| Revision as of 00:23, 23 February 2015 editDoc James (talk | contribs)Administrators312,255 edits →When secondary sources have unfounded claims.← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:16, 23 February 2015 edit undoTumadoireacht (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,474 edits →When secondary sources have unfounded claims.Next edit → | ||
| Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
| #Peer reviewed | #Peer reviewed | ||
| ] (] · ] · ]) 00:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | ] (] · ] · ]) 00:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| And another five sources (that are sorely lacking from the article) are | |||
| 1/National Newspapers- see debate about disease and death from Circumcision in Africa covered by the Guardian newspaper above) | |||
| 2/Primary Sources not yet collated in Secondary ones- some useful ones on the proof of loss of fine touch receptors caused by the cutting off of the foreskin and the resultant scarring are mentioned in recent debates. | |||
| 3/Anti-Circumcision groups ( see ] as referenced above by EvergreenFir - most interesting) | |||
| 4/ Non medical sources examining human rights abuses within the Circumcision culture. | |||
| 5/ Non medical sources studying the psychological motivation of those who continue to cut male genitals. | |||
| The chief factor in the unbalanced current state of the article is the practice of deletion of non medical journal sourced material. | |||
| What is particularly pernicious is where an editor, unhappy with the summary or conclusions of a study, combs through the text of an article combing out quotes to support their position on the subject.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:16, 23 February 2015
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
 | Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.
|
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, 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, Misplaced Pages does the same. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 |
|
Sample PubMed |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Adverse effects
The article makes the bold claim "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction". But we have newer research that show adverse effects.
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liftarn (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:MEDRS. We use secondary not primary sources. This 2011 primary source does not refute the newer secondary sources we are using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. And it also the first study on the effect on the partners so the 2011 study don't even address that aspect. // Liftarn (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is a 2011 primary source. The sources we are currently using are newer than this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agree: primary source, not usable (This Frisch guy seems to specialize in "bad news for circumcision" type articles - yet another reason why we need secondary sources to validate research). Alexbrn 08:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Liftarn please make yourself familiar with WP:MEDRS and in particular WP:MEDREV before continuing. Thanks...
Zad6815:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- It is a 2011 primary source. The sources we are currently using are newer than this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. And it also the first study on the effect on the partners so the 2011 study don't even address that aspect. // Liftarn (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:MEDRS. We use secondary not primary sources. This 2011 primary source does not refute the newer secondary sources we are using. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"This Frisch Guy" as this "Alexbrn guy"so objectively and respectfully describes him is an MD Phd DSc Professor of Epidemiology who publishes on a wide variety of subjects related to his field. The characterization of his work as "specializing in "bad news for circumcision" type articles" is inaccurate, contrary to WP policy on writing about living persons, and reveals more about the describer than the Professor. Also, yet again the trio of Zad=DocJames=Alexbrn repeat tendentiously their opinion that Primary Sources cannot be used in WP. They can. Here is the policy section that says so.
For Misplaced Pages's policy on the use of primary sources, see WP:PSTS.Here are three quotations from that policy ( but read the whole thing yourself !)
'Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Misplaced Pages; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.''''
Some such as the above trio of editors express the opinion that the deleterious effects of genital cutting such as circumcision can only be considered from a medical perspective and so they prevent any mention of any of the many surveys and studies which have concluded that cutting a lot of skin off the end of the penis keratinizes (scars) and desensitizes the penis. Others of us disagree strongly with this opinion. We maintain that circumcision, like all forms of genital cutting, is primarily a cultural practice. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It is illuminating Seppi that you chose to let your own admitted personal opinion forum rant below stand as the last word here while hiding criticism of it below- Hmmmmm--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- My colorful statement below, in a nutshell, says that some people (e.g., you) have a bias and WP:MEDRS prevents them from contaminating articles with it; that's not an opinion, that's a fact (that's technically true for WP:NPOV too, but I didn't mention it). Even so, if an uninvolved editor wants to move the tab up, I wouldn't oppose it if they did. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It's laughable that an article about the removal of a useless flap of dick skin raises so much controversy (compare the sum total archive size of this talk page to any other controversial topic's talk page archive, I dare you); I suppose there's always a group of individuals who drink the anti-science koolaid though, like anti-vaccers, intelligent design proponents, and, well, people who think a useless flap of dick skin is more than a useless flap of dick skin when medical reviews indicate that it's essentially a useless flap of dick skin. Thankfully, we use WP:MEDRS on Misplaced Pages to prevent the koolaid from spilling into our articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
| WP:NOTAFORUM | ||
|---|---|---|
|
You should attempt to understand it--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Whining about how the medical evidence on circumcision is faulty is no different than an anti-vaccer whining about how the medical evidence on vaccines is faulty. How's that kool-aid taste? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition."
