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 Lestrad (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 5 December 2015 (→"Primary Source" section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleCircumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Toolbox

Council of Europe

It makes sense to include an intergovernmental organization's resolution in the ethical and legal issues section since this is a legal issue even though it isn't necessarily binding. We should say "the Council of Europe passed a nonbinding resolution that considers religious circumcision of boys a 'violation of the physical integrity of children.'" 47 countries are members of this organization so it would be dumb to exclude it from a section that deals with law. It isn't WP:POV or WP:UNDUE to include it for the same reason saying that South Africa and Sweden bans religious circumcision doesn't violate those policies. It is a matter of legal fact and just because a law or resolution is anti-circumcision doesn't mean mentioning it gives undue weight to the anti-circumcision view. A resolution is a resolution even if it goes against the scientific consensus we shouldn't just pretend like the resolution doesn't exist. Laws against homosexuality go against the scientific consensus that homosexuality is natural and normal but mentioning that homosexuality is illegal doesn't violate Wikipedia policy. [1] Prcc27 (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn: Do you agree? Prcc27 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Need good secondary sources to evaluate weight, and even then probably this isn't the article for it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genital Mutilation

In favour of cultural equality and to put male genital mutilation on an objective level i propose that since it is considered to be a form of genital mutilation in Scandinavia and other arts of the world that it be referred to it as such in the article. Given that FGM is referred to Female circumcision on its article but mainly as FGM then MGM should also have it mentioned.

It is only right as the sole reason it is not already regarded as a form of mutilation while female genital mutilation is would be because of the american bias for male genital mutilation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.193.44 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the FAQ at the top of the page, "Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male genital mutilation or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same." Yobol (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to change the name of the article in order to note that male circumcision may also be referred to as male genital mutilation. If there are at least some reliable sources that refer to it as such then I don't see the harm in at least mentioning it. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


There NEEDS to be serious reference to the barbaric nature of this mutilation and the serious mental, physical, and sexual effects it has on those who are damaged by it. To refer to the mutilation of females as the mutilation it is and to not do the same for boys is sexist and wrong. Why is it ok to mutilate boys but not girls and not even have the mutilation refered to as such in a encyclopedia, ffs? There needs to be a comprehensive section on this for boys, and just because the mutilation is called by another name does not make it less than what it is - a attack on boys and their genitals. Call it what it is: Male genital mutilation, also known as 'circumcision'. 2001:569:BC3C:2200:1CDD:5420:7CF2:FBCE (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the broad opinion here, there are many similarities between FGM and MGM, and the content of the page (and title) should be written so that both are similarly worded. If 'Consensus' may have previously rejected this, but opinions have changed rapidly about genital mutilation, lets see if there's new consensus Esplorare (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We follow the terminology used by reliable sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual effects

Why's this been put back as a subsection of "Adverse effects" when, according to our text, the effects aren't actually adverse? Alexbrn (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sexual effects section mentions how there aren't adverse effects on sexuality. I still feel it's pertinent but I guess it doesn't necessarily have to be a subsection. I reverted you because you still had the sexual effects section in subsection notation rather than making it its own section. However, I also don't see the point in moving the sexual effects section above the adverse effects section, especially since "adverse effects" comes first alphabetically. Prcc27 (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have a section "Effects". I made "Sexual effects" (which are, after all, "effects") a subsection of that. This is logical. Putting it back as a subsection of "Adverse effects" is not logical (and gives us a big portion of hanging text at the beginning of "Adverse effects"). I don't think your comment makes any sense and what you "feel is pertinent" is really not a good basis for driving our content. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that makes sense. You didn't explain which section you were moving it to in the edit summary. I thought you were trying to make it a seperate section and move it above adverse effects for personal preference without realizing that it was a subsection. Prcc27 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doc James: Do you think sexual effects should be a subsection of "effects" or "adverse effects"..? Sorry if I wasn't clear in the edit summary when I restored Alexbrn's edit. Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The context they are presented in, is that of concern regarding them being a negative effect. Thus we say "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction" and thus IMO this fits best under adverse effect.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero impact factor

This source has a zero impact factor [2]. Thus I removed it. We need to use sources with a reputation of accuracy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate? I don't understand your reasoning... Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a source has no impact in the academic world, why should Wikipedia grant it weight in articles? That would be WP:UNDUE surely. Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does it not have impact in the academic world? I'm still not quite understanding the reasoning for not including it.. Prcc27 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know what an Impact factor is? Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know what it was. So thanks for linking to that article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source

This is a primary source [3]. We need to use high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you would consider high quality secondary sources, but the study appears here: http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/108/7/266 with an impact factor of 2.118, and is discussed here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150109093725.htm and here https://www.rsm.ac.uk/about-us/media-information/2015-media-releases/ritual-circumcision-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-in-young-boys.aspx as well as other places. Seems pretty legit to me. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn, yet another primary source from anti-circumcision warrior Morten Frisch. To understand what primary sources are see WP:MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS for background. Alexbrn (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision as "elective"

Circumcision is called an "elective" procedure, but if "elective" means that the individual on whom the procedure is being performed has given his or her consent, that cannot be the case with circumcision of infants. A newborn child cannot give his consent. The "consent" is given by the parents (or one parent) in the child's place. Therefore I feel that the term "elective" should be removed, or at least that the fact be noted in the article that many men feel that circumcision is mutilation and that they have suffered an irreparable loss without their consent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary Source" section

I'm shocked by your use of the term "Yawn". If this person was an opponent of excision of small girls, would you show the same apparent contempt for his point of view? I think not. Lestrad (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&oldid=693825621"