Talk:Circumcision

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleCircumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 14, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Toolbox

Unreliable or problematic sources in article

I've noticed that a substantive portion of citations in the article (and other articles related to circumcision) relate to sources which are either:

  • Problematic for NPOV reasons (Both pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision)
  • Outdated information
  • Disproportionately focus attention on minor sources/or are WP: Fringe.

Unreliable or problematic "pro-circumcision" sources (e.g. Possible NPOV issues):

  • Brian Morris — Biologist and pro-routine circumcision activist whose metastudies conclusions have been widely disputed. (e.g. "The benefits to risk ratio exceeds 100 to 1" for starters) Possible NPOV issues in his conclusions and WP: Fringe. Many of his current citations within the article could be replaced with citations from major, reputable medical sources.
  • Several other pro-circumcision sources with similar problems to the previously mentioned. Not much to add here: beyond the fact that they have similar issues.

Problematic "anti-circumcision" sources (e.g. Possible NPOV issues):

  • Marilyn Milos — Anti-circumcision activist. Possible NPOV issues in his conclusions and WP: Fringe. (Now removed from the article)
  • Dan Bollinger — Anti-circumcision activist and Vice President of Intact America; several Wikipedia articles have cited his discredited claim that "117 individuals die every year" (or a similar number in the United States) Possible NPOV issues in his conclusions and WP: Fringe.
  • Robert Darby — Historian who is anti-circumcision who has made several disputed claims surrounding circumcision. Possible NPOV issues.
  • Ronald Goldman — Anti-circumcision psychologist who keeps getting re-added unto the "psychological effects" section. Many of his points are WP: Fringe or have problematic NPOV issues if given without context.
  • Gregory Boyle — Anti-circumcision psychologist whose rejection of a link between HIV and circumcision (in high context areas) seems unquestionably repeated. Instance of WP: Fringe and possible NPOV issues.

Unreliable or problematic for other reasons (e.g. Are outdated, promote other fringe perspectives, et al.):

  • Grafton Elliot Smith — Hyperdiffusionist historian whose archeological theories have long-time fallen in disrepute. Also falls under WP: Fringe.
  • Peter Charles Remondino — Physician; article gives outdated and disproportionate information to his views on circumcision.
  • Sami Aldeeb — Claim that "the Islamic tradition of circumcision was derived from the Pagan practices and rituals of pre-Islamic Arabia" is certainly not universally agreed upon by scholars. This part was recently added by an editor. But I can't seem to find the specific edit in which it was added unto. This viewpoint is certainly a case of WP: Fringe.
  • Another citation in the article also appears to promote the fringe claim that the Islamic God is a lunar deity. (I only found his article behind a paywall. So I'm not sure he actually states that: but it's definitely problematic regardless.) Similar problems with WP: Fringe.

I'm not suggesting that these sources be prohibited entirely altogether throughout the article. But if there's another possible citation for the sentence: I'm under the conviction that these sources should be replaced altogether. I'm sure there's others I missed: but these are the most glaring examples. KlayCax (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 8 August 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been much discussed before and the bottom line is that otherwise golden-standard sources cannot be ruled out because of personal/activist objections to individual authors and because they don't like the science. For obvious reasons, if this was allowed any science could be torpedoed by activist fussmaking. Alexbrn (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't agree to the alleged NPOV issues here. Even the wording "pro-circumcision activist" vs. "anti-circumcision activist" do not do justice to the problem that circumcision on minors is done without any medical indication in most cases and thus isn't covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There cannot be a neutral view on violations of human rights. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The allegedly discredited claim by intactivist Dan Bollinger that "117 individuals die every year" refers to an external link which leads to a single NY Times paywall article. This isn't much of a reference proving he has been discredited. The original study of Bollinger found a percentage which gives this estimated number of 117 deaths: "This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in theUnited States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes." Publicly available sources who tried to refute this study are made by proven circumfetishists like Jakes Waskett and Brian Morris. Furthermore, a human rights violation cannot be diminished by quantity as human rights are personal rights. Even if no child would die from circumcision (which is not the case), it would still be a human rights violation in each single case where the "surgery" was made without medical indication and medical urgency. Ulf Dunkel (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gregory Boyle is (or was) a distinguished professor of psychology. Robert Darby was an eminent medical historian. Dan Bollinger is (or was) active in a group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision - surely of relevance to anyone spruiking the (ahem) health benefits of non-consensual penile surgery (e.g. Wikipedia's Circumcision page). Ronald Goldman is a diligent compiler of medical studies in support of his "post-traumatic" model of neonatal genital harm. Now, why should we have to reinvent the wheel -- revisiting studies that go back several decades, to the early 1960s even -- when these brilliant minds have done that work for us? If you insist, we will. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead wording

