Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 12 January 2014

	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

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. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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.

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. Men's Issues High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Body Modification (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

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.

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

Archive guide Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Why are article topics weighted according to the amount of publications?

I find this extremely wierd. One reason is that it can be much easier to publish about some things than other things, and then there will be more publications just because it is easier to publish about that. Another reason is that controversial topics tend to generate a lot of publications. If something is well accepted and not controversial there are often less publications about that, but just because something is controversial it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Considering circumcision I think it is pretty obvious that the medical aspect is very controversial, so of course a lot of the publications are about the medical aspect. There are also tons of opportunities to do medical research on circumcision, and medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects of circumcision. How are you supposed to do research upon the legal/moral aspect of circumcision anyhow? Probably there are much more medical publications than legal/moral publications simply because there are much more opportunities to do medical research and publish about it. I also don't necessarily think you can solve the moral/legal problem with circumcision by doing research. What kind of research can possibly prove that infant mutilation is immoral? What kind of research can prove that theft, murder and rape is immoral? Are there lots of publications about the morality of theft/murder/rape? I doubt it, because it is not very controversial wheter is is immoral or not, and because you can't do research to prove if a thing is immoral or not.84.210.15.173 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you do indeed recognize that the distribution of the weight in the sourcing regarding the topic of this article is heavily medical, and that Misplaced Pages's guidelines direct us to take that into account in organizing the article. A counter-argument to "medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects" is that medical research is a LOT more regulated and expensive to do than simply reading up on and then writing one's own philosophical reflections on a subject. Medical research is only ever an expense; comparatively, philosophical writings cost next to nothing, so you can argue that medical sourcing should be weighted more heavily because it's so much more resource-intensive to produce. But, this article's talk page is probably not the right place to pursue these sorts of general questions. Zad68 20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

How many philosphers are there compared to medical doctors these days? How many serious places can you publish your own philosopical ramblings, compared to places where you can publish medical research? How many of the places publishing philosophical ramblings are approved by wikipedia? It might indeed be more costly to do medical research, but it isn't necessarily more difficult. I think a better weight system would take other things into consideration. Such as in which context the word circumcision most often is used. The word "circumcision" is probably used much more in a religious context than in a medical context. You might also give weight according to the historical use of the word "circumcision". Zionists certainly love to talk about their right to the "holy" land due to the jewish history in that geographical area.84.210.15.173 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well, interesting question anyway. You can do your own research to answer some of your own questions by exploring journal indexes like JSTOR and PubMed. Zad68 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

84.210.15.173, your points are all valid really. There's no quantitative way to reliably determine article weight for topics that are treated substantially by multiple disciplines and the results of such database searches are merely indicative. Compared to the humanities and social sciences, medical researchers publish more frequently, they publish shorter pieces that are often highly focused, and they might publish (essentially) the same research findings in multiple locales. There's also more money available for medical research, greater commercial interest, greater government funding for research into public health issues, and the medical field itself is vast compared to most other disciplines. Having said that, database searches have greater force, as in this instance, when the results indicate that medical publications outweigh all other scholarly publications on the topic by a rather massive majority. Thus, it's easy to argue in this instance that the medical manual of style should apply. That is not to imply that a generalist encyclopedic article on circumcision should not be relatively comprehensive, without being overly long, and it should allow the reader to navigate in clear way to more detailed treatments of different aspects of circumcision. This doesn't correspond to policy but, personally, I'd be more comfortable arguing for a different organisation of this and other articles if there was an equivalent guideline to WP:MEDRS for other disciplines like sociology, history, philosophy and anthropology. If your interest is specifically in the representation of the ethics of circumcision, there are other scholarly sources that could be added to the relevant section of this article. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Having fully read your last comment to the end, I'm kicking myself for posting a reply. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I found your reply independently interesting and useful Fiachra and not at all tainted by an irrelevancy in the tail end of the comment that precipitated yours. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I made this argument before, that this is clearly a case of Ignore all rules. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. While wikipedia's rules for giving weight to the amount of citations is a good rule of thumb, it clearly does not apply here. It's not a far fetched guess to make that people are gaming wikipedia's rules to push a pro-circumcision bias under the auspices that the medical benefits support their pre-conceived biases. This is unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Circumcision is performed for religious and cultural reasons, and as such the article should give weight to that rather than the medical purposes. ScienceApe (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just like when you brought this up before, I agree with you again that it would take an application of WP:IAR to ignore the sourcing and Misplaced Pages content rules to reconfigure the article significantly, as you appear to be suggesting. In general if there's a case where it is suspected that editors are pushing an agenda, the best course of action—and the only course of action directly supported by Misplaced Pages's core content policies—is to have the article adhere strictly to the sources and a straight-forward application of those content policies, as this article does currently. Waving the WP:IAR flag to suggest that the article instead be reconstructed according to the wishes of that same group of editors suspected of pushing an agenda is the opposite of a productive thing to do. Zad68 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I understood that ScienceApe was proposing that we should supersede the sanitized picture of circumcision that you Zad, and a small coterie group of other editors maintain in this presently peculiarly skewed article. And not that we should continue to support the censorship. Why do you describe the opposite  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you did not read what I said. I said users are gaming the rules to push an agenda, meaning the rules themselves are responsible for a slanted article that does not reflect reality. You're invoking an argument from weak induction fallacy when you assert, "If there's agenda pushing, then the course of action is to follow the rules". That is NOT the case in this situation, so your generalization drawn from induction does not apply here. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. This is a fact in reality, and this article does not give weight to that fact in reality, it gives weight to using medical reasons to justify circumcision. You Zad68, are responsible for gaming the rules to push an agenda. ScienceApe (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah following the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages is not "gaming the rules". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy. You are intentionally misrepresenting my arguments. ScienceApe (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That happens here a great deal ScienceApe.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly yes, the other problem is that we are trying to convince the people that are pushing an agenda, that they are pushing an agenda. It's pointless to have a rational discussion with these people. ScienceApe (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Sensitivity Damage Dispute