Also, since this thread is now blatantly off-topic, I think it's time to collapse all this nonsense to keep this page & its archives less bloated. WP talk pages aren't forums after all; they're only for discussions directly relevant to improving/copyediting articles, something which this tangent is not. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC) |
Arguments can be good for wikipedia and we shouldn't censor them. Remember to assume good faith and DBAD. Try not to get emotional whether you're pro or con circumcision. Popish Plot (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Seppi --Medical Science is one perspective on examining the loss of sensation caused by cutting off up to 15 square inches of skin from the tip of the genitals. It is interesting that Seppi chose to utterly ignore the arguments and the primary source policy question, and the point about the mainly cultural nature of male or female circumcision, and was instead at such pains to compare questioning the centrality and exclusivity of "Medical Science only folks" to not one but to three groups of obviously deluded folk. Overkill misdirect dude. This is the same tradition within medical science that gave us with similar certitude and arrogance Circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation not so long ago - though at least at that time Medical Science accepted that lopping off loads of skin off the male genitals causes as much loss of sensation as doing the same to a female, Lobotomy as a cure for mental illness and SSRIs currently for Personality Disorders ( see Dr. Marcia Angell for more on latter) Who then is drinking the Koolaid - surely the hysterics with the unquestioned beliefs.......- --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
HIV spread caused by Circumcision
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv
When will the gatekeepers of this WP article see fit to permit mention here of these and other deleterious results of the practice of Circumcision ? Maybe a little irony in 80 deaths from 50,000 circumcisions in that part of the world where Circumcision is being sold most heavily for health. This other article even details rewards offered for those turning in those unwilling to be cut.
--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- That says the HIV is spread because in South Africa they are doing this in rituals with dirty knives, not in hospitals with trained staff. That seems common sense and this article does mention the studies recommend doing the circumcision with trained medical professionals, in terms of doing it for alleged medical benefits. This could be a good source for the article in terms of another source saying if circumcisions are to be done they should be done clean and safely. Popish Plot (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think the consequence of the over-emphasis on medical circumcisions and the scant mention of tribal, forced and non medical circumcisions has the effect of presenting an article here that paints an unbalanced picture of the wide variety of ways people engage in this branch of genital cutting all over the world and its varied consequences. If it is causing the spread of HIV in South Africa( and in many other places) then this fact is notable beyond being a mere confirmation that it is a good idea to use a sterilized knife. But thank you for replying.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- the article doesn't say that tho. It says it carries HIV risks because they do the circumcision ritual on boys at 18 years of age when they have already been having sex, and should do it on babies instead. You said it was causing HIV. Popish Plot (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think the consequence of the over-emphasis on medical circumcisions and the scant mention of tribal, forced and non medical circumcisions has the effect of presenting an article here that paints an unbalanced picture of the wide variety of ways people engage in this branch of genital cutting all over the world and its varied consequences. If it is causing the spread of HIV in South Africa( and in many other places) then this fact is notable beyond being a mere confirmation that it is a good idea to use a sterilized knife. But thank you for replying.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This page needs a total overhaul
Not only is there not good info here but much of the claims are totally false. For starters Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . Obviously the page is locked and there are clear biased interests at work here so I'm not going to bother to research and debunk all the other nonsense here. I recommend deletion and starting from scratch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea, let's work with a paper that fails WP:MEDRS. Think Misplaced Pages write something based upon this too? http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract
