Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Controversy Pages are just Gerrymandering of Information

This page like all other controversy pages should be merged with the main article. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the main article circumcision?DavidHGrateful (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

Recently, Sigmund Freud was added as someone who was circumcised and unhappy about it. It's not hard to find his writings against circumcision, but do we know for a fact that he was circumcised? – RobinHood70 talk 23:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Genital autonomy vs. Genital integrity

This article focuses more on history than the controversy itself.

It doesn't clearly distinguish the medical debate from the legal/ethical debate.


1. This page makes no mention of genital autonomy??

Autonomy is a persons right to choose, which is the core of this controversy as it apples too children. The distinction between circumcision of children versus consenting adults is imperative.


2. The "modern section" is not modern:

For instance: "An early British opponent of circumcision was Herbert Snow, who wrote a short book called The barbarity of circumcision as a remedy for congenital abnormality in 1890.[48] But as late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated male and female circumcision as a treatment for masturbation.[49]"

I propose this page be designated "History of circumcision controversies," and new page be developed with a clear, side by side table to present both sides of the debate.


I also propose a new page: "Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy movement." Currently underdevelopment in my sandbox.

DavidHGrateful (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Child's right to genital integrity/autonomy campaign (Crtgiac)

This page is currently underdevelopment in my sandbox. Please visit and comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DavidHGrateful/sandbox

DavidHGrateful (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Era Style

Just to note, I reverted the IP's era style change (i.e., BCE/CE vs. BC/AD) because WP:BCE says not to change what's in place. As I scanned for other occurrences, I realized we'd had a mix of both beforehand, and perhaps the IP was trying to harmonize them, though if so, some were missed. I harmonized them all (I think) to BCE/CE style because it's more in line with scientific study, but I'm not terribly concerned which we use, just as long as we're consistent. – RobinHood70 talk 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RobinHood70, agree with your edits. Zad68 21:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Genital mutilation

What are people's thoughts on the recent addition to the lead? I know many people consider circumcision to be genital mutilation, and we do cover it with that wording later in the article, but the BOLD addition seems rather more like an ACTIVIST addition to me. Nevertheless, the wording is sometimes used, so I didn't want to remove it outright without some kind of discussion. – RobinHood70 talk 06:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

RobinHood70, agree, the term isn't what's generally used by the sourcing, and certainly using that term unqualified as an equivalent term in the opening words of the lead isn't supported... in fact the addition was unsourced. So, removed. Agree the more appropriate place to discuss the use of the term is in the context of activism in the body of the article. Zad68 14:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian Morris Study

I have some concerns about the balance of the recently added Brian Morris study. I tried to present both sides of the debate, but those were reverted. In regards to those specific claims, first, the article provides the caution in regards to circumcision rates, but those underlie the study. Second, the article says nothing directly about what Goldman was commenting on, but certainly makes it seem like it's in regards to the study. It mentions his book in the same paragraph, but doesn't seem to be implying that the statement came from that book. Quite to the contrary, the paragraph just before specifically stated that "Circumcision opponents — known in some circles as “intactivists” — generally dismissed the new study" and then went on to quote Goldman. That implies that the response was specifically directed to the study.