The article doesn't seem to effectively highlight the fact that the damage circumcision does to men's sexual experiences (both physical and psychological) are highly disputed. It seems to only have references to a limited set of studies, performed by the AAP (which is often discredited due to its pro-circumcision biases), with a weak statement of "doesn't seem to". There are many reports and studies that find circumcision reduces sensitivity and hinders sexual function as well as causing a number of psychological issue early and later in life. While I'm not saying the article should state that circumcision definitively does do damage, I think it is important to reference several sources and highlight the fact that many studies have shown circumcision has potentially negative side effect on sensitivity, sexual function, and psychological well being. The section seems very glossed over though it really is a component of the topic that is incredibly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pod1989 (talk • contribs)

We use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I also pointed this out, that there were clear problems with the conclusions drawn, which were even highlighted by the ones who conducted the study.

Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.

So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. ScienceApe (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What has to be represented? Are you proposing on adding a line that "there is not good evidence regarding an effect on sexual function" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I stated what needs to be represented. The source identifies clear problems with the conclusion it drew. Failure to represent these problems give the article a slant. ScienceApe (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be more constructive Doc James if you devoted your responses to considering the highlighted ( 'bold ') text above and less to suggesting that another editor is making suggestions which he clearly is not.filibustering,stonewalling, and avoiding the issue are so 2013. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Doc James asks a reasonable question. ScienceApe is unhappy with the representation of this study and its findings in the article. Therefore it is reasonable to query what concrete proposals they offer to improve the representation of the study. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Except I already said what needs to be represented in the very post he responded to. Tumadoireacht is right, he's filibustering, his question was inherently rhetorical, and not genuine. In another post he deliberately strawmanned me and misrepresented my position. These people are not honestly discussing the problems with the article. ScienceApe (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the standard MO at this article when someone points out how biased it is. The article owners ask for concrete change proposals which they can shoot down by citing biased literature and agreeing with each other. This is unlikely to change without intervention: Most people outside the US consider circumcision to be an unsavoury, atavistic, but essentially harmless practice. As it is also a taboo subject for most of them, they are very unlikely to get involved. For many, however, circumcision is a religious obligation, an important source of income, or something which they must defend for psychological reasons because they themselves or their parents have afflicted their children with it. (Let's ignore the tiny but vocal sneaky minority of those for whom it is a sexual perversion.) This seems to be a much larger number than those who, like me, started researching the subject due to a public debate and found that in many cases it amounts to baby torture.

Of course similar situations exist at many articles, and it is still possible to fix them. I would be motivated to do this here. But even when I still had the time to do it, I couldn't. Several of the article owners seem to have far superior access to the often extremely expensive literature. This makes it almost impossible to check for selective or misleading quotations, cherry-picking of biased sources etc. Also, for the reasons I gave above the interventionist bias also seems to exist in a large segment of the literature. By agreeing to elevate that segment to 'most reliable', the article owners can easily quell all dissent.

For flying saucers or ghosts we rightly eliminate most of the specialised literature because it is fringe. For circumcision or the virgin birth of Jesus we can't do this because these aberrations are too popular and consequently the specialised literature is accepted as scholarly or even scientific regardless of its intellectual shortcomings.

I would like to offer a solution, but I can't think of one. Hans Adler 17:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay I will put forth a suggestion. Source gives this as a summary of the quality of evidence regarding sexual function "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" I guess we could add a summary of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion does not address the problems the study identified with the conclusion it drew. ScienceApe (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You lost me. It is very clear "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" There is no issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur. ScienceApe (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it a non-sequitur? You appear to want the article to carry more content about the quality of the evidence base for this one particular statement. Others have pointed out singling out this one secondary source's comments about a primary source is undue. You haven't made a concrete edit suggestion yet here. So Doc took the initiative and offered a bit from the secondary source that summarizes their findings regarding the quality of the evidence base, and it doesn't single out one particular primary source in an undue manner. Zad68 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This argument seems wholly pointless and pedantic because it's on the wording from a review of literature - if you want to make a claim that it's disputed, introduce a MEDRS-quality citation (i.e., a literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, or, preferably, a meta-analytic systematic review) asserting the opposite position. Anything else won't matter, because it's not in line with community policy; i.e. WP:MED will remove it. I've taken the liberty to point out the problems in the refs cited above for use as sources in the article.
I hope this helps direct this conversation back to medical sources that aren't garbage. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I decided to see what popped with MEDRS filters on this topic (search terms: circumcision pleasure) after looking for a ref I needed in another article - the only thing that popped up was this, a meta-analytic literature review which seems to support the material in the article. Might be worth adding, since it wasn't used as a source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/bvkj/kinpopup/psfile/pdf/70/121126_Ste50aa5e211e6a6.pdf
2. Bronselaer, G. et al., "Male Circumcision Decreases Penile Sensitivity as Measured in a Large Cohort," BJU International (2013). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract
3. Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., and Grønbæk, M., "Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark," International Journal of Epidemiology (2011);1–15.
4. Sorrells, M. et al., “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,” BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.
5. Boyle G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.
6. Note that all of the above are NOT WP:MEDRS QUALITY because:
   