- While we're busy revising this article with consecutive null edits to address your concerns, you should start a userspace draft on that paper. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- And while you think circumcision should follow WP:MEDRS, more rational people understand that circumcision is much more related to cultural fashion, religion and tradition. But of course you are in denial. You can't accept that you were circumcised for religious reasons, so you need to make up some medical nonsense to justify it for yourself.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I still have my useless flap of dick skin; I enjoy trolling people who drink too much koolaid - that would be you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why don't you try to chop it off, if you believe so much in religious traditions?84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- You can't circumvent MEDRS when you're making a medical claim by arguing about what the page topic is or isn't. The fact is, saying "Male circumcision reduces sexual pleasure" is a medical claim that must be backed up by MEDRS compliant sources. The primary study you cited above is not such a source. By contrast we have MEDRS-compliant sources that say that "The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction." Everymorning talk 22:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Why don't you try to chop it off, if you believe so much in religious traditions?84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I still have my useless flap of dick skin; I enjoy trolling people who drink too much koolaid - that would be you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- And while you think circumcision should follow WP:MEDRS, more rational people understand that circumcision is much more related to cultural fashion, religion and tradition. But of course you are in denial. You can't accept that you were circumcised for religious reasons, so you need to make up some medical nonsense to justify it for yourself.84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Everymorning I am a bit confused. Why is this source good, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309 , but this one isn't: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . . . they are both from ncbi. Popish Plot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't the one who made the claim. I think it would be almost impossible to prove anything about how circumcision affects sexuality, because I don't believe in self-reporting. Maybe if you scanned the brains of people in an MRI instrument while they were having sex, you could compare the brains of people with and without foreskin. Maybe if you knew exactly which parts of the brains are more active in sexuality, you could compare the MRI results. I doubt there are any such studies, but if there are I might consider them to be valid proof.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Everymorning I am a bit confused. Why is this source good, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309 , but this one isn't: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 . . . they are both from ncbi. Popish Plot (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean like these? - apparently no one has noticed yet, or they just don't care. You pick. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- They're reviews - ones you didn't bother to read. It's probably not possible to generate non-spurious results when comparing across participants as proposed (as opposed to "within" participants, as in the reviewed studies) for rather technical reasons that I don't feel like explaining. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 10:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Circus ?-Irrelevant histrionics are plain tedious.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 11:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis" - amazing ! - with 90% of penis owning authors in WP:EN I would have thought that fell under 'common sense' - here a few selected sources that does describe why and how penile sensitivity is reduced due to circumcision :
- R. Crooks, K. Baur: Our Sexuality. 5. Edition. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, Redwood City 1993, p. 129.
- J. R. Taylor, A. Lockwood, A. Taylor: The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. In: British journal of urology. Februar 1996, p. 77(2), p. 291–295
- M. L. Sorrells, J. L. Snyder, M. D. Reiss, C. Eden, M. F. Milos, N. Wilcox, Van Howe RS: Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. In: BJU Int. Vol. 99 Issue 4, April 2007, PMID 17378847, p. 864–869
- Why Masters & Johnson’s 1966 Circumcision Study is Flawed (1998)
- DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang: The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. In: BJU international. Volume 99, Issue 3, March 2007, S. 619–622. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x, PMID 17155977
- E. O. Laumann, C. M. Masi, E. W. Zuckerman: Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. In: JAMA. 277(13), (1997)
- K. S. Fink, C. C. Carson, R. F. DeVellis: Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and Satisfaction.