In a broader context than my specific edits, however, I have some real concerns about the quality of this study. Googling the author, it wasn't hard to determine that Brian Morris is a well-known advocate for circumcision. That in itself is concerning, since it casts doubt on the neutrality of the review. Moreover, it wasn't hard to find a number of instances where he has been caught presenting misinformation in regards to circumcision. Yes, Mayo Clinic Proceedings is peer-reviewed and did publish this (for which they are being roundly blasted), but I think we're doing a disservice to the article in presenting this review as though the findings are unquestioned. I'd like to suggest that it be removed based on these concerns, not to mention recentism, until there are more balanced analyses of this new information available. Per WP:REDFLAG, "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest" require multiple high-quality sources. Claiming a 100-to-1 benefit when previous studies, including even the AAP statement, have found only mild evidence in favour of circumcision would seem to me to be an exceptional claim. – RobinHood70 talk 17:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RobinHood70's personal concerns about the study are noted, but if you want to add criticisms of the study, you will have to find a critic that comments on the specific study and not about studies in general. Based on the article in the Jewish Journal, it isn't clear to me that Goldman even read Mayo Clinic Proceedings article. As for the suggestion to censor this material, I must remind RobinHood07 that we don't remove peer-reviewed survey results just because an editor doesn't like it. --GHcool (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about me not liking it or trying to censor it in any way. I have a moderately balanced opinion on the issue of circumcision. What I have a stronger opinion on is following the Wikipedia guidelines and presenting information that conforms to medical consensus. This study violates two out of the four red flags: making an extraordinary claim and being written by authors with a known bias on the subject. It should not be included until such time as other studies have been published that back it up. Also, contrary to your claim, we do remove peer-reviewed articles under those circumstances. In fact, MEDRS has several mentions of it, namely:
  • "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints."
    This review advocates only one viewpoint and presents no others.
  • "...the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even a well-designed randomized experiment can (with low probability) produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or fall victim to deliberate fraud." and "...demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus".
    As there is no international consensus at this time, we must present both sides of the debate, not present one side like the debate is over.
As for not being clear what Goldman was responding to, re-reading the text, I really don't think it gets much clearer: "Circumcision opponents — known in some circles as “intactivists” — generally dismissed the new study. “It’s very easy for researchers to design their studies and the analysis of their studies to come out with conclusions that they want,” said Ronald Goldman." That's clearly a response to the study itself. Heck, even if you want to say that somehow it's not, the article still states quite clearly that circumcision opponents dismissed the study. Presenting the fact that the new information is challenged is presenting a neutral article describing the controversy. Presenting only one side, with no independent verification of the claims, is not.
If another review is later published by independent authors that confirms this study, I'll be happy to include that information. Until then, I think it should be removed or presented with appropriate cautionary text. – RobinHood70 talk 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll re-edit the article to put Mr. Goldman's criticism into context, but we may not censor this study. If you don't like the study, I encourage you do find a reliable source that criticises the study. However, you may not remove all mention of the study from the article. --GHcool (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
On what grounds do you believe it shouldn't be removed? I've pointed out the relevant Wikipedia reasons that it should be removed, but all you've given me in terms of reasons that it should stay is that you think my personal opinions are coming into play. Guidelines clearly state that if it's an exceptional claim, there need to be multiple sources to include it. Right now, we don't have that. – RobinHood70 talk 20:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Where's the exceptional claim? Shouldn't a wikipedia article summarize the results of an artcle in a respected peer reviewed journal on the subject? This seems like exactly the sort of thing that should be in this article. --GHcool (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The exceptional claim is that the health benefits outweigh the risks by 100 to 1. That's not supported by any other review that I'm aware of. As I said earlier, the AAP statement has been read by some as being pro-circumcision, and even that states that "health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males". – RobinHood70 talk 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(←) Just a suggestion: should we ask for a third opinion, perhaps? – RobinHood70 talk 20:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that last edit. I hadn't clued in that those were one and the same. – RobinHood70 talk 20:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

May 27 edits

The recent spate of edits introduced a fair bit of new material that goes against Wikipedia conventions by using phrases like "pretends to", "this is wrong", and other similar assertions that either are or could be perceived as POV. Does anyone want to go through them one-by-one, should I revert the entire thing, or does someone want to go through them and fix the problems? My impression is that there's nothing there really worth keeping, but I'm not set on that. – Robin Hood  (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RobinHood70 I agree the edits are largely making the article worse, they are introducing editorializing, WP:MEDRS violations, and unsourced commentary and assertions. This article was already in pretty poor shape and the edits aren't helping. Zad68 13:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
While I think some of the edits may have merit, I believe they should be discussed first to make sure we're approaching them in a neutral fashion. In the meantime, I've bulk reverted. – Robin Hood  (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

compulsive behavior

Circumcision is not culture, religion or tradition. Many men do it naturally like tattoos or piercings. In Germany and continental European countries babys are not circumcised, not because of any opinion on circumcision but because it is against self determination. Approximately 20% circumcise themselves, most homosexuals do. In some cultures tattoos and piercings are rooted in tradition, religion, initialization etc. but nonetheless nowadays a large proportion of people do it without and even against traditions. People with tattoos would say that circumcision is a natural process and desire. A large proportion of men have anal fixation, not just homosexuals, this is another underlying reason for circumcision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.1.106 (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Circumcision controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Large Danish study links autism and circumcision

http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision

"According to the new study, which included 340,000 Danish boys, it looks as though circumcision increases the risk of developing autism."

This looks like a good study and there is mention that is has been replicated. If someone wants to work it into this article, go ahead. If nobody does it or object I might get around to it in a week or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkhenson (talk • contribs) 04:37, 27 June 2016‎ (UTC)

User:Hkhenson As I already replied over at Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Autism where you left the same incorrect note. That news article is pretty responsible and says that the study has not been replicated yet. Everybody quoted there also said that the study found a slight correlation and cautioned people from drawing causation conclusions: correlation is not causation. In any case this PMID 25573114 is a primary source and per MEDRS we wait to see how reviews treat it. Please stop spamming incorrect information all over WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mayo article

User:Argentounge you have asserted twice now in edit notes here asserting that "Mayo Clinic now has a page in essence concluding that the original paper was highly bias and inaccurate." and here asserting the same.