    • (1) This paper isn't pubmed indexed, and hence not a medical source (also ignoring the fact that it's entirely in German - what particular sentence was this quoted for?)
    • (2) A comparative study and primary source.
    • (3) "A survery based" <-- ROFL! Nonprobability sampling → invalid conclusions
    • (4) Same as (2)
    • (5) Ignoring the fact that the study, being 12 years old, is way out of WP:MEDDATE (that alone merits exclusion), it's a primary source.
   
   
   
7. ^ Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A (2012). "A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?". BMC Pediatr. 12: 20. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-12-20. PMC 3359221. PMID 22373281.
   DISCUSSION:
   We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
   
   SUMMARY:
   Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Thanks Seppi. A recent pubmed indexed meta analysis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The evidence also suggests that infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of Human Rights. DavidHGrateful (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Seppi provided a recent systematic review and meta analysis which is pubmed indexed. David do you have one supporting your statement that "infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of Human Rights"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well... who are you to say that it isn't a human right to be allowed to grow up in an non mutilated body? I certainly think I have the right to grow up in a non mutilated body. I also think other people have the right to grow up in non mutilated bodies. Tell me why you think you have the right to mutilate other bodies without their "grown up" consent.84.210.13.40 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V Misplaced Pages is not based on our own personal opinions but on reliable secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I know we're all about properly sourced studies, but the conclusion seems obvious to me. Like most men in the US, I'm circumcised. Above the cut line, on the remaining inner foreskin, I have lots of sexual sensation. Immediately below the cut line, I have none. The shortest inner foreskin I've seen is 2 inches and the longest, at least 6 inches. Residual inner foreskin is typically 1.5" or less, depending on the style of the cut. If it's fair to assume that the nerve endings of the inner foreskin are evenly distributed (and based on my anecdotal experience as an older gay man that's encountered a rather large sample set of uncircumcised penises, this is a reasonable assumption), could we not say with certainty that losing any part of it represents a net loss in sensitivity? This isn't even accounting for the vast drop in glans sensitivity, without which none of us could wear underwear. Am I the only one who feels this way?

It seems to me that these studies are focused on very narrow definitions of what comprises sexual performance and satisfaction. (This is not unique to sexual studies; anyone proclaimed 'fully recovered' after an accident might take issue with that phrase.) If you only measured whether orgasm could be attained, you might easily conclude a penis wasn't even necessary. Likewise, when an individual compensates for a loss of sensitivity with a rough, high-friction grip, is it fair to say the experience is the same as if the shaft had four touching surfaces of sensitive, movable foreskin? My impression of the results of these 'it doesn't matter' studies is as a negative indictment of their methodology rather than a statement of empirical fact. Desinos (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits January 4

There has been a series of edits today that do not appear to improve the article's use of the sources, and so were reverted by myself and Jmh649. The latest edit was this, it modified "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." in the lead and in the body to state instead, According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.(citing four sources) Despite the AAP's positive stance on the procedure, their policy states that the "health benefits (of circumcision) are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."(citing the AAP policy statement). The issue with this proposed change are that 1) The current article content is cited to four sources, not just the AAP Technical Report, and the proposed edit misrepresents the sourcing by making it appear as only the AAP is stating this and giving undue weight to the AAP's policy statement that is not cited anywhere in the article currently; 2) It makes it appear as if the entire cost/benefit analysis being done is based on sex effects, which is not true; 3) The lack of recommendation of routine use of the procedure on neonates is not just the position of the AAP but of medical organizations worldwide, the article already covers this where it says "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males" and sourced to Bolnick, calling out the AAP here only again is redundant and is undue weight on the AAP. Zad68 13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the other citations in the citation bundle which you keep using as a "get out of jail free card", is that there is no free version on the net for any of those citations. I was only able to find their abstracts here, 1 2 3, and none of them mention anything about circumcision impacting sexual function. You need to provide us with a link to the full contents of those articles if you're going to keep using them as an excuse to keep the article in its present form. ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please look again. The entirety of Perera 2010 is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. The entirety of the AAP 2012 Technical Report is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. For all three of the AAP 2012 Technical Report, Doyle 2010 and Perea 2010 the freely-available abstracts do indeed clearly state their conclusions regarding sexual function. The conclusions drawn by Sadeghi-Nejad 2010 have been discussed several times before and I have provided verbatim quotes from that source, they can be found in the archives. Zad68 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Provide the links please. ScienceApe (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The links are provided in the article references. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find them, can you post them here so I can read them? ScienceApe (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Control F" Perera in the article, etc. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Circumcision