There has been an overgoing, almost years-long dispute on the wording of this part of the lead. With one side stating that there is a consensus in the literature that circumcision definitely reduces STD's in certain contexts and reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections. The other saying that there is no consensus and that the lead should merely state that there is an "association" between circumcision and UTI/STD prevalence. A small minority of editors have gone further: stating that circumcision increases the incidence of STD's and UTI's: citing various sources.

Version #1:

Circumcision reduces rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections.

Version #2:

Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections

The RfC question:

  • Is circumcision merely "associated with" reducing STD's/UTI's? Or does it definitely reduce forms of both, given certain contexts?
  • Is version #1 or #2 a better description of consensus?

Note that this is not a discussion on whether circumcision in developed nations is appropriate, ethical, or should be routine. (Or whether risks outset these metrics.)

Rather, it is asking on whether there a general agreement among sources that circumcision definitely reduces UTI's and certain STD's in certain contexts?

A very similar RfC discussion is ongoing on the circumcision and HIV page. So editors here might want to check that out as well. Thanks! KlayCax (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Version 1, Scientific consensus (here, and with circumsion and HIV) seems to be that circumcision definitely reduces UTIs and STIs in certain contexts.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Version 2 The sources currently in the article use the term “associated”. Deviating from this wording would violate WP:OR. Prcc27 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's incorrect.
    Multiple sources within the article presently definitely state that it reduces the rates of UTI's and certain STD's. In no way would it violate WP: OR. KlayCax (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Many of the sources say “associated”, so that should continue to be reflected in the article. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Version 2. Suits more of the sources and is a more logical statement.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Version 2 makes the same point, but more carefully and I think it sounds more natural. It is also the version preferred by the clinical decision support I'm subscribed to, which is always reassuring. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The claim is outlandish, pure and simple, and should be removed. Not reworded. See the work of Brian Earp, et al. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding a citation on the long term negative effects of circumcision.

