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 [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1|Peer review]] Reviewed
February 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Men's Issues (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Medicine / Translation (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Body Modification (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of body modification on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
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

No organization recommends for non-theraputic circumcision?[edit]

I have again reverted back to my edit. Please do not revert a third time before explaining here specifically why you feel that my edit "misrepresented" the views of the WHO and the AAP. No organization recommends for non-theraputic circumcision? I have again revised this statement to say, "No organization recommends for universal circumcision." The wording of the former statement seemed to imply that in the case of a newborn who had no particular disease requiring circumcision, no major medical organization would recommend circumcision.

The former statement was weighted too heavily against circumcision, and accordingly misrepresented the AAP's statement that, "The health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for those parents who choose it." The former statement also misrepresented the WHO statement that, "Promoting male circumcision in the general population... (would result in) limited public health benefit." The two statements from two of the pro-circumcision "major medical groups" here indicates that both of these groups would recommend for circumcision for healthy newborn males, at least assuming the parents wanted it. Therefore, the word universal works better here than the word non-therapeutic. The new phrase, "No organization recommends for universal circumcision," is more accurate and more easily understood by non-medical folks. Please do not revert this again. Scott P. (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

i am not sure you are familiar with recommendations by major medical/scientific bodies. for example here is how AAP talks about vaccines, which they unambiguously recommend: "The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend children be vaccinated against measles at age 1, and again at 4-6 years of age before entering kindergarten. More than 90 percent of U.S. children meet this recommendation, according to the CDC." (from here) and "Why are vaccines important? Immunizations protect children. Vaccine-preventable diseases can have dangerous consequences, including seizures, brain damage, blindness and even death....Are vaccines safe? Yes. Today’s vaccines are safer than any in history.....Can I delay or skip vaccines? It is not a good idea to skip or delay vaccines, as this will leave your child vulnerable to diseases for a longer time...." (from here)
Nothing there says it is elective, or "but it is OK if you choose not to". It is unambiguous recommendation. But look at the AAP's policy statement: "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it." It saying "yes it is better, but you choose". and their press release when they put out the updated policy, is even more watered down: "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs." You seem to be interpreting the AAP's statement on circumcision as something like that the statement on vaccines it's not. They are not some strong "pro-circumcision" camp. they are absolutely pro-vaccine. can you not see the difference? Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading exactly what the AAP has written, which is a statement that advocates for a net medical "benefit" for circumcision, and therefore recommends that in cases where the parents want it, even for a normal and healthy infant, they are recommending for circumcision. This seems to be pretty plain English to me. To say that they advocate "against" circumcision in otherwise healthy infants, which is what the previous statement implies, seems to me to be a misrepresentation of their views. Why not simply state that they do not recommend for "universal" circumcision, which seems to me to more accurately represent their views? English is English, and it seems to me to be a "no-brainer". Doctors do have a reputation for speaking in "med-speak" from time to time, however, I think I am accurately understanding the AAP's publicly stated policy here, don't you. If not, please explain to me, does not the "med-speak" term: "non-therapeutic" which you are using here imply "normal and healthy infant"? If so, then the AAP does recommend for circumcision in normal and healthy infants in the case where the parents want it. Also, why use confusing "med-speak" when Wikipedia is supposed to be for lay people, not other doctors? The term universal is not "med-speak", the term "non-therapeutic" seems to me to be a confusing med-speak term. Why confuse when you can clarify? Scott P. (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
you keep projecting this black and white story that it is something like the "vaccine wars". it is nothing like that with medical authorities' views on circumcision. the thing you are skipping over is "when parents want it". in other words, no big loss if they don't do it. (" the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.") on vaccines the AAP does not leave it open - they say "do it" (the benefits dramatically outweigh the risks) and they make very clear the harm of not doing it. can you not see that difference? Jytdog (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
and yes - the AAP mildly recommends circumcision for healthy newborns as an option for parents - a "good to have" not a "need to have". yes they do. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So then, please let the last edit stand, because the previous wording did imply that nobody ever recommends for circumcision of healthy newborns, and the AAP does recommend for that, under that circumstance. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

