Talk:Circumcision

Can we maybe drop the double standard already?

The Female genital cutting page starts like this:

"Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision, or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)"

There should be an almost exact duplicate opening on the main male circumcision page, at the moment only called "Circumcision". Something like this maybe:

"Male circumcision, also know as male genital mutilation (MGM), or male genital cutting (MGC)."

I am determined to resolve this double standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.10.150 (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But circumcision isn't also known as "male genital mutilation" or "male genital cutting". Circumcision and female genital mutilation are two very different things: the former is deprecated amongst health-care professionals, but is still carried out as fairly routine surgery where it's deemed necessary, and is not regarded as abuse. The latter is typically only encountered by health-care professionals when they try and alleviate the problems it's caused - it is regarded as abuse. TFOWR 11:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You can't write an article about (male) circumcision by taking the FGC article and inverting the gender, because they're different subjects and we need to say different things about them. And one of the differences is terminology: "female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting" are mainstream terminology among scholarly sources, whereas "male genital mutilation" and "male genital cutting" are fringe at best. If/when the terminology used by reliable sources changes, we'll report on that, but we can't do so until then. Jakew (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Different subjects in whose culture? The term female circumcision is also mainstream; indeed, in the cultures that practice female circumcision, it is often treated as exactly analogous to male circumcision. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision is known as MGM in some circles, particularly in health and human rights activism. So MGM is an appropriate alternative name to add. Besides, all forms of circumcision are genital mutilation anyway. It's done without consent, on a child, and has limited to no medical benefits. That is most definitely mutilation. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

As stated above, "male genital mutilation" is fringe terminology at best when scholarly sources are considered: Google Scholar returns only 480 hits for "male genital mutilation" (and ten of the twenty results on the first two pages are actually matches for "fe-male genital mutilation"). In comparison, there are 98,500 results for "circumcision". In other words, for every source using the term "male genital mutilation" there are about 200 using the term "circumcision".

This isn't the place to argue about whether circumcision is or isn't mutilation; please see WP:NOR. Jakew (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Male Genital Mutilation on Google turns up "About 998,000 results," with the first links being relevant to male circumcision. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

Google searches usually include all web pages, whether or not they meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. Google Scholar isn't perfect, but tends to exclude a lot of unsuitable material such as activist websites, forum posts, blogs, and so on. Jakew (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I presume you searched for male+genital+mutilation ("About 914,000 results") instead of "male genital mutilation" ("About 61,300 results"). Use quotes to search for the phrase, otherwise you'll just get anything that includes any of the words, in any order. For reference, circumcision -female returns "About 2,420,000 results". TFOWR 20:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FGM is culture bias. In African and Asian publications, it's referred to as circumcision. In English sites, it's called FGM because our culture views it as unacceptable. So MGM is a viable alternative name because it IS used. It produces the same results as male circumcision on search engines. So it should be called MGM because it is mutilation. (LovelieHeart (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

So it should be called MGM because it is mutilation.

— User:LovelieHeart, 20:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

While you are entitled to the above point-of-view, wikipedia policy does not allow wikipedia to be used as a platform to disseminate that, or any other POV. As Jake mentioned above, the majority of sources in the English language do not equate circumcision with genital mutilation, so neither do we. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that it clearly doesn't produce the same result on search engines: "circumcision" occurs 40 times more frequently than "male genital mutilation". And that's before we consider the weighting to give to raw Google hits (i.e. how many of those are reliable sources). We need to reflect what society thinks, not impose our own points of view on this. When society changes to refer to circumcision as "male genital mutilation" then this article should too. Until then it shouldn't. TFOWR 20:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MGM is a used name. Neurogenic shock is a less common word for a coma. It doesn't mean people don't use neurogenic shock though in medical fields. In medical circles, MGM is regularly used. It's not a point of view. (LovelieHeart (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

If it was regularly used I would agree that we should use it here. However, so far I've seen no evidence that it is regularly used. Can you show any reliable sources using the term "male genital mutilation" in preference to "circumcision"? TFOWR 09:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

These are medical, parenting, and political sites that use MGM in place of male circumcision.

