Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.210.54.80 (talk) at 22:23, 20 February 2015 (→‎Not improvements). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleCircumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Toolbox

Well, [this http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision] might go into the article somewhere. // Liftarn (talk)

A report of primary research on "sciencenordic.com" does not clear the bar of WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine may[1] // Liftarn (talk) 22:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please take care to discriminate between primary and secondary sources. Zad68 03:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primary[2] and secondary[3] // Liftarn (talk)
Please make yourself familiar with WP:MEDRS before continuing. Zad68 15:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the journal of the Royal Society of Medicine is the primary source here and the sciencenordic website reported on it so is a secondary source. I am guessing that zad is saying this is "controversial" so we should wait for more sources? Popish Plot (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a secondary source in any meaningful sense (particularly in the light of WP:MEDRS). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I searched in the Cochrane website and it doesn't mention this recent study. But I suppose some day a source such as that may mention it and then and only then it could be included in this article. A lot of popular websites such as dailynews and huffingtonpost are reporting on this but they aren't reliable for this kind of thing. Popish Plot (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so; we need the WP:ANALYSIS of a high-quality secondary source. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1]

References

  1. ^ International Journal of Epidemiology: Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark

— 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk|contribs|COI 08:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liftarn please make yourself familiar with WP:MEDRS and in particular WP:MEDREV before continuing. Thanks... Zad68 15:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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 Wikipedia's policy on the use of primary sources, see WP:PSTS.

Here are three quotations from that policy ( but read the whole thing yourself !)

'Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia; 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 Talk/Stalk 20:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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 Talk/Stalk 00:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia to prevent the koolaid from spilling into our articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]


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 the last editor 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 Talk/Stalk 18:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proof by example - you should read it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should attempt to understand it--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seppi333 says that the foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin. Well, maybe it is, but maybe people should be allowed to chose wheter they want this useless flap of dick skin themselves. A tattoo might also be completely harmless. I wouldn't think it was okay if my parents tattooed a cross into my forehead when I was baby, just because they are religious morons. Circumcision symbolizes religious tradition to me, and therefore I want it gone.84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although many people might feel as you do, please be reminded that Wikipedia article Talk pages are not to be used as a forum of personal advocacy. There are plenty of Internet forums for that, this isn't one of them. Thanks... Zad68 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A much more serious issue, is that you and Doc James have hijacked a non-medical topic and made it into medical one. I have already complained at the talk page for "neutral point of view" about this issue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Not_necessarily_a_good_idea_to_determine_weight_by_amount_of_published_review_articles.). 84.210.54.80 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a medical issue; ergo, I wasn't commenting on that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable medical or other secondary source refers to the foreskin as a "useless flap of dick skin' Or is that description further Seppi 333 Original Research ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it appeases you and your unflinching systematic bias for whatever reasons you probably won't disclose (i.e., your kool-aid), we can call it "the holy site of worship at the temple of the penis"[original research?] instead. Yes, "useless flap of dick skin"[original research?] is my WP:OR term for foreskin. And this is a talk page. Given all the pointless irrelevant whining, it's no wonder the archives for this page are so bloated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is "useless" to you, might be considered very "useful" to other people. Lots of bold people do hair transplantations, and you can just as well argue that hair on the head is quite useless in our modern society. Of course, many women might prefer men with hair on their heads. Similarly, lots of women might prefer penises with foreskin, especially in countries where most people have foreskin. In other countries, where most people lack foreskin, women might prefer dicks without foreskin. And as for your medical research. I can guarantee you that if you force adult men to undergo circumcision, most of them will claim that they have reduced sexual pleasure. Similarly, you might expect adult men who voluntarily circumcise themselves to report equal or increased sexual pleasure. Because people are very prone to something called the placebo effect, and self-reporting from people isn't very good science.84.210.54.80 (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another opinionated individual arguing against conclusions of peer-reviewed medical literature reviews!
Tell me a little more about how vaccines cause autism and herd immunity is wrong - we should bloat the talk page archives with some of that nonsense too. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against peer-reviewed medical literature? Yeah, in chemistry we prove things with NMR-instruments, not self-reporting from people. Your peer-reviewed medical literature is as valid as when people were determining chemicals by smell. You should also not talk to me about the irrationality of being against vaccination. Here in Europe most people are rational enough to understand that vaccines are good. Only in the US you have a problem with people that don't believe in vaccination, and people that believe in irrational crap ideas like intelligent design, creationism, religion, and circumcision. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, based upon the use of self-reporting of an arbitrary metric in any medical study, all medical research is faulty? Lolwtf? Bulletproof argument right there. In mathematical analysis, we actually use logic to prove things, not bullshit rants. By extension of your former conclusion, does Europe also understand that vaccines are good based upon peer-reviewed medical literature that is as valid as when people were determining chemicals by smell? Lmfao. I also like how you think I'm in the US.
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)[reply]
How many people do you think circumcision have saved compared to vaccines? As far as I know, I don't think anybody has ever died from having foreskin here in Norway, but I can tell you that a lot of people have died from not having been vaccinated. Furthermore. Are we vaccinating people because of some religious tradition? Nope. Are people circumcising their babies because of religious tradition? Absolutely. Why aren't you people rather advocating for neonatal breast removal? I am sure much more lives can be saved by neonatal breast removal than by neonatal circumcision, because lots of women actually die from breast cancer. I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many people do you think circumcision have saved compared to vaccines? Not as many, but some. There are some legitimate medical reasons for circumcision, although it undoubtedly would be a rare operation if not for religious reasons. On the other hand, there are few, if any, documented adverse effects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, but the question is: Should we make irreversible body modifications on children purely for religious reasons? In our modern secular world I think we only should make irreversible body modifications on children if it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons. Of course I would support circumcision if there were strong medical benefits associated with it. The medical benefits from circumcision are however very weak, and therefore we don't necessarily have any right to make this irreversible body modification on children without their adult consent. This is also why this article shouldn't follow WP:MEDRS. We are usually not performing circumcision on children for medical reasons. This article is actually very confusing, because it makes it look like we are circumcising children for medical reasons.84.210.54.80 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a devout worshipper of His Noodliness.