ChristopheT (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Best not to "select" sources, but just to reflect the highest-quality ones (as this article does). Alexbrn 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- What makes Crooks & Baur less reliable than let's say Sadeghi-Nejad ? ChristopheT (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's 22 years old for a start. Alexbrn 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- What makes Crooks & Baur less reliable than let's say Sadeghi-Nejad ? ChristopheT (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- And circumcised penises have become more sensitive in the last twenty two years too. For a finish. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I see too old fair enough - what about the British Journal of Urology study from 2013 "Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort"? ChristopheT (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- now skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold test like this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 - I don't see any skin threshold test that contradicts those findings. So if we set aside the sexual pleasure thing for now (which is indeed much harder to quantify) can we move on the sensitivity part? ChristopheT (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course this loss of sensitivity of cut penises missing their penis tips should be mentioned per the WP policy on primary sources as outlined above, and in the way that any other similar WP article, such as the one on Female Circumcision is permitted to do. But for some odd reason -not here ! not now ! don't ask don't tell --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@ChristophThomas: PMID 17378847 is eight-year-old primary research. Why on earth would we use that when there are recent secondary sources? Plese see WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: do you find a more recent penile skin threshold tests? ChristopheT (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: is it really so hard to move the talk about one very specific question to the specific section below ?ChristopheT (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- The study in question has been considered (with others) in secondary sources, e.g. PMID 23749001 which states: "the majority of studies, including high-quality ones ... and ones with data arising from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ... show no difference or improvement in sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction after circumcision." We use secondary sources here to reflect accepted knowledge. Alexbrn 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- is that really accepted knowledge then, if the source says "the majority of studies say . . . " imoplying not all. And right now the article says "it appears that circumcision doesn't effect satisfaction". That language seems a bit odd to me. It appears? Just not sure what that means. Popish Plot (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand what Alexbrn means. He says the prior study has been included in the conclusion of the secondary source, but does a loss of sensitivity in the penis necessarily mean less sexual satisfaction? That is not necessarily clear. People might get orgasms in dreams without any penile stimulation at all, so it might be that people can experience equally high orgasm satisfaction with less penile sensitivity. Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction are two quite different things, although they might be related to each other. And if the secondary source claims there is no difference in penile sensitivity, then it must be referencing to some primary source with an opposite conclusion. If there are no primary sources claiming that penile sensitivity is equal for people with foreskin and circumcised men, then the conclusion about no loss of penile sensitivity in the secondary source is a big fat lie. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- The study in question has been considered (with others) in secondary sources, e.g. PMID 23749001 which states: "the majority of studies, including high-quality ones ... and ones with data arising from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ... show no difference or improvement in sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction after circumcision." We use secondary sources here to reflect accepted knowledge. Alexbrn 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
penile skin sensitivity & circumcision
moving the skin sensitivity part here to separate it from the sexual pleasure part --ChristopheT (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
now skin sensitivity is fairly easy to assess in threshold test like this one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847 - I don't see any skin threshold test that contradicts those findings. So if we set aside the sexual pleasure thing for now (which is indeed much harder to quantify) can we move on the sensitivity part? ChristopheT (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Of course this loss of sensitivity of cut penises missing their penis tips should be mentioned per the WP policy on primary sources as outlined above, and in the way that any other similar WP article, such as the one on Female Circumcision is permitted to do. But for some odd reason -not here ! not now ! don't ask don't tell --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Tumadoireacht ever POV-pushing against the knowledge found in good sources. Time to get this this disruptive WP:ADVOCACY dealt with. Alexbrn 07:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Try to address the cogent point raised by Christoph please Alex, and desist from personal attacks and from ascribing bad faith. Your doing so is not in accord with the purpose of this page and is disruptive of its purpose which is improving the article. The primary study cited by Christoph clearly concludes
The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis.
and
The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
and
Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
( "ablates" means that circumcision " removes or destroys the function of (a body organ or tissue) --per dictionary.
The secondary study which you then cite Alex makes no mention of the sensitivity question -its conclusions are concerned solely with sexual functions. Is it possible that you failed to notice this this ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 09:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- So blinded by bias, incapable of reading or comprehending the very text I quoted. Or just trolling. Alexbrn 10:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Once again Alex I must politely ask you to try harder to stick to content and its consideration, and to refrain from attack and aspersions. If you choose to continue with such you will be in contravention of WP policy and subject to consideration for restricted editing, or an outright ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Once again, from PMID 23749001 — what part of "show no difference or improvement in sexual function, sensitivity and satisfaction after circumcision" (my bold) don't you understand? Your assertion that this source "makes no mention of the sensitivity question" is flat out false. Alexbrn 12:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Once again Alex I must politely ask you to try harder to stick to content and its consideration, and to refrain from attack and aspersions. If you choose to continue with such you will be in contravention of WP policy and subject to consideration for restricted editing, or an outright ban.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- No - your quotation is not in the abstract reference which you are providing - which lists 7 male sexual functions pre and post the cutting off of the foreskin with the following caution "
"these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies. Well-designed and prospective studies are required for a further understanding of this topic."