I would like to add this to the lede as its a very reputable source. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00619-8 Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done Not a reliable source, and even if it were WP:LEDEBOMBING would be bad. Bon courage (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The suggested source is as reliable as anything else on the Circumcision page. (By way of comparison, leading bioethicist Brian Earp has roundly debunked e.g. all of the WHO-sponsored science in support of VMMC in Africa). Gregory Boyle and others have also published on the long-term (lifelong, cumulative) psychosexual sequelae of neonatal circumcision. Ronald Goldman is another published expert in the field, with much to say. Other recent peer-reviewed publications suggest that we simply don't know the extent -- probably large -- of lifelong complications and psychosexual harms. The Global Survey of Circumcision Harms is another relevant document.
Reference to such material is especially important, given the leading "angle" of the wikipedia Circumcision page emphasising a prophylactic health benefit. That's like saying: amputation of baby toes would prevent all future toenail infections from occurring: YES there is a gross health benefit, but this has to be weighed against costs and inherent harms of the procedure (amputation of healthy, functional tissue is inherently harmful): arguably there is (less than) zero net health benefit to preemptive foreskin amputation. Furthermore, medical ethics and human/children's rights must be weighed against any ostensible medical benefit.
In its opening gambit (written from a quasi-medical perspective) the Wikipedia entry for Circumcision gets it quite wrong: Not all forms of male circumcision remove the entire foreskin. On the other hand, many routine circumcision procedures amputate all of the foreskin, and the frenulum besides. Robert Darby et al. have devised a typology of male genital surgeries, analogous to that employed by the UN, WHO etc. in relation to the four types of FGM.
When so and so cites "30%" or whatever men are circumcised, they fail to distinguish e.g. sub incision and other forms of penile surgery. To do so wrongly gives a false sense of security to those subject to particularly severe forms of cutting in Anglophone medical contexts. Most "circumcised" men (e.g. Muslims) aren't cut quite so severely as that!
Research from Australian circumcising doctors (and research from their opponents as well) demonstrates that -- by and large -- the medical rationale is the least significant factor in parental choice of irreversible genital surgery for their children.
I've been researching the issue for about ten years, please get in touch if you feel this Wikipedia page stands in need of a substantial, major revision. (To me conspicuous parts of it read as though it'd been written by circumcision fetishists the likes of Brian Morris, who has precisely zero relevant medical expertise.)
Par for the course, pretty much, on this taboo topic. A quasi-medical whitewash. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The suggested source is as reliable as anything else on the Circumcision page - It really isn't. See WP:MEDRS for how we evaluate medical sources on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You set the bar too high, because the study isn't a "medical" resource per se; its findings are rather more sociological in nature. I think you may have mistaken circumcision itself for some kind of "medical" procedure? LOL. This is precisely the failing of the Circumcision page as it stands.
If only Robert Darby (medical historian) and Dan Bollinger (medical doctor and bioethicist) weren't blacklisted from discussion here!! The fact that their insights seem to have been banned, gives pause for grave concern over Wikipedia's integrity, and freedom from bias, at least in relation to this topic.
But then maybe that's the overarching intention, to sanitise the topic by relying disproportionately on (ahem) medical wisdom, and thereby kill off any interest in countervailing factors (such as human and children's rights, bioethics, and even the law). Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MEDRS definitely applies, see Wikipedia:Biomedical information. MrOllie (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Christian circumcision" in the article

I've recently noticed that significant parts of the present article directly state or otherwise imply that circumcision is a common religious rite for Christians.

To anyone with knowledge surrounding this topic or Christian theology in general: this is a massive red flag surrounding the article's accuracy.

Anglophonic and Filipino circumcision

Citations surrounding this seem to be poorly worded statements from an array of authors stating that circumcision is a common prophylactic, cultural, or social practice in areas where Christians live.

However, it should be obvious that this does not make it automatically a rite that is performed because of Christianity. Anglosphere circumcision is predominately performed out of a belief that it's prophylactic against disease ("e.g. healthier that way") or as a cultural thing. (e.g. "To fit in" or "to look like dad".) Filipino circumcision predated the arrival of Catholicism to the islands.

None of these instances of circumcision are considered "religious obligations" or anything of the like.

Coptic circumcision

The present article also seems to suggest that circumcision is considered a religious obligation in Coptic Christianity. This seems to be primarily based on a poorly worded (or just straight out incorrect) sentence from Robert S. Ellwood in The Encyclopedia of World Religions (2008). (Although not mentioned by Ellwood, it appears to be referring how many Copts see it as an important social and cultural rite.)

"It is obligatory among Jews, Muslims, and Coptic Christians."

Stating that the Coptic observance of circumcision is religious in nature is similarly incorrect.

Similar to how Anglophonic and Filipino circumcision is not linked to religious observance: they're not circumcised because they're Coptic Christians, they're circumcised because it's a part of Coptic culture. That's a profound and meaningful difference. No branch of Coptic Christianity obligates circumcision for religious reasons — and circumcision outside of immediate medical necessity is (to quickly summarize a complex topic) outright prohibited after baptism. The sentence also has other obvious problems. Male circumcision is only considered obligatory (exempting profound circumstances) in Judaism and certain Islamic schools of thought. It is not mandatory (to my knowledge) among any Protestant Christian denomination, in Coptic Christianity, and in certain Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

I'm not sure how this was published by Ellwood (2008). I'm not familar with his works or him. But this sentence is a massive, egregious error, despite being published by a reliable publisher (and an apparently well-respected in the field of religious studies) author. Not sure what's the exact Wikipolicy in cases such as this, but it seems obvious to me that it should be left out entirely.

