Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision

Miscellaneous comments

• Positions of major health organizations: How about putting the countries in alphabetical order?
• Costs and benefits: "Van Howe is a fierce opponent of circumcision" seems to me to have a non-NPOV tone; how about a different adjective -- maybe "outspoken" or something? This and the following sentence might not be directly relevant: do we put in information just to question the credibility of sources? If the source (which I might not have access to the text of) says something directly relevant to this section, i.e. arguing against Van Howe on the topic of costs and benefits, then perhaps a more relevant statement can be cited from it.
• Potential complications: "one of whom suffered brain damage ... and one suffered brain damage": One, or two? Is this a confused paragraph that mentions the same incident twice in such a way as to make it seem like two separate incidents?
• "It is worth noting that despite the fact that metzitzah is performed exclusively in all circumcisions in chasidic strongholds such as Williamsburg, Monroe, New Square, and Crown Heights, there has never been a case of neonatal herpes reported. ": What does "exclusively" mean here? Does it mean that those places are the only places metzitzah is performed? Or does it mean those places are the only places where all the circumcisions involve metzitzah? Or something else? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Restraints

I suggest that a paragraph on restraints be added to this article. (There was recently a discussion about restraints at Talk:Circumcision/Archive 61#Circumstraint.) I'm doing some web searches for sources; these might or might not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3] "A circumcision restraint board safely immobilizes the infant during the procedure."
• [4] "Part of the discomfort a baby feels during the procedure undoubtedly comes from being handled and restrained. Rather than tightly strapping the baby down, using swaddling and a sugar-coated pacifier has been suggested.[41] In addition, a special padded, 'physiological' restraint chair has been devised and shown to reduce distress scores by more than 50 per cent.[42]"
• [5] "The infant is usually restrained in a molded plastic restraint device."
• [6] "If a padded restraint chair is not available, provide atraumatic care by padding the circumcision board and covering the infant as previously mentioned."

☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems perfectly reasonable to add a paragraph to the 'procedures' section, but could you be more specific about what you have in mind? Jakew (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, I dunno. I was hoping the editors who were eager to add a mention of restraints to the Circumcision article would chime join^{(19:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC))} in here. And maybe there isn't enough material for a whole paragraph, anyway. Thanks for replying, though. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Numerous medical studies?

re: Medical analysis of circumcision/opening sentence "Numerous medical studies have examined the effects of male circumcision with mixed opinions regarding the benefits and risks of the procedure." It might be said of cancer, "numerous medical studies," but to say the same for circumcision is plainly an exaggeration. There have been numerous opinions -- very few "medical" studies. Historys Docs (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PubMed currently lists 4,710 articles when searching for "circumcision". Based on a brief look at the first page of results, 12 of 20 appear to be studies (as opposed to opinion pieces or reviews). Extrapolating from that 60% figure, the total number of studies might be 2,826. Even using a very conservative estimate of 10%, there are still 471 studies. Isn't it reasonable to describe that as "numerous"? Jakew (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Major health benefits are unlikely from an evolutionary point of view.