There are three separate and distinct things here:

  1. The AAP's position - The AAP is unequivocal that they do not recommend the procedure for all newborns. The AAP's Policy Statement says they found that "the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it" but falls short of recommending it for all newborns. The AAP's Press Release states clearly "the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision." The AAP's patient page here says "existing scientific evidence is not sufficient to recommend routine circumcision. Therefore, because the procedure is not essential to a child's current well-being, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents." Therefore edits that attempt to make the article imply they do recommend it for all newborns misrepresent the AAP's position.
  2. The WHO's position - Their Policy document here recommends considering making the procedure routine only in certain conditions, not everywhere. Their statement here says that their "recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence." -- This is a highly qualified position. Edits that quoted "limited public health benefit" were taken out of context of the WHO's document, which qualfies that statement to "In settings with lower HIV prevalence in the general population, including where HIV infection is concentrated in specific populations at higher risk of HIV exposure, such as sex workers, injecting drug users or men who have sex with men". So edits that attempt to make the article imply they do recommend it for all newborns, regardless of setting, misrepresent the WHO's position.
  3. The actual edit, diff here, is a minor wording change from "non-therapeutic" to "for universal". This doesn't actually change the meaning and isn't really even relevant to this discussion.

Zad68 13:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Then if you find no problem with the wording, please leave it as it is. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As the current edit doesn't misrepresent the sourcing, it's fine. Zad68 14:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks kindly Zad, that was all I was asking for. Scott P. (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015[edit]

This is a formal request that the title of 'Male Circumcision' or 'Circumcision' as it is, be changed to bring it in line with its female counterpart, 'Female Genital Mutilation'.

It is gendered that just because male circumcision is more common than female circumcision, one should be called mutilation and the other circumcision. They are both mutilation, why are they not both written as such? Blerg111 (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per WP:COMMONNAME. This would need a request page move anyway, but it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

General sanitation

There should be some comment in this article about doing regular sanitation of the area reducing disease and other skin conditions. It is no different than washing your hands reduces the spread of germs, brushing your teeth reduces gum disease and tooth decay, and washing your hair keeps it clean. Some areas of the world this cleanliness is not practiced, or possible due to the lack of water or sanitation facilities, and anything that is not regularly cleaned will eventually get issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightvisions (talkcontribs) 16:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Conflict Between Articles, and Missing Content[edit]

I have noticed a complete conflict between this article and the Foreskin article. For example, the Foreskin article indicates that it "is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue," and "the foreskin is [a] speciali[z]ed tissue that is packed with nerves and contains stretch receptors" and "the areas of the penis most sensitive to fine touch are on the foreskin" removal of which would invariably reduce pleasure, which this article says there is no loss. This article also bears no mention of the loss of the "Gliding Action", the "Ridged Band", the normally lost "Frenulum", "Glans Keratinization", among other things. As well as complications caused by circumcision like the significantly increased risk of Urethral Stricture.

This article states that there are a host of complications from not being circumcised while the other article states that they "are easily treated" and implies that circumcision is unjustifiably invasive. Astronut25 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add to my previous comment. From the Erogenous zone page:

Sorrels et al. (2007) carried out their work in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. They studied 163 male subjects, which included both circumcised and men with intact foreskins. Nineteen locations on the penis were tested with the Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test. The glans of the uncircumcised males was found to have greater sensation than the glans of the circumcised males. The area of greatest sensation on the circumcised males was the circumcision scar. Uncircumcised males had five areas located on the foreskin of significantly greater sensation than the circumcision scar on the foreskin. The preputial mucosa, the mucocutaneous boundary and the ridged band were found to be areas of great sensation on the uncircumcised penis.[14] Taylor has postulated that the ridged band is sensitive to movement.[15]Astronut25 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS regarding what sort of sources are needed for medical claims. I have fixed the concern you raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)