A NPOV dicussion has been added to the NPOV Noticeboard regarding the content disputes found here. ScienceApe (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Our article reflexes the best available sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The criteria for removing the POV tag are: (from Template:POV/doc#When_to_remove)
"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

As their is ongoing discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, these criteria have not been met; the tag should remove until those discussions are formally closed or become quiescent. NE Ent 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point" so the repeated re-adding of the article-wide tag is editing against consensus as evaluated by an outside administrator. Also the NPOV tag template documentation states "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the public." and as the NPOVN discussion states explicitly that the argument being made is ignoring the weight given in the reliable sourcing, this criterion isn't met. Zad68 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ? Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have stated for thousands of years that one of the purposes of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tum. Please note It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, there is no legitimate neutrality dispute; I'm seeing vexatious POV tagging only (and have removed it accordingly). Please raise concerns calmly in line with WP guidelines and policies. If it emerges there is a clear POV problem then (and only then) can the article be tagged while editors work it through. Alexbrn 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Also agree. I should note that the purpose of the tag is to "attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame." As the issue has been raised at WP:AN, one of the most watchlisted pages on Misplaced Pages, tagging now is superfluous if its purpose was to attract attention to the article, and would only serve as a "badge of shame" at this point. Yobol (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649's claims are nonsense. All of the problems with neutrality have been explained at the NPOV noticeboard which I linked. There is a discussion going on there right now. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from the article when there's a discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard right now? ScienceApe (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Zad68 please stop this nonsense. There is no consensus against me regarding whether or not the NPOV template should be at the top of the circumcision article or not. There is an on-going discussion at NPOV noticeboard which you have actively been participating in. What on earth is the reason not to put the NPOV template on the top of the article other than to stifle discussion regarding the NPOV discussion? It is disgraceful that this kind of bias and agenda pushing has been going on for this long unnoticed by anyone. Can someone sensible please put the NPOV template back on top of the circumcision article please? ScienceApe (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

ScienceApe raises an interesting question: why is a content discussion for this article being held at NPOV/N? It should be right here, where future editors will be able to find and refer to any developed consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We've been having too many problems on the talk pages, that's why I took it to the NPOV noticeboard. If we can't find a resolution there, then I think the next step is intervention. ScienceApe (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

We've had "resolution", meaning stable consensus, for quite a while--the article has been very stable for about a year now. Often what happens is that change suggestions don't get implemented because it turns out they're not in line with Misplaced Pages content policy as applied to the best-available sourcing. That might mean the issue wasn't resolved to somebody's preference, but that doesn't mean the issue wasn't resolved properly and in accordance with Misplaced Pages content rules and processes. What is "intervention"? Zad68 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how long content has been on an article for. If there is something wrong with an article, then there is something wrong with the article. You just constructed another strawman. The problems I identified with the article were never about preferences, and you haven't refuted one of my arguments, instead you employed strawmen and other fallacies which I identified every time you did it, so you can not misrepresent my position. ScienceApe (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "intervention"? Zad68 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What do YOU mean Zad by "stable consensus" - is it a stable of editors who will nod and whinny to the narrow and selective med source based and article construction that you principally maintain here. This article is one of the most contested on the site. Stability can mean that a small and determined block of editors are blocking positive change. That is an ugly kind of stability. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I disagree with the protection that User:John Reaves has put on the page. No one has been making any content changes to the article. The sole purpose of that protection is to prevent anyone from putting a NPOV template on the article even though there's a NPOV discussion going on right now. This is unacceptable, and abuse of admin powers. ScienceApe (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I protected the wrong version. -- John Reaves 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your specious remark does not in any way invalidate what I said. There is a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard, and you have prevented anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article while the discussion is going on. ScienceApe (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the point. What is the issue here? -- John Reaves 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Abusing your admin powers to lock the page for your preferred version of the article for one. ScienceApe (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take your concern that John Reaves is abusing his admin powers to WP:AN... please leave this article Talk page for discussion of article content. Zad68 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that. ScienceApe (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please link to where I have indicated that this is my preferred version. -- John Reaves 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Take your concerns here ScienceApe (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no concerns. -- John Reaves 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

PLease explain why a NPOV discussion has been prevented from being tagged on this article if it concerns this article. You may have no concerns with doing such but others do.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing Information...

When I compare this article with the one in the German Misplaced Pages, I miss some topics.

For instance the whole subject of "not as good effects", as often occurring Meatostenosis or the loss of most Meissner's corpuscle.

I think wide parts of that do not have the NPOV. This should be marked on the article page, and not in the talk page. 77.64.179.160 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources to support its inclusion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that English Misplaced Pages has much higher standards for sourcing, especially for biomedical information. Please see WP:MEDRS. Zad68 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As an outside observer of this discussion, when reading the article, the references in the "adverse effects" seem very reliable. If the reliable sources are stating things like less than 1% of procedures have adverse effects, and there are no sexual implications, then we should not place undue weight on adverse effects.

Having said that, your two specific points above about meatostenosis and Meissner's corpuscle (related to decreased sexual function presumably) do not seem to be mentioned currently in the article. If there are recent, reliable sources which discuss these, it would only take an extra sentence to mention them in the article. I would defer to zad68's opinion regarding the suitability of such sources in this case because s/he has handled this controversial topic well and is probably more familiar with the literature than anyone else here.