• http://www.mgmbill.org/
• http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/net-quot/
• http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
• http://www.noharmm.org/muted.htm
• http://www.cirp.org/library/history/

(LovelieHeart (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

None of these, however, meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources (see also WP:V). To simplify somewhat, we must use sources such as articles in peer-reviewed journals, scholarly publications, or articles in respected news media. Jakew (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Bates Graber, "A Psychocultural Theory of Male Genital Mutilation." The Journal for Psychoanalytic Anthropology 4(1981):41 3-434. (LovelieHeart (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

The term is in common use, but the ones who favor the practice will not allow them to be used on the article. Coolgamer (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to discuss content, not the contributor. Your sole comment about content seems to be your assertion that "the term" (which?) is in common use. You provide no evidence in support of this claim, and it is in flat contradiction of the evidence presented above, so I'm inclined to give it little weight. But if you do have evidence, I'd be interested to read it. Jakew (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to the penile cancer section

I'm reverting the following addition to the penile cancer section of the article:

• Several studies have shown that penile cancer can occur in the scar tissue caused by circumcision.

I see several problems with this addition:

1. Both of the studies cited are essentially case reports. Note that WP:MEDRS advises against the use of case reports. To quote: "In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, (e.g., conventional wisdom). [...] Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources." This is the most serious problem, but there are others:
2. While the studies do support the claim made, what is the significance? Yes, cancers can develop on the circumcision scar line; why is this noteworthy? Cancers can develop anywhere on the body, after all, so it would perhaps be unreasonable to expect the scar to be an exception.
3. While a minor point, the citations are presented poorly. They should really appear at the end of the sentence, consistent with the rest of the article.

Jakew (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If the sources are indeed not up to WP:MEDRS standards then they do not belong, however problems 2 and 3 are besides the point here. Regarding #2, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning but I'm assuming there is some confusion because the language used in the text. I doubt researchers published case studies about how cancer can develop in scar tissue unless there is a meaningful statement to made there. What you reduced it to is not meaningful, but is that what the sources say? I'm having a hard time believing that. #3 is indeed a very minor point, one that is solved by correcting the mistake and not removal. Both are irrelevant of course, because if WP:MEDRS is satisfied and the information is relevant (as I assume it would be) then the information stays, if not it should go. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 3, I agree, it would be easy enough to correct, and if it were the only problem that would have been the best approach. Regarding point 2, neither of the sources (PMID 3944860 and PMID 14707873) seem to have a point to make about circumcision and penile cancer; it's just that some/all of the cases happen to have involved the circumcision scar. Have a look at the abstracts, and I think you'll see what I mean. Indeed, in one of the studies (PMID 14707873), the authors actually list the location of the lesions: "The tumors involved the prepuce (n = 1), prepuce and distal shaft (n = 1), circumcision scar line (n = 2), circumcision scar line and distal shaft (n = 1), shaft (n = 5), base of the penis (n = 3), and penis, not otherwise specified (n = 1)." Sure, this supports the statement "cancers can occur in the circumcision scar", but of course it also supports the statement "cancers can occur on the prepuce". Neither statement seems particularly meaningful, and that's why I think it's important to ask what the significance is. If we can establish and agree why the point (or something similar) actually matters we might be able to find better sources that make the significance more obvious. Jakew (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if there is indeed no meaningful connection presented in the papers then there is no reason to believe there are other sources.Griswaldo (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

British Royal Family

188.46.233.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asked why we do not make a statement about the circumcision status of male members of the British Royal Family. I've deleted the actual question per SarekOfVulcan's BLP concerns. However, I will try to answer in the abstract sense. First of all, we cannot, as a matter of policy (WP:BLP), discuss the genitals of identifiable individuals without extremely good sourcing, and Google searches are not sources. Second, it is questionable whether Wikipedia should discuss the genitals of these individuals even with extremely good sourcing; even public figures are entitled to some measure of privacy, after all. Finally, it is questionable whether this particular article needs to discuss the circumcision status of the Royals who, while admittedly notable (though not necessarily for their phalluses), represent only the smallest fraction of the human race — in the wider context of circumcision, they're not that important. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Circlist members editing this article

Don’t you think it’s a bit inappropriate for a member (or previous member) of Circlist (a circumcision fetish website for people who get off on the ACT of circumcision) to be editing circumcision related articles on Wikipedia? The thought alone makes me sick to my stomach.--99.28.1.166 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.191.242 (talk)

Prevalence

Opening discussion as requested by User:Avraham. Claiming in the summary that Finland has circumcision rate of 7%, is at minimum dishonest, since when you look at the prevalence article, the figures change from almost zero to seven percent, depending on what source you use. Only sources that are publicly available and I can check for their validity, give much lower figures. Also from my personal experiences living in here, I highly doubt the sources that claims it to be 7%. --Sapeli (talk) 12:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Avraham politely decided to comment in his revert "We do not delete a newer source in favor of a statement based on older material which is unsourced. As you, Sapeli, are trying to remove properly cited data, the onus is on you to defend the removal of the source on the talk page"