The line you reference above is not there. Nor is there any other mention of the sensitivity question at all at all. Perhaps you are confusing it with a different study altogether Alex. Dunning–Kruger ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 13:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you're either incompetent or trolling, either way, time to WP:SHUN. Alexbrn 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Alexbrn did you post the wrong link by mistake? It's true that your quote is not there. Popish Plot (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please, please -enough with the compliments. As I said already the abstract which you yourself referenced makes no mention of penile sensitivity. The full article ( available here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881635/ ) does mention sexual function, sensitivity, and satisfaction but makes no mention of fine touch sensitivities of the cut and the non-cut penis as so clearly studied with such clear vivid results that it produced the three conclusion which I bolded above.
In its main text body the article which you cited speculates the following with no reference sources
"Theoretically, partial or total surgical removal of the prepuce leaves the somatic penis sensory fibres exposed to direct stimulation and in theory could benefit sexual function."
It is such an odd aside in the middle of a supposed objective systematic meta-analysis high quality secondary source.
On the shunning front- if you wish me or others to ignore your comments then please simply just say so --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't understand this form of science. If you just managed to get a secondary source published in a well respected scientific journal, and your secondary source happens to be the latest one published in a well respected scientific journal, then the conclusions in this secondary source is regarded as scientific fact on wikipedia? I see much more room for subjectivity in secondary sources than in primary sources, as it might be somewhat unclear if they have put equal weight on all their primary sources. A biased scientist might be paying much more attention to primary sources supporting his/her own views, just like with documentaries where often all opposing views are completely ignored. Ideally, wikipedia should be much more like a secondary source itself, where all primary sources are taken into consideration. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Not improvements
The edits by User:Cirflow do not appear to be improvements. This one adds "with the majority endorsing the former" which is not supported by a high quality ref.
This was to the point "Evidence supports that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa". This is not an improvement "Studies done in Africa have shown that there is evidence male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps we need to qualify that to
"medical male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa." As referenced above the evidence points to another form of circumcision greatly increasing HIV in the same area.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not convinced that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me attempt to convince you and others DocJames.
I notice that your rejection of the idea took less than five minutes. Did this give you sufficient time to find and read the two Guardian newspaper articles including the findings of the South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities ?
I offer the references here again just in case in those few minutes you had not time to form an informed opinion
http://www.health-e.org.za/2014/06/25/half-million-initiates-maimed-knife/
The South African Human Rights Commission here calls it "endemic carnage"
http://www.sahrc.org.za/home/index.php?ipkArticleID=282
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/17/circumcision-zulu-south-africa-hiv
The 456,000 boys hospitalized from circumcision complications and the 419 deaths at circumcision are particularly noteworthy as is the 110 pound sterling reward per head( no pun intended) paid to those who turn in those who have escaped cutting so far.
It is difficult to see how we can devote such a large chunk of this article to possible positive effects of HIV in SS Africa and at the same time simply ignore the ongoing horror of the deaths, injuries and human rights violations by circumcision in the same territory.
