Talk:Circumcision

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Vital article

	Circumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2013 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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 GA‑class 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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: Translation GA‑class Low‑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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance). 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 articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Skepticism GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia: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

view · edit Frequently asked questions Page name Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, male genital mutilation, or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

Archive guide Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

"highest quality evidence" seems like a value judgement. I feel like it could be worded better to sound less biased. 2601:640:C402:C4A0:D189:1305:6697:EE66 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It captures the fact that, per the sources, there is some weak evidence out there that is not a reliable indication of anything. To account for that, the current wording is good, rather than simply asserting that "Circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction". Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"weak evidence" according to whom? This is exactly my issue with this. Your value judgement of what constitutes "highest quality" and "weak" evidence seems to be the studies you agree with. 2601:640:C402:C4A0:D189:1305:6697:EE66 (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source (i.e. PMID 27497811). Grading evidence is a mainstay of medical research. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to one source. That's still not a justification to use "highest quality"; it's a single source that has determined three clinical trials are of "high quality". That is still loaded language to use in this article. 2601:640:C402:C4A0:D189:1305:6697:EE66 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine: we are meant to be summarizing what's found in good sources and that's what we have here. There's no reason to dispute it (unless there is some reliable source that has been missed that does so). The alternative is simply to assert "Circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction" - but I think the current nuance is justified. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, that's not the only alternative, and would in fact be worse. Circumcision and its effects are still hotly contested and there is no consensus on it. Your bias is showing. 2601:640:C402:C4A0:D189:1305:6697:EE66 (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you summarize this source? Don't just attack what we have now, make a suggestion. - MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A new source: I suppose we might use PMID 27399981 which actually says "The highest level of evidence shows no perceived inferior male sexual function following non-medical circumcision"? Alexbrn (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"So how would you summarize this source? Don't just attack what we have now, make a suggestion." Perhaps something like "Multiple reviews indicate that circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." 2601:640:C402:C4A0:D189:1305:6697:EE66 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is only one source cited? There are several medical studies that have been done about the psychological effects of circumcision, and only citing one several times to claim that there is little consensus is incredibly disingenuous 76.107.1.11 (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite "studies" but secondary sources (which provide an overview of "studies") to represent current accepted knowledge in this area. Is there a more recent or more comprehensive one we've missed? Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several claims in this article reflect a distinct American bias, namely the statement that "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function," which cites the controversial 2012 AAP circumcision taskforce report. Several other medical institutions in the international community have lambasted this report, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association has explicitly stated it carries detrimental sexual effects: https://www.knmg.nl/advies-richtlijnen/dossiers/jongensbesnijdenis.htm

"Op latere leeftijd ontwikkelen besneden mannen veel vaker seksuele problemen." Translated: "Circumcised men are much more likely to develop sexual problems later in life."

The complete rejection of several secondary sources from medical institutions that conclude circumcision is detrimental only further demonstrates the strong bias towards American cultural mores on Wikipedia. 107.77.199.107 (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for this need to be WP:MEDRS. I suppose we might use PMID 27399981 which says "The highest level of evidence shows no perceived inferior male sexual function following non-medical circumcision"? Alexbrn (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep copy pasting this exact thing over and over, how does a secondary source from an internationally recognized medical body not count as WP:MEDRS? 76.107.1.11 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KNMG is a professional organisation for medical practitioners, not a major health organization. We have RS telling us the positions of major health organizations. We not going to use weak sources to undercut strong ones, especially when they have outlier views which are disjoint from accepted science on a topic. PMID 27399981 is relevant because it is a MEDRS source from the journal of the Danish Medical Association, which might more properly give you the European sourcing you want (not that science differs from country to country). The positions of various Dutch organizations is covered at Ethics of circumcision#Netherlands. Alexbrn (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how every organization/study that disagrees with you is considered by you to be "outlier views". Opposing view, sure, but hardly an outlier. How many more organizations and studies have to keep coming out until they stop being "outlier views" and just "opposing views"? This is the exact bias that we're talking about. 2601:640:C402:C4A0:B14B:3E71:2E64:994B (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying “science doesn’t differ from country to country” is really bold of you considering outside of America and its sphere of influence neonatal circumcision is not considered to be a justifiable routine medical procedure. In fact it’s very root in America is it’s usage as a sexually damaging procedure to prevent masturbation, which is flat out described in the article. Stop dogmatically assuming you know best and dancing around which sources you choose to accept as right. If you broadened your horizons a bit you’d notice how our partner sites in other languages treat this issue and realize how biased this article is towards an American cultural perspective 76.107.1.11 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]