagine a similar survey being conducted on circumcised women to gain some perspective. You see the proposal and you know the source, so please give the old filibustering "tell me your proposal " guff a rest. It gets very old very quickly--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 15:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I ask one final time: do you have a specific proposal or not? Yobol (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. i propose the survey be mentioned as outlined above, and as is common with other less beleagured WP articles with any of the following introductions - "Conversely a primary study has found ...." or as I suggested above " A non scientific survey was conducted" Is there a difficulty understanding this proposal ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are proposing fragments of a sentence, and it is not clear what the exact wording is. If you have a proposal, be explicit about the specific, entire wording, where you propose adding it, and which exact source you propose using. Yobol (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

IAS–USA recommendation

Regarding the sentence:

"Circumcision is also recommended by the International Antiviral Society for all sexually active heterosexual males and it is recommended that it be discussed with men who have sex with men."

1. The society is always explicitly referred to as "International Antiviral Society-USA", also by itself. (Acronym: IAS–USA)
2. The linked reference is about HIV prevention and the available abstract does not mention circumcision — could somebody check?
3. Also regarding 2., the article sentence should be changed in a way to make it obvious that this IAS–USA recommendation is given in the context of HIV prevention.

— 188.195.0.204 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You are quite right. I had mentioned the odd misnaming of the International Antiviral Society USA amongst other criticisms. I hope that there was no intention in the misnaming to lend the report's source a more eminent origin than it has.Their funding is a bit dodge. On your second point re abstracts- has been my experience in this article in particular that there exist a small cohort of editors who will object to any mention of content from a secondary source which does not shed a positive light on circumcision, when it is not mentioned in the source's abstract, while where the reverse is the case, as in this case, they contradict their own strictures. This is a very unhealthy article.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@IP 188: I have confirmed the source and adjusted per your recommendation. Yobol (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Male Circumcision" vs. "Female Genital Mutilation": An Inherent Bias in the Title of Two Similar Articles

The Wikipedia page for the female equivalent of circumcision is titled "Female Genital Mutilation", and lists "female circumcision" as an alternative name for the practice. This name is widely considered accurate, and rightly so. This article, however, makes absolutely no mention of male genital mutilation whatsoever, and instead treats circumcision as a normalized and medically necessary practice. While there may be some medical benefits to being circumcised, there is no dispute to the fact that some routine aspects of the practice, such as the removal of the frenulum, have absolutely no benefit whatsoever, and serve only to decrease sensitivity. Furthermore, circumcision is rarely a medical necessity, and is usually done for cosmetic, cultural, and religious reasons, rather than for the health benefits. I'd like to open a discussion about the title of this article being changed to more accurately reflect what circumcision is. At the very least, people searching for "male genital mutilation" should be redirected to this page, as it is, in fact, the equivalent of female genital mutilation. 208.54.4.187 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No basis - our Genital modification and mutilation article exists and male genital mutilation redirects to a section there. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

THis discrepancy has been pointed out many times before 208.54. A small but co-ordinated number of editors continue to resist any mention of that parallel in the article or indeed any negative aspect of circumcision -such as forced circumcisions, disease and death from infections incurred during circumcisions, botched circumcisions, malfunctioning circumcision devices which burnt off several infants penises completely(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer), loss of sensitivity in the penis after the foreskin is cut off, and the declining popularity of circumcision. I am at a loss on how to address this most peculiar situation. I think that if it were almost any other subject then the link would have been made a long time ago.Perhaps we should take our lead from the WP mutilation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation which gives two references for the following sentence in its introductory section

Whether or not male circumcision amounts to mutilation is a subject of active academic debate.[3][4]

Denniston, G. C., F. M. Hodges, M. F. Milos (1999). "Preface". Male and female circumcision: Medical legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. Kluwer. pp. i–vii. ISBN 0-306-46131-5.

and

Benatar M, Benatar D (2003). "Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision". Am J Bioeth 3 (2): 35–48. doi:10.1162/152651603766436216. PMID 12859815.

