Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sapeli (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 16 December 2010 (→‎Prevalence). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Addition to the penile cancer section

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

  • Several studies[1][2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. ^ Bissada NK, Morcos RR, el-Senoussi M (1986). "Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis. I. Clinical aspects". J. Urol. 135 (2): 283–5. PMID 3944860. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Fetsch JF, Davis Jr CJ, Miettinen M, Sesterhenn IA (2004). "Leiomyosarcoma of the penis: a clinicopathologic study of 14 cases with review of the literature and discussion of the differential diagnosis". Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 28 (1): 115–25. PMID 14707873. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&oldid=402697495"