As I already described here, there are multiple sources. If you would have bothered to look at the prevalence article, you would know that the 7.1% comes from a study made in 2000 by National institute for health and welfare of Finland, which uses data from 1996 - 1998. So it's actually older than some of the other sources. Not that newer research is even always better, if the old methodology is just bad. Also since you probably can't get your hands on the original publication, only publications that has references to it, you can't even check the source. --Sapeli (talk) 14:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop removing appropriately sourced material, Sapeli. If you wish to propose citing one of the other estimates as well, that's certainly something we can discuss. Jakew (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to verify the source used here. I tried. Both of these publications are referring to another publication, that's not available, since the source is not properly cited in them. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Why in the first place one would even refer to these publications and not the original as the source? Only if you can provide verifiable source for the statement, should it stay in Wikipedia. --Sapeli (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is trivial to verify. Obtain the sources and confirm that they make the claim attributed to them. And they do. That is what is meant by "verifiability" at Wikipedia, as clearly stated by WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Jakew (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands section

I recently reverted an edit that drastically expanded discussion of the KNMG statement, thus creating undue weight issues. Please note that the present summary is a result of extensive discussion and eventual consensus at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 65#Recent changes; it would be advisable to seek consensus for any changes before making them. Jakew (talk) 11:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I must agree; it's rather absurd that the article would devote 15 lines to a statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Association. Please keep in mind that the Netherlands is just one country in the world, with 0.241% of the world's population and 0.03% of its area, and this is just one of its medical associations. This is an overview article, and this insertion egregiously violates WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The subsection is devoted to the official medical position of the medical organizations in the Netherlands; the information is quoted and cited, and it takes up a reasonable amount of space. Furthermore, the statements are endorsed by every major medical association:

• The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners
• The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians
• The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons
• The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons
• The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine
• The Netherlands Urology Association
• The Netherlands Surgeons' Association

The Jews make up around or less than 0.214% of the world population—less than what you say the Netherlands represent; given this, the Jewish culture should be featured far less in this article according to your nonsensical logic. I highly doubt you would want to continue down that road. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to the point that—even if this statement represents several Dutch associations—it's still just one small country, and an absurd over-weighting of this material in this overview article. This article should be no more that 10,000 words, and ideally under 8,000. There's no way one can justify devoting almost 250 of those words to the statement of one small medical association. And if you think other unrelated material is also unduly weighted, please bring that up in its own Talk page section for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to the point that—even if Jews couldn't go on living without their daily fill of infant penis-reduction surgery—it's still just one small group of people, and an absurd over-weighting of this material in this overview article. This article should be no more than 10 000 words, and ideally under 8000. There's no way one can justify devoting as much of these words as there currently are to the statements and beliefs of one incredibly tiny cult. More to the point, in most countries, male circumcision is viewed exactly as expressed by basically all of the medical organizations of the Netherlands; why should the perspective in cultures that promote circumcision have any more weight than the perspective in cultures that frown strongly upon it? ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Weight is to some extent a matter of how much sourcing we have. There are a lot of sources about circumcision from a Jewish perspective (not surprisingly- it really important to Jews). There aren't that many sources about the Netherlands (not surprising. Again, cultural importance matters) so there are fewer sources. Having a lot of content related to just the Netherlands is not a good idea as we can see, if we did that just for every European country we'd have an article longer than the current article. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cultural importance does matter; in most countries, male circumcision is viewed exactly as expressed by the medical organizations of the Netherlands; why should the perspective in cultures that promote circumcision have any more weight than the perspective in cultures that frown strongly upon it? Your logic is muddled, as it would provide for maintaining the article length by keeping more information from the Netherlands and less information from the Jews. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your argument might be somewhat stronger if you were able to cite a reliable source in support of your assertion that the KNMG viewpoint is typical of "most countries". In the absence of such a source, it seems rash to make such a claim. Jakew (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh sweet Jake, you are too funny; you have such a way of abusing technicalities in order rationalize your warped world view. ActuallyRationalThinker (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourced and relevant statement being removed

Can the editors removing this sentence explain why they are doing so?

Rennie et al. note that using circumcision as a way of preventing HIV in high prevalence, low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa, is controversial, but argue that "it would be unethical to not seriously consider one of the most promising [...] new approaches to HIV-prevention in the 25-year history of the epidemic".

It's obviously relevant to both the article and the section in which it is found, "Ethical issues"? It explicitly discusses a relevant, significant, ethical issue. It phrases it in terms of ethics. I can't understand the objection, if any. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)