You need to discuss that objection here.

You were correct that "jewish journal" reference was inappropriate and dead besides. Have cited the actual review, which is PMID 24702735. A reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

My mistake here is the paper to which I referred (on Mayo Clinic). It notes such things as the original authors citing contradictory data (using the AAP conclusions to support circumcision while ignoring their conclusions which indicate a lack of health benefits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentounge (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That is a letter to the editor, and not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. Please do read MEDRS; it is not OK to try to "trump" a MEDRS source with a non-MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I was not using it to indicate a reliable source. Rather as an expert noting the flaws of the portion of the study cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argentounge (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Only reliable sources are relevant in WP. That is how this place works. We start with reliable sources then generate content from them per the policies and guidelines. You cannot make edits on the basis of unreliable sources. And please sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with World Wide Day of Genital Autonomy

I don't think that this promotional "day" has enough substantial coverage in independent reliable sources to merit a standalone article- the sources given seem to refer to the general issue of circumcision more so than the anniversary of the German court decision. Suggest this could be given a section of the existing circumcision controversies page. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion although I disagree with your arguments. This internationally celebreated day is about the general issue of circumcision on minors of all sexes, which causes that many sources will mention the topic of the celebration day, too. Am I allowed to add reliable sources in other languages than English, too? In the meantime, I have linked the article to its German counterpart which already has more reliable sources due to the initialization of this day in Germany. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest to add World Wide Day of Genital Autonomy to the "See also" section instead. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Sources do not need to be in English. The article seems written to promote the 'day' which is itself meant to promote a cause. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a legitimate opinion but just an opinion. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
It's my opinion but it is also Wikipedia policy that promotion is not permitted. Hence the need for sources. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
I now have added more sources and proof of relevance. Would you agree? Ulf Dunkel (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I still maintain my opinion(that this deserves a mention on this page but not a separate article which is a tad on the promotional side) but I think the discussion should play out. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circumcision controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Writing about controversy

This article is about controversy, of which there is plenty regarding the practice of male circumcision.

To write about controversy, one must report as many sides (at least) of each controversy, but avoid favoring one side or the other.

It is necessary to provide a citation for each position.

Editors should be aware that this is not a medical article. It is an article about controversy, so WP rules for medical articles do not apply., but other WP rules do generally apply. Sugarcube73 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MEDRS does apply to any statement about health, anywhere in WP. And it is best to use neutral secondary sources that are describing positions, as opposed to the positions of advocates, which are primary sources. it is difficult to edit well and to choose sources well on a topic like this. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

refs

Did a pubmed search for reviews on this topic - results are here. I've requested PMID 22857844 - the most recent dead on one, from ILL. Will report back when it comes. The Lancet piece PMID 26159392 says almost nothing about this other than "many Christian groups provide male circumcision in HIV-affected communities". (it has a pretty large section on FGM) We should be using high quality secondary sources, not primary sources, for anything actually medical. A bunch of this article is cultural and not subject to that. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Circumcision controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

citation needed

yesterday i added two source links but somebody decided to conceal them and now there is a complaint "citation needed," well if so, then do not delete/remove the sources ! 185.120.124.127 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


I re-published sources from wikimedia instead of facebook please do not conceal. 185.120.124.127 (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

sourcing

User:GenoV84 as noted here the mens journal ref fails MEDRS but you continue to use it. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the social and cultural History of circumcision controversies, not a medical article, although medical refs were needed in some sections; therefore, we're allowed to use that source, since it's an Academic journal about the social history of men's health, not a medical paper.--GenoV84 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
That source says nothing about use of circumcision to reduce pleasure, but you cited it there. (It does say, without a context, that "Beyond merely preventing masturbation, which was of course a primary goal,", so it sorta fits there. But not well.) It says nothing about larger greek or roman ideals of beauty, but you used cited it there. It does say " Beginning with Greek culture, male bodily aesthetics demanded not only that the foreskin was intact, but also that it was long enough to fully cover the glans of the penis." but that is really all it has to say about that) You are basically just spamming it in. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was relevant. I'm sorry for the revert.--GenoV84 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

COPYLINK

this introduces a WP:COPYLINK violation. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know about that, i thought it was a reliable source.--GenoV84 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