Regarding NPOV templates on the article, there appears to be a majority of editors who do not feel there is any non-NPOV content, so I would think they are not needed. Lesion (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tepi, agree with your comments. I looked through my source database for these terms and didn't find anything relevant. The only sources that mention Meissner's corpuscles in particular were old primary sources from the 1990s, which apparently German Misplaced Pages is OK with but our standards are higher here. Zad68 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If we are omitting key information by over zealous and partial application of the Med edit guidelines and fetishising on the recently published here perhaps we should say not that our standards here are higher but that they are certainly different or that our agenda is as currently exercised.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Morality of mutilating children.

I haven't seen a single argument why some people think they have the right to mutilate other bodies without their adult consent. Children are obviously not mature enough to know wheter it is a good or bad idea to become mutilated. Children can also easily be manipulated into doing stupid things simply by offering them candies. I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies. Fortunately that is illegal. By the same reasoning it should oviously be illegal to mutilate children, because we don't know what children are going to think when they grow up. I am sure there are tons of people that feel like their rights were violated when they were mutilated as children. I think physical mutilation of children is just as seriously wrong as sexual abuse of children. Leave the kids alone, and stop this nonsensical propaganda! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of emotive words like mutilation likely indicate that you do not hold a NPOV, and this comment is barely related to discussion about how the article can be improved. We need to be careful not to use Misplaced Pages talk pages as a forum for general discussion about the topic (WP:NOTAFORUM). As pointed out before, we need to use reliable sources to build the content of the encyclopedia. We cannot use our own opinions. Lesion (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what is morally right and wrong? I think your source should be your conscience, not pubmed. I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what point you are trying to make with this comment, but it was unwise in that it can be read as antisemitic, which then serves as an excuse to simply ignore you.

For all those who didn't get it: It makes sense if you put yourselves into the shoes of someone who, reasonably IMO, thinks that cutting off parts of your children's genitals is serious sexual abuse. Based on what I have read about the traumatic effects of infant circumcision (and the surgical procedures I have seen that were proudly posted on Youtube), I actually agree that inflicting circumcision on a baby is not better than inducing a child to do a blowjob.

Note that it pains me to say this, as I have not antisemitic inclinations whatsoever. In fact, I started researching the topic when it became hot in Germany recently, fully expecting to confirm my prejudice that circumcision is harmless. Turns out it isn't. Hans Adler 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The term mutilation is often used on this topic in other contexts (Female_genital_mutilation) and the term is applied regularly to male circumcision in Europe, so its not neccisarily a POV issue for him to use that term here. Mutilation is a significant POV, particularly outside of the US, but we do require WP:RS to satisfy WP:V. Advocacy groups in the US and Europe are acceptable only to document that "person X said Y" - so one would need high-quality medical or media sources to bring into the article (which I would think it should be no problem to find due to how common this POV outside the US) Misplaced Pages does not edit on what is "right" or "moral", as there are many opinions about what "right" and "moral" actually is.Gaijin42 (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That pesky global Jewish conspiracy again. FYI, this kind of comment does absolutely nothing to persuade others. If you want to change the article, find some reliable sources (WP:MEDRS) and then seek consensus via the talk page. Otherwise, kindly do not waste others' time by posting your own opinions here. Lesion (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy? I don't see any such thing anywhere. I see stupid humans violating the rights of other humans everywhere. Especially in non western European countries.84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Morality can be an elastic and contradictory yardstick particularly when religious text or tradition is cited as guidance. Would body modification by excision and scarification be a more neutral term than mutilation to apply to circumcision ? The involuntary nature of most religious and clinical child circumcisions and particularly of all the well documented forced male adult circumcisions on three continents get little or no mention in the article. This is most odd. What the cutters do with the cut off foreskins in all the three major and most famous cutting cultures ( American, Jewish and Muslim) gets no mention in the article. The ongoing risk and previous deaths of Jewish infants in New York from oral-genital contact with the male adult foreskin cutter gets no mention in this article -- can any member of the cabal who defend the article as it currently wobbles honestly defend these, and similar glaring omissions with a straight face  ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You need reliable sources. I honestly don't know how else to explain this. Lesion (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As I have said many times, in this article it is very stupid to give weight according to how many secondary sources you find. Most secondary sources are medical, but circumcision is a religious tradition. It is very obvious that the editors of this article are pro-circumcision, and use the secondary sources argument only because it aids their pro-circumcision agenda. The editors of this article think it is okay to violate human rights. That people shouldn't be allowed to grow up in non-mutilated bodies. The editors of this article support human right violations.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The answer is the same as the last dozen or so time you have brought up these same things. Misplaced Pages does cover these topics at Ethics of circumcision, Forced circumcision, Foreskin and Brit milah respectively. This article is a WP:SUMMARY-style overview of the main points of the topic, per the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing; once again you are directed to please see WP:NPOV for an explanation. Not every last bit of detail about every aspect of the topic will be covered in the main overview article in a summary-style constellation of articles. What goes where and with what emphasis is determined by the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing, it does not go by how important individual Misplaced Pages editors think it should be, this is covered explicitly at WP:NPOV. Zad68 15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you so eager to follow this WP:NPOV when it is obviously morally wrong to mutilate the bodies of other people without their adult consent? If you had a conscience, you would care much more about human rights than about following the guidelines at WP:NPOV.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lesion - National Newspapers and Local Health Authorities and Court Records ARE reliable secondary sources and cover the omitted topics mentioned by me above.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht would you please engage with the Misplaced Pages content policy points raised? Don't you remember a year ago you started this RFC? You proposed adding content that was sourced to National Newspapers (as you word it) but the RFC closed something like 20 to 2 against your position because it was WP:UNDUE. Once again, the issue isn't whether it exists, but rather where it should be covered on Misplaced Pages and with how much emphasis. I already pointed out that Misplaced Pages does already carry the content you're talking about in the articles I listed. Zad68 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, do you disagree with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines with regard to how to handle this topic? It seems that you do. And if so, this talk page is not the place to try to change those policies and guidelines. Again and again, you blame the editors of this article for presenting it in ways that you disagree with...when these editors are simply following Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Repeatedly attacking the editors of this article is not something that belongs on Misplaced Pages, per WP:Talk and WP:Civil. And repeatedly refusing to drop the stick is counterproductive and WP:Disruptive. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Drmies hid this discussion. I have reverted as the criticism is perfectly justified. The present article is severely biased and written exclusively from the prevailing American POV. The take on circumcision in Europe is quite different. Especially in Scandinavia, where the IP that started the discussion is from, circumcision is generally considered an atavistic, violent, perverse practice that infringes on children's rights. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands are somewhere in the middle, but even in Germany non-medical circumcision of minors is a tricky business, legally, precisely because it is useless violence inflicted on victims who cannot consent. That's why Germany 'needed' a law that now legalises it. And which, according to experts, is either invalid or also legalises the mildest form of female genital mutilation.