The articles are long recent decent secondary sources with strong internal references which do not just discuss the damage by this type of circumcision but examine the merits and demerits of WHO and other medical circumcision promotion too. Perhaps there is there so much new pertinent information entirely missing from the WP article that it requires a big rejigging of the article and not the mere qualification adjective addition as I originally proposed. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- The difference is that if you were to write a review piece for the Guardian and source your bias, it would probably be published; if you did the same with a pubmed-indexed medical journal, the editors would probably laugh at you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- You are missing the point - this half million of death and injuries and HIV infections is part of the non-medical circumcision phenomenon . So by a brilliant process of deduction we really do not need to consider the sense of humour of pubmed-indexed medical journal editors in deciding how to include this important information.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your advocacy tuma, and I agree with you. This page does sound overly medical in nature, id say its 70% medical and 30% ethical,political,cultural etc, when its more the reverse. I understand there are other pages for those nonmedical areas in this overall topic, but I feel they are under reperesented on this page and considering that this is the main page for the overall topic of circumcision, that shows something is being omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 21:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC) And as for my adjustment of the first sentence in the paragraph on HIV, well I was being more specific, the "evidence" where studies done in Africa on sub Saharan Africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirflow (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- Evergreen Fir took it upon her/himself to delete the rest of your remarks Cirflow. And to label the removal with an opinion.I did not see any "perceived slights" I agree that this article is most peculiarly unbalanced and has been maintained in that unhealthy state for some time . How do you feel we can best address this problem so as to improve the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- When they do a circumcision, technically it's a surgical procedure. I do see in the articles third paragraph it talks about how it's very dangerous to do the procedure with unclean instruments, etc, and that is what is causing all of the problems in africa when tribal leaders order it. Popish Plot (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- WE had this conversation further up this page PopishPlot. You made the same reductionist dirty knife argument. But if Circumcision is CAUSING hiv and hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations as well as human rights violations when many young men are forcibly circumcised or sold out for for money to the circumcisers then do you not think it more than a question of "please use a clean knife when you go to cut a willie" and do you not think it odd that when we mention the studies that indicate that Circumcision may reduce HIV that we do not qualify this by saying it is medical circumcision alone that may do this but that in the same part of the world many CONTRACT hiv through Circumcision, just as jewish infants have contracted herpes through circumcision in Europe, USA and in Israel. Did you get to read the two Guardian newspaper articles on the subject I referenced above ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- it is an odd old tradition but "if" circumcision "causes" HIV, we'd need a source saying that. But the guardian source doesn't. It is causing infections due to dirty knives . . . this article does say that already.Popish Plot (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but since the economic situation in third world countries is unlikely to change anytime soon, we might expect them to continue to use dirty knives and perform circumcision in an unhealthy way. In an ideal world, where everybody were rich Jews, we might expect most people to be circumcised properly with clean knives. But this isn't the world we are living in, and WHO might not be taking this into consideration when they are advocating for more circumcision in third world countries.84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- it is an odd old tradition but "if" circumcision "causes" HIV, we'd need a source saying that. But the guardian source doesn't. It is causing infections due to dirty knives . . . this article does say that already.Popish Plot (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- sounds like crystal ballism. And mentioning term "rich jews" shows a certain POV which does us no good. Bottom line is what do the reliable sources say? Do you have more good sources we are missing? Popish Plot (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't it just as much crystal ballism to believe that routinal, proper, clean circumcision can be applied in third-world countries where most people don't have any access to basic health care facilities? And maybe we should try to establish a basic health-care infrastructure in third-world countries before we start advocating for circumcision? But then again, maybe many of the proposed health benefits of circumcision also can be achieved with better abdomen hygiene in third-world countries.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- @84.210 - yeah I agree with Popish on "POV which does us no good"
- Isn't it just as much crystal ballism to believe that routinal, proper, clean circumcision can be applied in third-world countries where most people don't have any access to basic health care facilities? And maybe we should try to establish a basic health-care infrastructure in third-world countries before we start advocating for circumcision? But then again, maybe many of the proposed health benefits of circumcision also can be achieved with better abdomen hygiene in third-world countries.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- WE had this conversation further up this page PopishPlot. You made the same reductionist dirty knife argument. But if Circumcision is CAUSING hiv and hundreds of deaths and thousands of hospitalizations as well as human rights violations when many young men are forcibly circumcised or sold out for for money to the circumcisers then do you not think it more than a question of "please use a clean knife when you go to cut a willie" and do you not think it odd that when we mention the studies that indicate that Circumcision may reduce HIV that we do not qualify this by saying it is medical circumcision alone that may do this but that in the same part of the world many CONTRACT hiv through Circumcision, just as jewish infants have contracted herpes through circumcision in Europe, USA and in Israel. Did you get to read the two Guardian newspaper articles on the subject I referenced above ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- @ Popish Plot--Perhaps i was unclear in saying "causing" thinking that you understood that to be shorthand for "causing the spread of" Now the headline of that article is
Thousands face agony or death after Zulu king's circumcision decree-
Health campaigners say the traditional manhood ritual, which carries HIV risks, should be replaced by operations in hospital and goes on to say
"We see horrific cases of rotting penises, septicaemia and inadvertent castrations," he said. "Others die from dehydration and hypothermia. HIV is spread because the same knife is used on large groups of boys.
