Talk:Circumcision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Circumcision 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
Date Process Result
February 3, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
February 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Page name

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.


Toolbox

It isn't all Mutilation?[edit]

Why is Female Circumcision called Female genital Mutilation on Wikipedia and yet Male Circumcision is not? By Definition Both Female and Male Circumcision are Mutilation. Either Both are called Genital Mutilation or both are called Circumcision. Wasabi,the,one (Talk Contribs) 21:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Also, the public awareness of female genital cutting was in part due to the Beijing Declaration and the efforts of the UN and WHO to stop the practice as a formed of gender-based violence. But you might want to try asking on a WP:REFDESK if you want more info on that. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Wasabi,the,one, you might want to check the archives at Talk:Female genital mutilation and the logs there citing the move discussions for that article, since this has been discussed a number of times. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's non-therapeutic, yes. The differentiation is due to bias. Duckartes (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You have to understand that foreskins are big business and there are powerful entrenched interests in the medical community who derrive a great deal of profit from MGM. So there is a deliberate attempt to paint it as a "medical treatment", since forsekins are such a big mostly-unregulated and hidden profit source for the medical establishment.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The misleading conclusion in the citation isn't supported by the data[edit]

This article cites

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/

If you read the actual data it finds Odds ratios of 1.13 for Premature ejaculation, 1.33 for Intervaginal ejacultaory latencency time, 1.12 for orgasm fiddiculties, so all of these sexual disfunctions are statistically associated with circumcision. This is the data from which this conclusion is drawn: "In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men." (?!?!) This is highly misleading to the reader.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We reflect reliable sources. We don't base content on the inexpert review of Wikipedia editors. If you want to take issue with a reliable source you need to contact the publisher. Alexbrn (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
what classifies this source as "reliable"? they have no data to support the conclusion offered.TheCircumcisionExpert (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
See WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Third paragraph states "Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants." Seems like an opinion/judgement call with partisan bias and cited sources don't support such a pseudo-definitive conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.17.35 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Danish Medical Association[edit]

Major doctors association comes out against forced circumcision of boys regarding medical ethics. Should we include something about this? [1] Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you proposing adding? The ref says "Danish Medical Association stopped short of calling for a legal ban, saying it would be difficult to predict the consequences."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Antijewish/Anti-Muslim Stances in German Article on Circumcision[edit]

In this Article circumcision is said to have emerged from a Kybele ritual castration, based on a theory of some turkish Urologist but without other sources. Protesting against this leads to a discussion with someone (TrueBlue) speaking of "genitale Schnippeleien" common between castration and circumcision, which I see as POV - to express it an a very mild way. (Probably this will be understood without knowing the German language. Schnippeln means cutting but in a sarcastic seemingly-funny context.) Attempts to remove this in my opinion wild theory (something a bit similar is part of english article too, but its expressed in a less provocative manner, rather neutral) result in savinbg the article from editing bei IPs for 6 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.179.233 (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is the English article - if your comment is about the German article, shouldn't it be on the German wiki? sheridan (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)