So long as the article is as biased as it is, it will be inviting angry comments. It's something that always happens to badly written articles on controversial subjects. (It also happens to well written articles on such subjects, but not as often, and it's easier to deal with the comments.) Hans Adler 14:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Where are the high quality recent pubmed indexed review articles that discuss circumcision in this light? Otherwise how does this help improve anything? When you come to suggest a change you should be bringing refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there is something seriously wrong with the way you give weight on wikipedia. You seem to think that the only proper way of giving weight is according to how many secondary sources you find. As I have said earlier, it might be just as valid to give weight according to which context the word "circumcision" most often is used. It might be somewhat tricky to determine that, but I guess you could write a computer algorithm to determine in which context the word "circumcision" most often is used on the Internet. That would however also be somewhat misleading, since many of the people practising circumcision don't have access to Internet. I am also a bit confused about how you are going to deal with morality and human rights on wikipedia. One approach would be to always support a neutral point of view, but I don't necessarily think that is an ideal approach. When one side obviously is wrong, I think wikipedia should give a little bit more support to the other side. Such a case would for example be the wikipedia article about the massacre in Srebrenica. In a neutral point of view you should listen just as much to the Serbs that were guilty of the massacre as to the Bosnians that were victims of the massacre. I however think you should listen a bit more to the victims than to the violators. In the case of circumcision the violator would be the person performing the circumcision, while the victim would be the mutilated child.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, definitely not. We should ideally be listening to what neutral, third-party sources who have expertise in the area have to say. --NeilN 16:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Expertise in what? You might find people that have lots of expertise in the medical aspects of circumcision, but where do you find people that have expertise in the morality of child mutilation? One of the main problems with this article is that it is overly medical. Seems like your approach to morality is to ignore morality.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Took me two seconds to find a possible source. --NeilN 16:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

One more. Add: Doing a search reveals a multitude of potential sources from a peer reviewed journal --NeilN 16:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I don't know if I would consider the people writing these articles to be authorities on morality, because I don't necessarily think people can learn to become moral authorities. At least not in the same way as you can learn to become a medical doctor. Anyhow, these articles seem to be pointing on the moral issues with mutilating children. So why isn't it given more weight to this issue? Well, I guess because there are much more medical sources, and you seem to give weight according to how many secondary sources you find in each field. Even though the amount of secondary sources is a very poor indicator for how much weight a field should be given. For plenty of reasons.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at Ethics of circumcision and Circumcision controversies? This article should just summarize them. Alexbrn 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is a "physiological effects of circumcision" page, but this page could just as well be renamed to it as clearly gives most weight to the physiological effects of circumcision. This article should just summarize the physiological effects of circumcision. This article should give just as much weight to religion and morality as to the physiological effects of circumcision.84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Agreed. There's already a Circumcision#Ethical_and_legal_issues which can be revised if so desired. And IP, "moral authority" is a self-claimed term or a description given to someone by people who share the same views. We don't want morality authorities; we want people who have studied the subject of morality and its applications. --NeilN 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

My main concern is that this section is in the end of the article. This article reads like: "Here are lots of medical reasons why you should circumcise your child", and then in the very end "there might be some small moral issues, but don't mind them because we also have to think about our economy(the last section)".84.210.13.40 (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started a new section with a more neutral title. It'd be great if you could add suggestions for specific content changes there. --NeilN 17:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Map of all the sub articles on Circumcision suggestion

More experienced editors assure me that having a "See Also" section in an article such as this one is not cool and they will not countenance it. I disagree and think an exception should be made. However as this is unlikely to fly-there are so many such related articles that I wonder is there a need for a map or Tony Buzan-like family tree illustrating these articles or some other way of showing their availability other than refs buried in the text body of the article ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For a start, there's these (some of which look like a more natural home for some of the topics lately discussed). It strikes me editors concerned about article quality on this topic might do well to have a look at some of the rubbish here, rather than focus on this GA.