User:GenoV84 - about your edit here - you violated the WP:OR policy with that edit. The commentary on biblical passages, and weaving them into a narrative about history, is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Please do not add content that violates the WP:OR policy to Wikipedia. "Adding sources later" is not OK - per WP:BURDEN the obligation is on the person who adds the content to source, not on anybody else. The statement also begs the question of whether the content will be a reasonable summary of what high quality secondary sources say, in any case. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

agree w/ Jytdog as to about statements--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

#Judaism Section

Its riddled with errors. A bot reverted my changes to the page that questioned the use of loaded language, poor citations, and misleading or completely fabricated facts in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.147.70 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Masculism series side box

I’m proposing that we remove the box referencing this as part of a series on Masculism at the request of User:Mr_Swordfish. My reasoning is this:

Clicking through articles on Masculism and all of its associated groups, philosophies, and topics yields nearly no direct reference to circumcision controversies outside of it being in the side box for that series. It’s not mentioned in any of the Masculism movements except for Intactivism, which merely reverts you to the Genital Integrity section of the Bodily Integrity article. The only real association you can find is that it is a sub section of the article on violence against men.

There it explicitly shows that movement is dedicated to the bodily autonomy of everyone, not just men. And further more, that it is also part of an LGBT+ social movement with inherent support among members of that community (non-binary, transgender, etc.), thus those movements are inherently not masculine.

Due to the lack of mention in frankly any of the pages included in the series on Masculism, I’d go as far to say that circumcision controversies as much belong in that article series as the side box on Masculism belongs on this page. The inclusion of a side box for the series on violence against men would be much more appropriate considering it is really the only reference to circumcision controveries in the entire Masculism series, or at least that should be added and giving precedence in the information hierarchy of the page. Dranomartini (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the cogent reasoning. Now that you have laid out the argument in favor of removal, I support it for the reasons you give above. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Spam/unreliable links?

This article had a section linking to organisations within both Judaism and Islam that took a position on circumcision. When I added a section on Christianity, User:Alexbrn removed it with the edit summary "Spam". Could they kindly explain how removing a section on the largest religion in the world is "Spam"? If this was an oversight, that is fine. I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Spammy links to self-published, unreliable sources? No thanks. Oh, and you're now edit warring - warned for that. Alexbrn (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and your editing has shown this. External links that provide quotes from the Church Fathers and Church Councils on the topic of circumcision can hardly be considered spam. Since it is the holiday season, I am not going to engage with you now, though I have warned you for edit warring, rather than opening a talk page thread. When I get sometime later, I may start an RfC if you continue with your illogical intransigence. AnupamTalk 21:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Better to WP:FOC rather than be insulting like that. A RfC would be preferable, if a bit premature, just so long as you stop trying to force your edit. Remember WP:ONUS. Alexbrn (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Title

Shouldnt the title be "Male circumcision controversies?" Since it only includes male circumcision? --2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Non notable organizations

In the section Anti-circumcision movement (intactivism) a number of non-notable organizations are listed, without any RS refs. Those should be deleted. There are also a number of non rs refs throughout that should be deleted.--2603:7000:2143:8500:A1A3:633:94F3:E5BF (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. This article is in terrible shape. In particular, it should be covering "controversies" as so described in RS, not confecting controversies by juxtaposing sources. Alexbrn (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Virgil Goode

Can we remove the sentence that says Goode publicly supported the MGM bill? Essentially, all his letter said, was that he opposes genital mutilation and all other forms of mutilation, and that he would take the bill under consideration. Assuming that he supports the bill seems like original research. Prcc27 (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --2603:7000:2143:8500:FCFA:1BCC:C5C7:7ED0 (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Weight? (Anti-circumcision movement)

The organization you removed is the only one of its kind in Germany, intaktiv e.V. regularly organizes protests, gives interviews on the topic [1] and some public figures are advocates for this organization [2]. I would say this organization has the same weight as the rest of those anti-circumcision organizations. And some diversity would do the table good. So far there are only organizations from English speaking countries. So it would be nice if the entry would be restored. You removed this organisation on the ground of “Weight”. Which is strange if you look at the other groups in there they are all small and hardly know outside of the the circles of people how care about that topic.

