Talk:Circumcision

sexual pleasure , the loss of the 20,000 foreskin nerve receptors and this World Health Organization quote ?

"The World Health Organization states that functions of the foreskin include "keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors." Should this quote which is presently in the Foreskin article also be in this article, because this article is after all, about cutting the foreskin off ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No. That sentence has no bearing on circumcision without an improper application of WP:SYNTH. As it is, we have Circumcision#Adverse_effects where we bring the general accepted medical opinion and a counterargument by the Dutch. -- Avi (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The title of this section makes a statement about "20,000 foreskin nerve receptors" - what is the source for that? It does not appear in the WHO document, where are you getting it from? Zad68 03:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If a new sect arose that cut off their children's left arm shortly after their birth - would there be editors here blithely saying that there should be no mention of loss of any of the functions of that arm in the article describing the amputations because that would be WP:SYNTH ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 07:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your argument suffers from various logical flaws:

1. The fallacy of Ignoratio elenchi; it is irrelevant to question at hand. Issues about arm-removing cults will be handled in the appropriate articles should the need arise, if ever.
2. False analogy. It has never been proven (nor will it, I believe) that removal of the foreskin is destructive as the removal of an arm. It is a dispute whether foreskin removal is disruptive, neutral, or constructive. Removal of an arm is always destructive (perhaps outside of cases of imminent death otherwise).
3. Following the above, the question is also a Loaded question, presupposing that foreskin removal is destructive, let alone as destructive as arm removal.

As such, it has no bearing on this discussion. -- Avi (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any good secondary WP:MEDRS-compliant sources which will support your contention that "Removal of an arm is always destructive" - even when excluding cases of imminent death otherwise.Zebulin (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect, Zebulin. Please see the following, among others: [1], [2]. [3], [4] -- Avi (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". You have listed several primary sources.Zebulin (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are more survey-type sources that support the contention [5], [6], [7]. Tuma's argumnent remains fallacious through irrelevancy regardless, but the preponderance of sources support its invalidity ipso facto as well as per above. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the content that's actually in the WHO document you've brought as a source to support your proposed content changes, this seems to be an off-target analogy. Where does the WHO make a statement about "20,000 foreskin nerve receptors"? Zad68 13:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lads - the World Health Organization, which you fall over yourselves quoting and eulogizing when you agree with its conclusions, states that the nerve receptors on the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure. But what would they know ? Someone should really tell them that it has never been proved. Because - Um - Avi said so. Ignoratio elenchi, False analogy, and Loaded question do not apply to the excised arm example but bringing them up as a riposte is weak and also a classic example of Ignoratio elenchi. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have shown how they do above. Merely stating they do not doth not make it so. In other words, the burden of proof to justify your above assertion lies on you, and has not been demonstrated. -- Avi (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You sure that that's what the WHO says? Are you actually looking at the WHO's GTDPSA source, the same source we've been using here recently, or are you looking at some other WHO source you haven't identified here yet? Or are you looking at the Foreskin article and assuming it represents the WHO source accurate, because it might not. Zad68 19:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the foreskin article cites J Fam Pract. 1986 Apr;22(4):353-5 as the source for the WHO statement we can at least be sure we aren't talking about WHO's 2007 GTDPSA source. I don't have access to the source to see how it may or may not represent any WHO finding but we can at least rest assured that any such finding by the WHO would have to date to 1986 or earlier.Zebulin (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@Avi - A True Analogy assists in seeing the veracity of the original. An arm has naturally many more functions than a foreskin and is a more complex body part - nevertheless the analogy is comparing your and other's current resistance to acknowledging loss of function by slicing off the foreskin (despite the World Health Organization naming one of interest to sexually active adult males and their partners - sexual pleasure ) to a hypothetical editor holding the same preposterous position in relation to the arm cutting sect.

Thus your point that it has never been proved that the loss of a foreskin is( I am presuming that you meant to write "as" here) destructive as the loss of an arm, is off the point.

Any loss of function is noteworthy. The functions of an arm are well known. Maimonides and many others since, including the WHO have noted the sexual pleasure function of the foreskin. When you cut it off completely and consequently keratinize ( scar and toughen) the glans of the penis, the loss of functions is analogous to the loss of arm functions.

It has never been proven either that the loss of an arm is as destrucitve as the loss of a leg or a head but that red herring is laughably off the point too.