• Religious male circumcision
• Circumcision and law
• Circumcision controversies
• History of male circumcision
• Ethics of circumcision
• Circumcision scar
• Restoration device
• Circumcision and HIV

Alexbrn 12:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There's this, which is placed at the bottom of the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A third resource that will provide what you're requesting is Category:Circumcision. Zad68

Correlation between the medical benefits presented in this article and bad personal hygiene

Has there been done any studies on how the medical benefits correlate with personal hygiene? I would assume that populations with better hygiene have less medical benefits from being circumcised. If people wash their genitals with a proper soap sufficiently often I would assume that many of the same medical benefits can be attained. Probably even to a higher degree. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it arose as a custom in sandy dry lands at a time of poor access to hygiene but this page is not for such speculation -unless one produces historical academic records of this particular aspect being discussed -and sometimes not even then . There IS material supporting the notion that the smegma which gathers under the uncut foreskin has a function as a protective part of the immune system(which so far has not made it into the article...) and there is other material which appears to support the notion that cutting off the foreskin and frenulum may protect against some conditions in some circumstances. Some of this latter material IS included in the text of the article.

The article as currently maintained has little or no material on the psychoanalytic, sociological or other analysis of what would lead a nation like america or two major religions to continue the custom so readily. There may be links between it (circumcision) and fear of contamination/disease or notions about hygiene as you mention, though as Woody Allen said - sex is dirty only if you are doing it right ! . Circumcision has had the additional historical function of being used to distinguish one's tribe from uncut tribes and as an inflicted act on conquered enemies akin to a symbolic castration(like eunuchs). There exisits a vocal active coterie of editors who feel that this "flagship" article should focus primarily on selected aspects of contemporary medical practice around the act of circumcision rather than as an overview of the phenomenon. There are others of us who contest this idea. As Circumcision is sacred to several religions one has to be mindful of the limited capacity of some to discuss it or write about it objectively and additionally endeavour to discuss it with some sensitivity and respect toward their mindset. The fact that circumcision is diminishing in popularity has not made it into the article yet , nor any tables of stats showing its decline in USA and elsewhere --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

So far as I know, washing often with soap is precisely what you shouldn't do. The environment inside a healthy foreskin has a lot of similarities with that inside a vagina, and essentially the same principles apply to cleaning: Just use plain water with maybe occasionally a bit of mild soap without perfumes or similar additives.

Otherwise you may get effects as with excessively frequent washing (showering, bathing) with large amounts of soap. AFAIK, it damages the skin's acid mantle (which normally protects you from infections and makes sure only the right kind of bacteria live there) and it kills beneficial bacteria, whose decomposition then causes unpleasant body odour.

This shouldn't be surprising: Why should we be the only animal that requires soap to avoid stinking from that region, even in normal circumstances?

On the other hand, in some parts of the world people are no longer used to smegma, mistaking it for dirt and interpreting the sexual pheromones it contains as disgusting odours. In those areas it may be necessary to wash away even clean smegma with a little bit of mild soap even before it is in danger of getting old. But that's just following a fashion. Hans Adler 14:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection

More edit warring over the POV tag, more protection. It follows this edit by Alexbrn; I couldn't disagree more with them (I believe there is a POV issue identified on the talk page, and in one of Hans's edit summaries) or with Doc James's earlier edit summary, but as an admin I am not allowed to pick and choose which version to protect, and waiting until Hans or someone else reverts is dishonest. Besides, we're going for a walk in a minute.

Anyway, full protection for a week. Maybe an RfC is called for. Maybe you should call Jimbo (I believe he gave out his cell number?) and ask him to step in (was that dumb painting of him made with a circumcised cock?) Yes, you all really should work this out. Tone down the rhetoric and try to see it from the other's perspective. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC could be good. But please, let the request be crisply worded and with some kind of defined outcome. Alexbrn 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We need high quality sources and than we can have a discussion. If there are no high quality sources forthcoming we may just end up continuing as we are.

It is those who are proposing a change who are expected to come forth with the sources. This is similar to science were those who propose an idea need to provide the evidence not those who are attempting to refute it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Balancing the article