If there were major health benefits for circumcised individuals those individuals that were born with less foreskin would have had a higher survival rate than those individuals that were born with more foreskin. As humans today are born with foreskin it is very likely that individuals born with the currently normal amount of foreskin had a higher survival rate than individuals born with less foreskin.--158.39.241.139 (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, your unstated assumption appears to be that the optimal amount of foreskin has not changed over time, in spite of changes to the environment in which humans exist. Anyway, this isn't the place to propose original theories; however, if you're aware of reliable sources making such arguments we might plausibly cite them. Jakew (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This should be kinda obvious to anyone with a good understanding of evolution, but I have no idea if anyone has actually bothered to write an article about it.158.39.241.139 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually you could refer to wikipedia's own page about evolution. This diagram shows how evolution works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg 158.39.241.139 (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I also found this page about it: http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=15 158.39.241.139 (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't. First, Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source. Please see WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Second, any suitable source would have to explicitly discuss the relationship between evolution and the medical benefits of circumcision; we cannot make an original argument that is not made by a source. Finally, Robert Darby's site (historyofcircumcision.net) is a self-published source, and hence is considered insufficiently reliable for use as a source. Jakew (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is linked to some sources about the evolution of foreskin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin#Evolution 158.39.241.139 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You might also just link to the sources the wikipedia article about evolution uses instead of linking to the wikipedia article itself.158.39.241.139 (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, do any of those sources discuss the medical benefits of circumcision? Jakew (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I have said earlier. The current configuration of the human body is mostly a result of natural selection according to evolutionary theory. So if we have foreskin it is probably because it is advantageous to our survival and ability to produce offspring. There are some evolutionary leftovers in the human body like the appendix, but I highly doubt that foreskin is such an evolutionary leftover. This is mostly because it probably doesn't take a lot of mutations in the human genome to increase or decrease the size of the foreskin, just like it doesn't take a lot of mutations in the human genome to change the human skin color. We have light skinned people near the poles where there is less sunlight and dark skinned people near the equator where there is more sunlight. This is because it is evolutionary advantageous to have light skin color near the poles in order to synthesize more vitamin D, while it is evolutionary advantageous to have dark skin color near the equator in order to be better protected against skin cancer. So if it was evolutionary advantageous to have less foreskin we would have lost the foreskin now, just like the light skinned people living near the poles have lost their dark skin color. So I highly doubt that there are any major health benefits from male circumcision. Then we wouldn't have any foreskin now. 158.39.241.139 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted previously, Wikipedia isn't the place to advance original theories. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say about the subject of this article. Jakew (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The theory of evolution is hardly an original idea of mine ( although I wish it was ).158.39.241.139 (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your specific interpretation in the context of the medical benefits of circumcision, which you outline above, does appear to be an original idea of yours. Jakew (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not. Do you have any higher education in biology, or just in software engineering? 84.199.65.2 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, who do you think should be the judge of whether it is just my interpretation of evolutionary theory or not? Individuals with higher education in biology or individuals without any higher education in biology? 81.167.185.42 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who judges it. Either you cite a source that explicitly links evolution to the medical benefits of circumcision, or it violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. To quote from that policy: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." Jakew (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It is in the very essence of evolutionary theory that the current configuration of any biological organism has emerged from natural selection. As the loss of biological structures happens much more easily than the emergence of new biological structures it is not very common to see biological structures in species which only serves to decrease their survivability. I am not saying that it is completely impossible that the loss of human foreskin actually increases human survivability, but it is very unlikely because of natural selection according to the normal interpretation of evolutionary theory.81.167.185.42 (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point it seems as though I'm wasting my time in trying to explain Wikipedia policy to you. If you want to put this argument in the article, find a reliable source. Jakew (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Use Darwin's on the origin of species as a source. It is the foundation of evolutionary theory.81.167.185.42 (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On what page does it discuss circumcision? Jakew (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Stripping organisms of properties that have emerged from natural selection usually decreases survivability according to the standard interpretation of Darwin's evolutionary theory. Do you need an introduction to deductive reasoning as well? If all bodily modifications that are stripping organisms of properties that have emerged from natural selection decrease survivability it follows deductively that if circumcision is such a modification it also reduces survivability. 81.167.185.42 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

An introduction to deductive reasoning would be fine, as long as it explicitly links evolution to circumcision. That, as I keep trying to explain, is what is required by policy. Jakew (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Huge series of dubious changes

I've just reverted a long series of dubious changes due to multiple problems. These include, but are not limited to:

• Multiple WP:NPOV violations. These range from WP:PEACOCK terms such as "A classic 1993 study on HPV ... A famous study on nongonococcal urethritis ... An exhaustive 1994 study on herpes simplex virus type 2" to assertions of opinion such as "Cutting off a part of your sons penis is not a logical way to prevent a rare and easily treatable UTI" to asserting the results of one study while ignoring contrary results such as "Most notably, circumcision drastically reduces the glans sensitivity to vibration". These are just a few examples, of course.
• Multiple WP:NOR violations. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the sources cited in the sentence beginning "Certain components such as Langerhans cells" actually discuss protective functions of the foreskin.
• Wrong article. If neutral and properly sourced, material about the function of the foreskin belongs in foreskin, not here.
• Failures of basic English (eg., "What is the foreskin? is a question that many Americans would have trouble answering"). (This sentence is inappropriate tone for an encyclopaedia anyway, but I'm including it to illustrate that even the first added sentence is problematical.)

I would request that the person who wishes to make these changes first present each change here on the talk page, so that such issues can be resolved prior to editing the article. Jakew (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Help formating !

Look under Staph. infections jmak (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Is the dick pic necessary on this page?

This page is about the *medical analysis* of circumcision not "what is circumcision" or "what is a penis". Can't a guy read an article about circumcision with a picture of a dick coming up on his computer screen? There are already other pages where people can see this if they want to. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)