Thus you are demonstrating Ignorati elenchi as you are, to quote, "presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question"

What is more interesting though, is to attempt to begin to understand what motivates such concerted resistance by circumcision enthusiasts, to inclusion of these facts about cutting off foreskins, and other facts like the disposals or commercial sale of the cut off foreskins --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a result of secondary sources being found which claim that circumcision has no adverse effects whatsoever. This is an artifact of cultural bias. All of the secondary sources which make this claim are within cultures in which circumcision is prevalent to the point of being the norm and as such, forming "task forces" to craft and publish a policy for the implementation of non medically indicated circumcisions has relevance there. On the other hand, it would be strange in a normal culture to seek to publish a refutation as it would be something like publishing a finding that losing an arm is detrimental. Avi had amusing difficulty locating a secondary source that would support his (profoundly reasonable) contention that loss of an arm is detrimental and yet the absence of secondary sources asserting that loss of a foreskin in detrimental serves in this article as evidence that there is consensus that circumcision has no adverse effect. In fact, extraordinarily, a harsh criticism of the AAP circumcision task force report was published, but unsurprisingly as a letter to the AAP by a large group of MDs representing senior membership of several national medical associations.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796.full?sid=b664414e-c520-48e7-be2a-eb1b77d80f37 (check out author affiliations, this is not a fringe group.)

They can be forgiven for not seeing any point in publishing their statement separately for much the same reason they see no need to publish secondary sources indicating that removal of arms has adverse effects. The current editors of the circumcision article are happily complying with the flawed WP:MEDRS but as a result are glaringly failing to comply with WP:Countering systemic bias. Furthermore, even within cultural regions where circumcision is the norm, there is clear dissent by medical professionals from the view that it has no adverse effects and direct criticism by at least one association of MDs of the secondary sources used but this is not represented in the article either. Any reader is left with the impression that most doctors feel circumcision has no adverse effect when it is obvious that there is not only no such consensus, but even that in most of the world circumcision on healthy patients will not be considered except for as an alternative to a more dangerous religious/cultural circumcision outside a medical facility.Zebulin (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing how this comment is relevant as we do not use the AAP's policy statement in the article, and the AAP's systematic review the policy statement is based on is only one of four secondary sources used. We don't use unreviewed self-published sources from small fringe groups like DOC, see WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE; if they ever do get their work published in a reputable journal as a Review article or the like we can consider it. However you are correct in stating that the sourcing for the article does comply with WP:MEDRS, glad we can agree on that. Zad68 18:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

WE are a little off the point of this section's purpose here which was to consider whether we should include the World Health Organisation quote about the pleasure function of the foreskin when we value their other offerings so. And also whether the use, sale, or disposal of cut off foreskins by circumcision should be included in this circumcision article. it seems to me that these are all no brainers. Some other editors do not agree. Avi attempted to say that it had never been proven that having your foreskin lopped off was as destructive as having your arm lopped off but this was never asserted in the first place and was simply a distraction. The article still makes no mention of the diminishing popularity of circumcision --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 12:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)he3

The sudden silence on this page is fascinating. Did it take a tremendous amount of organizing ? At what price in abandonment of WP principles ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency.

I think this needs fixing: "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see female genital mutilation." <--- inconsistency, anyone? I am seriously considering abandoning Wikipedia because of inconsistencies and incorrect info, that can't be corrected by the community. Krepta3000 (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at your User page, which I think provides some valuable context for your question. The terms Wikipedia uses aren't consistent because the reliable sources don't use the terms consistently. Another way to look at this is to say that Wikipedia is consistent in reflecting the reliable sources accurately, even when the sources themselves aren't consistent. This is in accordance with Wikipedia content policy. Zad68 03:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment by AlwynJPie

The whole article has become biased in support of circumcision. It appears Wikipedia has become infiltrated by those that support the procedure. Evidence which once showed that opinion has swung against any medical benefits of circumcision, that were once thought to exist, have been removed or altered to misrepresent them. This is very dangerous as a lot of people trust Wikipedia and are not aware that it can be edited by anyone.AlwynJPie (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects current worldwide medical consensus that routine infant circumcision is not generally recommended and that no major medical organization recommends routine circumcision, not even the AAP, and not even for the prevention of UTIs (as the article states, "prevention of UTIs does not justify routine use of the procedure"). The article states circumcision has no effect on the incidence of genital warts and only "possibly" has an effect on herpes; circumcision's protective effects against penile cancer do not justify the procedure because the incidence of penile cancer is so low; no major medical organization recommends routine infant circumcision for the prevention of HIV, excepting of course for the WHO's recommendations for those parts of Africa. The only medical benefits discussed are the reliable sources that cover the current medical consensus that circumcision may be medically indicated in children for pathological phimosis, refractory balanoposthitis and chronic, recurrent urinary tract infections. Also the World Health Organization promotes circumcision as a preventive measure for sexually active men in populations at high risk for HIV. We have strong and explicitly medical sources to support these statements. If you have authoritative WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable secondary sources that state otherwise and aren't currently in use in the article with can consider them for inclusion. Zad68 20:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