"I know why you are not advocating for neonatal breast removal. Because it isn't in your religious tradition."

I've had this userbox on my userpage for months. Probably the only argument that you can make about my "religious tradition" is that I wear a pasta strainer on my head at times; fortunately, I don't take my (lack of) faith too seriously, so I never have. This article contains a substantial amount of medical content because it is a medical procedure. We also do not write articles with judgmental overtones or omission of relevant aspects, which is often what occurs when there are people with very biased opinions writing about a particular topic (e.g., I angered many ecstasy lovers when I rewrote MDMA and expanded coverage of its health effects in humans). Topical coverage of the religious aspects of a topic are what is necessary and sufficient in circumstances like this. Frankly I also do not give the slightest iota of a fuck about the religious reasons for circumcision because as I've repeatedly pointed out: the opinion of the medical community is that foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin, so nothing is lost from its removal.
Now, as I've already made my point about saying the medical evidence on circumcision is wrong is analogous to an anti-vaccer's argument, I'm more or less done on this talk page. Think that over for a moment if you plan to continue promoting that notion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You write "the opinion of the medical community is that foreskin is a useless flap of dick skin". So that gives you the right to remove it from other people? You think it is okay that parents make irreversible body modifications on their children as long as it doesn't have any negative medical consequences? What would you think if your parents tattooed a cross into your forhead? That doesn't necessarily have any negative medical consequences either. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man - you should read it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 11:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the best counter argument you can come up with? Try to forumlate something with your own words. Or maybe that is too intellectually challenging?84.210.54.80 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like having your entire argument invalidated by a 2 word rebuttal, perhaps you shouldn't use logical fallacies. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacies? I bet you don't even know the difference between deductive and inductive logic, and I bet you don't have any higher education in the either mathematics or natural sciences. If there is a logical flaw in my argument, you need to pinpoint exactly where that flaw is in order to prove me wrong. If you published an article in a scientific journal, I would need to pinpoint exactly where you were wrong in order to prove you wrong. Nobody would take me seriously if I just said Seppi333's article is flawed, without specifying exactly where the flaw is in your paper.84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You see, if you had read the link as I suggested, you would already have your answer. I'll let you take the initiative to click that link now and read straw man to learn why it's a logical fallacy to argue against something I didn't say, much less even comment on, in a way that suggests/supposes I said it; this would probably be self-evident if there were less kool-aid in someone's diet.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 Talk/Stalk 21:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 22:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good idea, let's work with a paper that fails WP:MEDRS. Think Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You mean like these? [5][6] - apparently no one has noticed yet, or they just don't care. You pick. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 23:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do those studies compare the cut and the uncut male participants ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why don't you like the circus? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circus  ?-Irrelevant histrionics are plain tedious.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 11:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Best not to "select" sources, but just to reflect the highest-quality ones (as this article does). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Crooks & Baur less reliable than let's say Sadeghi-Nejad ? ChristopheT (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's 22 years old for a start. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And circumcised penises have become more sensitive in the last twenty two years too. For a finish. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 18:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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 talk|contribs|COI 05:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: do you find a more recent penile skin threshold tests? ChristopheT (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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 talk|contribs|COI 07:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 talk|contribs|COI 07:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 09:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So blinded by bias, incapable of reading or comprehending the very text I quoted. Or just trolling. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 12:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, from PMID 23749001 — what part of "show[s] 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 talk|contribs|COI 12:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 13:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're either incompetent or trolling, either way, time to WP:SHUN. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not improvements

The edits by User:Cirflow do not appear to be improvements. This one [7] 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)[reply]

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 Talk/Stalk 14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-ceremonies-death-deformity-africa

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 Talk/Stalk 15:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Talk/Stalk 22:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Talk/Stalk 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@84.210 - yeah I agree with Popish on "POV which does us no good"


@ 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 Talk/Stalk 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&oldid=648101075"