References

  1. ^ https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/gesundheit-oekologie/beschneidung-bei-jungen-ein-irreversibler-eingriff-in-die-integritaet-li.156301
  2. ^ https://intaktiv.de/intaktiv-botschafter/
If there's some secondary coverage that lends weight. As added, the one source for the org was itself. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Well yeah that's a good point. I restored it with more sources.77.64.147.164 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

...many of which were crap. I've trimmed it back. Alexbrn (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

article is biased

This article feels very biased against circumcision when the article should be written with a neutral perspective. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the topic to fix it, just wanted to make others aware. Feetpants (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There is already a heavy-handed pro-circumcision page on Wikipedia; see the main "Circumcision" article for a veritable dog's breakfast of misinformation and half-truths. The "Controversies" page is included presumably for balance, and should be expanded considerably, not minimised. Male circumcision is controversial not only among activists and victim/survivors, but an emergent consensus of bioethicists, medical historians, legal scholars, human rights advocates, etc. In short, there is formidable opposition to non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital cutting, especially of male (and intersex) neonates. Such opposition is a bona fide cultural phenomenon, not to be shied away from, swept under the carpet, silenced. Wikipedia editors -- especially of the "medical gatekeeping" authoritarian mould -- have limited expertise to bring to the analysis and objective description of sociological phenomena. Most controversial of all, as many have cogently argued, are the putative benefits of preemptive foreskin amputation. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed title change

Rather than “controversies,” this article would be better titled “criticisms”—as per Wikipedia’s handling of other vexatious ideological topics, such as “capitalism.” The problem with “controversies” is that it frames the debate from a minority perspective, putting the onus of proof on a much broader alliance of dissenters and genitally intact human beings. In other words: Circumcision normal; criticism an aberration. How very muddleheaded, when the exact opposite is true, from a global perspective.

The surgical procedure itself is controversial, not criticism of or objection to the practice. Legal scholars and bioethicists are in broad general agreement, for example, that neonatal circumcision is prejudicial to the rights and interests of the child.

The stalwart assertion of therapeutic benefit (e.g. AAP) is highly controversial, not the virtually global consensus of paediatric (and human) bodies to the contrary (i.e. preemptive foreskin amputation yields zero net health benefit, given the disproportionate risk of iatrogenic harm).

I propose that, in keeping with other Wikipedia topics, this article be renamed as "Criticism of circumcision"; which would cover not only human and children's rights, legal and ethical perspectives, historical and cultural opposition to the practice, but also contemporary grassroots activist movements.

In keeping with Wikipedia's treatment of other controversial topics, a concise, fully referenced section "Criticism of circumcision" should be included at the end of Wikipedia's main "Circumcision" article (with a redirect to this page for further detail). See Wikipedia "Capitalism" article for example.

For now just a few tokens, offered in good faith in support of the above:

Svoboda JS. Growing world consensus to leave circumcision decision to the affected individual. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(2):46-8. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2014.990760. PMID: 25674958.

Gollaher, D. Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery (Basic Books, 2001). Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No because it's not just criticism. Your last listed source makes the point. Bon courage (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Circumcision as "genital mutilation" in Wikivoice.

@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.

(Note that this was posted on the circumcision talk page first due to previous discussions about "mutilation" in Wikivoice being discussed there. But GenoV84 had a preference for here.) KlayCax (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@KlayCax: If you have read the edit summaries of my latest edits on the article Circumcision controversies, you already know that the reason for reverting your repeated removal of the same content wasn't due to the language used in that paragraph; in fact I didn't contend the changing of words, but rather your unjustified, persistent, deliberate removal of sourced content and relevant informations supported by the academic sources cited in the article. GenoV84 (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Btw, the appropriate talk page to discuss about the aforementioned edit warring is Talk:Circumcision controversies, not this one. GenoV84 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that KlayCax should refrain from disruptive editing. Also, KlayCax should provide an explanation for tagging the current article for NPOV, accuracy and reliable sources. Is this all just about the term 'genital mutilation'? That seems a bit of an overreaction. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this all just about the term 'genital mutilation'? That's one of the more obvious problems with the article. But there's other substantive problems with it surrounding WP: NPOV and WP: Activism. Sorry for the delayed response, @Nederlandse Leeuw:. It didn't tag me for some reason. KlayCax (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Martha Nussbaum doesn't seem to know the first thing about human sexual anatomy, and has fuelled a great deal of mischief with her "activist" (feminist) association of the male glans penis with the female clitoris. She's simply mistaken on that (alas, influential) point. Not a reliable authority on male circumcision, or genitalia, at all. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it needs to be noted that many people DO consider it genital mutliation. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Notice

Alot of the content in this article is extremely one-sided, is contradicted by other articles on the matter, has many unreliable sources, and is factually inaccurate at times. I plan to make some edits. Please put your objections here, if you don't mind Man-Man122 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision_controversies/Archive_4&oldid=1175159332"