HIV in the lead

To start with the "A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis..." paragraph is much too detailed for the lede and should be cut or one or two sentences merged into the prior paragraph. Thoughts? --NeilN 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Would support changing it to "A 2009 Cochrane review found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men in Africa by 38–66% over 2 years." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing just that sentence or...? --NeilN 18:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Neil, have you reviewed the prevalence of the sourcing related to circumcision that covers circumcision and HIV? Out of all the things to trim, this would be the hardest one to justify based on the sourcing. The mention of the African RCTs here acknowledges how influential they've been. Even so, I'm happy to support a tightening of the wording in the lead regarding this, the lead could just state "Circumcision reduces the female-to-male transmission risk of HIV by 50-60%" or whatever the latest secondary sources say. Zad68 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think statistical specifics can be toned down in that paragraph, it can seem a bit jargon-y with all the percentages in there; specific risk reductions and that sort of detail can probably be left to the body of the article.. Yobol (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming the sourcing supports the text and agree with Yobol. Also, the paragraph is a bit inconsistent with "...range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks." I recognize that the studies may take into account non-neonatal circumcisions but the reader is left wondering at the discrepancy. --NeilN 19:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yobol's is a valid criticism and agree, how about "by better than half"? Although I personally find this kind of wording like "better than half" "twofold" etc., while it looks simpler because it avoid digits, ends up making the sentence more ambiguous. Other suggested wording welcome. Zad68 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I would personally just leave it at "significantly reduces risk" and leave the details to the body. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted84.210.13.40 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The talk page is neither a WP:SOAPBOX or a WP:FORUM for general discussion of the topic. I suggest hatting further digressions off topic to keep this talk page on a manageable movement forward on improving the article. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ethical and legal

There should be a small paragraph about the ethical and legal questions in the introduction. The sentence "Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and autonomy have been raised over non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.", seems too thin. I also don't think the section about "Ethical and legal issues" belongs in the end of the article. It should be much farther up. It also seems somewhat ridiculous that there is a section for "Economic considerations". Remove it, and mention it briefly somewhere else. For example where it is written about HIV. I also strongly advice Zad68 to take this criticism seriously, otherwise I think this debate is going to continue forever. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with IP that an expansion of coverage in lead to discuss ethics is probably warranted (I count 5 paragraphs in the body, which would justify some expansion in the lead). Disagree that we should move the ethics section (per WP:MEDMOS), or that we should ignore economic considerations, as there is extensive literature discussing it. The location of this section seems fine. Yobol (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't you have any better way of determining how much weight should be given than the amount of literature? The section about economic considerations is bigger than the section about Judaism or Islam under cultures and religions. How many people do you think circumcise their babies because of economic considerations? Probably none. How many people do you think circumcise their babies because of Judaism or Islam? Almost everybody. Policy makers might be somewhat interested in the economic considerations, but if medical organizations start recommending circumcision because of health benefits then it is already implicit that it has economic benefits. It is kinda obvious that health benefits go hand in hand with economic benefits regarding circumcision, and therefore the economic considerations should be mentioned where you have written about HIV. Especially since the economic studies seem to be directly related to HIV.84.210.13.40 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) No, that is precisely how we determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give a topic; we see how much is it discussed in the relevant high quality sources and literature. Since economic considerations are not specifically medical considerations, but more of a societal/cultural consideration, its own section in the society/culture section is appropriate. Yobol (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you arguing that there are heaps of sources on economic considerations (what you actually said earlier) or that overview sources on the main topic give a lot of weight to economic considerations (the actual criterion for determining weight in Misplaced Pages)? That's often a huge difference. Hans Adler 20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I am saying there are a number of secondary sources that discuss circumcision in the context of economics (cost effectiveness in the medical context). Yobol (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That could be reason to mention circumcision in the appropriate economic contexts. For giving much weight to economics in a circumcision context, we need the opposite thing: Secondary sources on circumcision which give weight to economics. It seems that the Norwegian IP intuitively understood this and contradicted you for this reason. Hans Adler 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I dispute that WP:MEDMOS fully applies to this article. In particular, circumcision is not just any surgical procedure but one that started as a ritual and still is performed most often as a ritual. The article decapitation is not structured according to MEDMOS, and neither should this one be, as the generic MEDMOS structure for surgical procedures marginalises some of the most important aspects. MEDMOS was not written with such a special case in mind.

If there is a need for an article discussing just the medical aspects and following MEDMOS slavishly, then it can be created separately under a name such as, e.g., "circumcision techniques".

I believe that the perceived need to follow the MEDMOS structure may be one reason why it has proven almost impossible to get this article balanced.

While we are at it, I would appreciate an unequivocal statement from the most active status quo supporters that they have understood the following fundamental and inevitable principle: WP:MEDRS (note this is now about sourcing) applies to medical claims in all articles, not to all claims in medical articles. Or if someone disputes the principle, please say so explicitly; don't just argue as if statements about religion, politics or law must be backed with Pubmed sources. Hans Adler 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been longstanding consensus that this article falls under MEDMOS as a medical topic. It would require an RfC to suggest that it does not, and I would suggest that rather than arguing it out here, you raise that point in a separate section as it would fundamentally change the way we approach this article, and should have its own section. I would like to comment that comparing this article to decapitation is, frankly, bizarre, as decapitations are not, to my knowledge, performed currently as a medical procedure. Yobol (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Decapitation was just the first thing that came to my mind as a surgical procedure that one could but very obviously should not treat according to MEDMOS. Applying MEDMOS to this article only to the extent that doing so is reasonable should normally be a no-brainer. The properly medical sections of this article are of course in the scope of MEDMOS. But to the extent that MEDMOS suggests an overall structure which marginalises non-medical aspects, this is clearly not applicable as it would enforce a biased article.

Similar situations come up throughout Misplaced Pages whenever an article is simultaneously in the scope of two wiki projects with their own special manuals of style. Of course you can exist on an RfC on the obvious, but don't be surprised if I will hold it against you later as an instance of stonewalling. Hans Adler 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• 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 objectionable content
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press