Talk:Circumcision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
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

ISRN Urology[edit]

This journal Van Howe, Robert S. (22 January 2013). "Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis". ISRN Urology. 2013: 42. doi:10.1155/2013/109846. Retrieved 24 July 2018.

Has no impact factor per http://www.chercheur.tn/urologie/. Thus do not think it is appropriate for use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The journal is dead and was only in print for a few years. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there precedent for, or a relevant rule regarding, the disallowing of meta-analyses on the specific basis of the publishing journal having ceased operations or not existing long enough? KhazWolf (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yup. We do not use journals that do not have a history of reputable publishing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Nope, you did not point to WP, you just asserted your subjective interpretation of reputability under the banner "we". Chercheur.tn is not the authoritative source of Impact, nor is Impact scoring a consolidated Wikipedia policy under MEDRS. Here is a good read on the subject. Just the usual cherry-picking I have observed for at least 7 years by the two crusaders gaming this article. I really hope Doc James and Jytog will grow a conscience, disclose their WP:MEDCOI and stop suppressing legitimate non-primary sources that clearly pass WP:MEDRS. Unfortunately is more likely they will rush to archive the talk page, as usual so as to bury the conversation itself thus and yet again suppressing speech. MRhizza (talk)
I agree, using Impact scoring is not policy here on wikipedia. Mazudarzu (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Is circumcision mutilation?[edit]

why is male circumcision not called male genital mutilation?

i found this video of eric clopper at harvard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE7akHWHm8w --84.147.34.75 (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


Because according to political correctness, males can never be victims, and the usage of 'mutilation' in this connection insinuates victimization. Which they of course also are, victims, that is, as any male infant who has anything cut of from him without his concent for either religious or other ideological beliefs (Including "medical" beliefs" is per definition also a victim. Okama-San (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm read the archives here. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Before you facepalm anyone link to the discussion. If Wikipedia is going to advocate mutilation as you claim it does at least direct people to it Cls14 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm Facepalm or even bother to read the top of this page, which directs you to the FAQ. Alexbrn (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

American Circumcision Documentary[edit]

Any chance of adding an "In popular culture" section or similar, perhaps under "Society and culture", to mention the recent film American Circumcision? I would think an entire award-winning feature-length documentary exclusively on circumcision with a 9.1 on imdb should merit some mention?

If one wanted to flesh out the section a bit there's also Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision (2007). Not sure it's had as much impact on audiences but it's there. KhazWolf (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Misleading result related to HIV[edit]

The study cited stating that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV had trials limited to Sub-Saharan men. This does not mean that the same observations are applicable to men around the world.

Secondly, the trials did show a correlation between circumcision and HIV risk. However, it doesn't explain why this is true. I mean, correlation is not same as causation.

It was an RCT so not correlation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Just FYI, "Compelling evidence suggests that trials stopped early for benefit systematically overestimate treatment effects, sometimes by a large amount". The three major circumcision-for-HIV-prevention RCTs that are constantly cited for their "60% reduced risk" finding were all aborted early. Between this and other confounding factors such as the recovery period following surgery in the test group, it's safe to say that the finding in those RCTs was extremely likely to be correllation and not causation.
I'm too busy defending other edits right now to support this with WP:MEDRS sources, but just on the off chance you weren't already aware.KhazWolf (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: I was just told in another thread a source from 1999 is "hopelessly out-of-date". The african RCTs on HIV prevention from circumcision seem to have started in 2006. That gives us 6-7 more years before they too become "hopelessly out-of-date". Clock is ticking. I'm setting a reminder in my calendar for 2025 to come back here and remove every reference to them from the article.KhazWolf (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
We have this Cochrane review from 2009.[1] as well as more recent reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference[edit]

This ref Cold, C.J. (1999). "The prepuce". British Journal of Urology. 83 (S1): 34. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x. Retrieved 26 July 2018.

Is from 1999 and from a journal that is not pubmed indexed. As such I do not believe it is a sufficient source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The British Journal of Urology, aka. BJU International, was established in 1929 and was given an impact factor of 4.387 in 2015, ranking it 10th of 77 journals in the category. This very same journal is already cited in the article multiple times. (citations 13, 23 and 77). Citation 23 is also from 1999.
Please cite me a part of wikipedia regulation that requires a medical source to be pubmed indexed. If there is no such requirement, I submit that there is absolutely no remaining reason to contest the use of "The Prepuce" from BJU 1999.KhazWolf (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you also intend to remove the existing 3 citations, 13 - Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HIV Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis, 23 - Religious circumcision: a Jewish view, and 76 - The psychological impact of circumcision, or just refuse to allow new content. BJUI is already an accepted source for this article, and either all existing content from that source must be removed as insufficient, or additional content from that source must be allowed. As it has been accepted into the article for three citations already, and has a high impact factor for its category, the latter seems much more reasonable.ReyosB (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that BJUI has the highest impact factor given by http://www.chercheur.tn/urologie/ which you yourself Doc James cite in another point in this talk page as an authority on impact factor. If it doesn't meet source criteria, nothing does. ReyosB (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with their points Doc James, what KhazWolf and ReyosB are saying sounds reasonable to me. Mazudarzu (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
This article was pubmed indexed.[2]
As was this one.[3]
As was this one.[4]
The last two I agree could use updating.
Wonder why this article does not show up?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Your guess is as good as mine, but a lack of indexing on its own is not a reason to disqualify a source from a reputable well-established high-impact journal. I believe the others contributing to this thread here also show a consensus so far, the final criteria you asked me to obtain.
How much more is it going to take to get the wiki page updated with this most basic of information about circumcision? What would you like me to demonstrate next?KhazWolf (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The 1999 source is advocacy-ridden and hopelessly out-of-date, so there is a WP:REDFLAG. Even if it was better, copy-and-pasting chunks of it into Wikipedia is a big no no. I have added something on scarring from an up-to-date, solid NHS source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for the copy-paste, I was unaware it was not permitted. I will be more careful next time.
The 1999 source may be almost 20 years old but it's not "advocacy-ridden", it's a factual discussion of the functions of the prepuce, information that needs to be taken into account in any cost-benefit analysis of circumcision. I'd appreciate if you could take a moment and point to specific quotes in the text you feel are "advocacy" and not science.KhazWolf (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
In any event we're not going to be using out-of-date sources in a area where there are many recent/quality sources per WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
NHS source is decent and from 2016. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)