While all that Zad says is true, the medium is the message, and the current layout, emphasis, section headings and omissions of many key facts such as the declining popularity of clinical circumcisions or the incidences of forced circumcisions all work together to normalize this strange ancient body part excision. The rationale about "medical" sources (so repeatedly proffered) serves to ensure that this imbalance is less likely to be corrected in the medium term. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 09:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tuma, as someone who presumably knows the community of anti circumcision activists well, are you able to say what percentage of them pretend to be heterosexuals concerned about loss of pleasure in vaginal intercourse but in reality they are homosexuals, angry becauee they think (rightly or wrongly I don't know) they would not have to use lubricant in homosexual penetration if they still had a foreskin?82.113.121.70 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

82.113.121.70 sorry but I'm not understanding how this question would relate to a suggestion regarding this article's content. It looks like you're asking Tumadoireacht to engage in original research, to provide an answer that wouldn't even be useful for this article. This question seems unnecessarily inflammatory, unless I misunderstand what you're asking? Zad68 18:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

82- I do not know any anti circumcision activists and your ideas seem bizarre to me. I simply like any WP article to be balanced and to describe realities in a balanced and inclusive way omitting nothing on the subject in question.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New study

It's scientific fact that the foreskin is erogenous tissue. It's obvious that removing it would reduce sexual pleasure. We don't question this in women (e.g. FGM). Please see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract

The above source should be cited in the article.

Circumcision causes great harm. Additional evidence here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

The burden of proof actually resides within the community who supports male and female genital mutilation to prove that such actions on the body are NOT harmful. This proof does not exist. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

These are individual primary studies, we have four high-quality secondary sources supporting the current article content, we don't use individual primary studies to contradict the conclusions of secondary sources, see WP:MEDREV... surely you've been involved at this article long enough now to be familiar with WP:MEDRS and understand the sourcing rules? Zad68 13:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been involved for long enough to know how you and others promote circumcision in the article. The secondary studies that you mentioned are cherry-picked to the pro-circumcision point of view. Furthermore, these studies don't directly mention penile sensitivity and/or have authors who are not credible. I have linked to over 40 studies that contradict your sources. You ignored my links.

Again, female prepuce removal is called type 1 female genital mutilation. Male prepuce removal is said to have no ill consequences. You continue to ignore ethical and legal concerns. It's no longer about "sources" and "evidence". It's about editors promoting a point of view despite copious evidence to the contrary. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Talk pages are not for general discussion of one's own personal theories regarding the article topic, WP:MEDRS is the sourcing guideline for biomedical information, there's really nothing else to discuss here. Zad68 14:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless, of course, Crimsoncorvid will offer some secondary studies to offset the "cherry-picked" studies.Zebulin (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Zad68, these are not my personal theories. They are facts as opposed to the viewpoint you and others trying to instill in the article. Please see references here: http://www.intactipedia.org/index.php?title=Foreskin_Sensitivity . Also: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/allwoman/Male-circumcision-decreases-penile-sensitivity--study-shows_13833454

Please see the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Views_on_sexuality

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guide_for_the_Perplexed , in particular: “As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. Some people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man’s formation; but every one can easily reply: How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision.”

So Kellogg and the Jews knew that the foreskin was erogenous, but you folks don't? Sorry, time to stop the propaganda. Just ask an intact man. He'll tell you it's erogenous. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that the Wikipedia definition of "reliable" is flawed. It doesn't include "credible" which, I believe, should be a requirement for any source. Wikipedians holds un-credible sources in just as high regard as credible ones as long as it meets the arbitrary criteria of "reliable" which is entirely up to the interpretation of editors. Proof? Jakew wouldn't allow the Boyle/Hill study criticizing the African studies. But you did. I'm glad you did, but this is proof of my point that it's all about editor control and has nothing to do with facts/science/accuracy. It's time to stop pushing the American cultural viewpoint and reflect the viewpoint of the world-wide medical community which holds that male circumcision is harmful and a human rights violation. Crimsoncorvid (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Crimsoncorvid is it your intent to continue making personal attacks, and to continue to demonstrate the behaviors found at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing? Zad68 19:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made no such personal attacks. Accusing people of personal attacks is one of the way you editors maintain control over this article. Nobody can dare call into question anything. Don't upset the status quo. Don't make corrections. It's all part of maintaining a viewpoint instead of reflecting the facts. Is it your intention to continue ignoring sources that contradict the viewpoint of this article? Crimsoncorvid (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if Zad has read his personal attacks link himself? I'm at a loss to see the personal attacks as defined there in anything we see from Crimsoncorvid here.Zebulin (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)