We have had a disastrous year, with 80 deaths, including two suicides,
Certainly the risks of circumcision as practised by people such as the Xhosa are substantial and include the danger of developing septicaemia and other infections.
Do you feel Popish plot that these statistics and statements from health workers about the damage done by circumcision including but not limited to HIV has no business being mentioned in the circumcision article ?
The other article headline is
The death and deformity caused by male circumcision in Africa can’t be ignored
and at least 419 boys have died since 2008, and more than 456,000 initiates have been hospitalised with complications.
Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia. And there are estimated to be two total penile amputations for every death. Countless numbers of participants are left with permanent scarring or deformity.
. Urologists describe seeing patients whose penises have become so infected and gangrenous they literally drop off.
The WHO report mentioned
http://www.malecircumcision.org/programs/documents/TMC_final_web.pdf
says
male circumcision as a rite of passage into manhood has not been designed for the purpose of HIV prevention, and there are certain aspects of the practice that could undermine the potential benefits of male circumcision for HIV prevention, or even put people at increased risk of contracting HIV.
.......men are more likely to become infected if their circumcision wound is not fully healed.
and
Regarding the effectiveness of traditional circumcision for the prevention of HIV, the fact that it is performed after sexual debut in some tribes compromises the potential benefits.
To conclude : we may be misleading readers when we speak of the HIV preventative power of circumcision if we do not qualify this by saying that this research result applies only to medical circumcisions.
We also ought to mention the violence and deaths and coercion around these other forms of circumcision. Otherwise we should rename this article "Medical Circumcision"--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Since none of them are objecting, I think you should just go ahead and change it.84.210.54.80 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
When secondary sources have unfounded claims.
I am wondering if you are allowed to cite statements from secondary sources, even if the secondary sources don't provide any references for their statements. In particular, I wonder if you are allowed to use the statement about no loss of penile sensitivity from the secondary source, even if it appears like the secondary source you are referencing to doesn't have any reference for this statement itself. You are very strict with references here on wikipedia, so shouldn't you expect the same demand for references in secondary sources?84.210.54.80 (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- No. See WP:TRUTH. We report what reliable secondary sources say and give due weight to their contributions on the topic. We don't critique them. We don't create our own conclusions from them. We just report on them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, how do you determine if a secondary source is reliable? If secondary sources don't have references to primary sources for their statements, then of course they are not reliable. A reliable secondary source must have references to prove all its conclusions (just like you must have references here on wikipedia), otherwise the secondary source is just hogwash. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Please see WP:RS. It answers those questions and folks on WP:RSN would be willing to answer any other questions you might have. You might be also interested to read WP:BIASED. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- Well, how do you determine if a secondary source is reliable? If secondary sources don't have references to primary sources for their statements, then of course they are not reliable. A reliable secondary source must have references to prove all its conclusions (just like you must have references here on wikipedia), otherwise the secondary source is just hogwash. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Some include
- Recent
- Pubmed indexed
- Journal has a decent impact factor
- Reputation for reliability.
- Peer reviewed
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
And another five sources (that are sorely lacking from the article) are
1/National Newspapers- see debate about disease and death from Circumcision in Africa covered by the Guardian newspaper above)
2/Primary Sources not yet collated in Secondary ones- some useful ones on the proof of loss of fine touch receptors caused by the cutting off of the foreskin and the resultant scarring are mentioned in recent debates.
3/Anti-Circumcision groups ( see WP:BIASED as referenced above by EvergreenFir - most interesting)
4/ Non medical sources examining human rights abuses within the Circumcision culture.
5/ Non medical sources studying the psychological motivation of those who continue to cut male genitals.
The chief factor in the unbalanced current state of the article is the practice of deletion of non medical journal sourced material.
What is particularly pernicious is where an editor, unhappy with the summary or conclusions of a study, combs through the text of an article combing out quotes to support their position on the subject.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 01:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages objectionable content
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Men's Issues articles
- High-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- GA-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- GA-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press