Perhaps consideration of these two sources could enrich debate here on this page and content and referencing and links within the article.

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not consider sources dating from over a decade ago a good representation of an "active" debate. What specific wording are you proposing to add, to what location in the article, using which source? Yobol (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The wording is in bold print above. I propose to add it to the article introduction.Using both sources.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

You have not specified where this would be going, but oppose any addition of the text as quoted above, as these are old sources, and certainly not strong enough to support the controversial nature of your proposal. Yobol (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear- you are opposing a 15 year old secondary source academic medical book on this exact subject as being "too old" and an 11 year old secondary source article in a distinguished journal too - Are you aware of better and more recent overviews than these on this precise area - perhaps you could share  ? And you also are opposed to even mentioning that there is any debate about whether circumcision amounts to mutilation ? Any editors out there (apart from the good 'ole boys) who agree that this is all a bit dog in the manger ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

UK National Health Service acknowledges sensitivity loss from Circumcision- should we continue to make no mention of sensitivity loss ?

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision/Pages/Advantages-and-disadvantages.aspx If such an eminent authority as the NHS are saying

"Reduced sensitivity –

an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive than a circumcised penis, meaning that circumcised men may experience less pleasure during sex." perhaps it is time to amend the stout denial of this in the article.

It is interesting also that the NHS says " there are much more effective and less invasive ways" of preventing UTIs, STIs, HIV, and genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis,trichomoniasis, and penile cancer than Circumcision. We seem to have omitted this information from the article for some reason, So far.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 08:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The page actually says that this reduced sensitivity case is merely what "critics of circumcision argue". They're right about that, eh! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If they are "right about it" as you say Alex and choose to see it as significant enough to mention it prominently on their advice page on circumcision then we should too .... um eh ? EH etc.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What specific edit are you suggesting using this source? Zad68 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Two edits really - one mentioning "the more effective and less dangerous than Circumcision" NHS direct quote re Circumcision as a treatment for the 7 ailment categories mentioned by the NHS. And a second one mentioning the listing by the NHS on their website of the mindset concerning the loss of sensitivity after the chop - something we have failed to mention here - um - until now. Which section(s) of the article do you yourself feel they would be best mentioned in ?Naturally the wording will depend on where in the article we choose to share this important information. Also- Any views on where in the article we should mention Forced Circumcision so that the link at the article end to the Forced Circumcision article makes sense ? Are you opposed to the NHS as a source or do you dislike the content Zad/Zach ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What specific wording are you proposing? I repeat, what specific complete wording, using complete sentences, and specific location in the article, are you proposing to add using this source? Yobol (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Until we determine where to put it the wording is secondary. What exactly are you repeating exactly Yobol - this is your first contribution - No ? I am waiting for interested editors to discuss the subject more fully rather than accede to the blanket stern demands for immediate content that the tag team seems to consider a non transparent ploy. I ask you or any sincere interested editor - AGAIN ( for real) where do you consider this information from a major health authority should be placed. I ask you also ( a question I am not holding my breath about getting answered but I live in hope ) Are you opposed to the NHS as a source or do you dislike the content? There is not really a point in proposing a wording if the gatekeepers of this article are opposed in principle or opposed on autopilot.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Should the link to the Forced Circumcision article at the end of this article just contain the adjective "Forced" or the full phrase "Forced Circumcision ? should the circumcision article mention forced circumcision?

Should the link to the Forced Circumcision article at the end of this article just contain the adjective "Forced" or the full phrase "Forced Circumcision ? Zad and one other editor felt strongly enough about it that they twice reverted my adding the noun "Circumcision" to the link. Zad and I have discussed this on our respective talk pages but he does not want that conversation carried here.The portion on his page has been struck from it but can be found in his archive -his reply to that portion remains on my home talk page As a further question is it nonsensical to link the Circumcision article and the Forced Circumcision article when forced circumcision cannot get a mention at all at all under the current regime within the Circumcision article body ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)