Other sources on the matter:

It's also contradicted by a multitude of sources dating back to the 19th century. For example, Anecdota Oxoniensia. Semitic Series: Volume 7 (1895) states:

Circumcision on the eighth day is customary, but not obligatory; on the other hand, the Coptic church forbids [cultural] circumcision after baptism.

Among many other sources with similar statements up to the 2010s.

Additional note:

Katherine Hunting in Hunting (2012) seems to make another, similar problematic error surrounding Christian observance of circumcision.

Neonatal circumcision is the general practice among Jews, Christians, and many, but not all Muslims

I'm not sure what the statement "neonatal circumcision is the general practice among... Christians..." comes from. But — from an historical, theological, and international perspective — it's similarly incorrect: a majority of Christian adherents around the world are not (and historically have not been) circumcised. Predominately, only those in Africa, the Phillippines, and the Anglosphere are; none for religious obligation. KlayCax (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging @SonoCat:. KlayCax (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The gospel is pretty clear, as were the Church fathers, that Christians have no spiritual need of genital surgery. The Catholic Church forbids mutilation and amputation (at least for spiritual reasons), on pain of hellfire. The Copts are the singular documented exception that I know of, but of course -- in Anglophone settler societies which happen also to be Christian -- circumcision has been widely adopted for cultural, quasi-medical (non-spiritual) reasons. The Christian faith defined itself on this very point, of opposition to compulsory forced circumcision of infant males. This is all recorded in the book of Acts, Paul's epistles, writings of the Church fathers, etc. "But Christians don't circumcise!" my treating clinical psychologist declared to me. I shrugged. Everybody knows this, and yet, and yet ... Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World Health Organization stance on circumcision

Hi, @Neveselbert:. Why did you state that Elsevier Health Sciences's Material Child Nursing Care, 7th Edition violates the tenets WP:MEDRS?

It's sourced from:

"The World Health Organization recognizes male circumcision as an important intervention in reducing the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV in men. The organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication."

A call for universal neonatal circumcision — with the exception of contraindication cases — has been the official policy of the WHO since 2010. KlayCax (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not what the source says. The WHO has never called for "universal neonatal circumcision". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neveselbert:. Like any procedure/healthcare treatment, the WHO's recommendations and guidance exempts those with contraindications, including male infants who weigh under 2.5 kilograms. (e.g. Low birth weight.) "Universal" in this case means "given normative health". All of this was explained to the reader in the original context.
e.g. As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure
As for Elsevier Health Sciences: it meets the criteria of WP:MEDRS in spades. It's an official textbook from a well-respected publisher. KlayCax (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't. The WHO has never called for it to be done on a universal basis. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Universal means that they universally recommend routine circumcision to the parents of all healthy male neonates. Of course there's exceptions for hemophilia, low birth rate, et al. The original edit stated: As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure
That's a near verbatim quote of the Elsevier Health Sciences textbook. KlayCax (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is nonsense. See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 83#Suggest one-word change, to clarify the WHO's position. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an inherent contradiction. Many European medical organization oppose the circumcision of neonates and children — even in areas of high HIV/AIDS prevalence — but have also participated in voluntary medical male circumcision efforts. All the WHO is stating is that they support males being voluntarily circumcised.
If Peter (the WHO) likes: (supports)
1.) A: "Walking" (e.g. Voluntary medical male circumcision efforts) 2.) "Running." (Circumcision of neonates) Is that a contradiction? No. KlayCax (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, they have never advocated for it on a universal basis on those who are unable to consent. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They view it as parents assenting (although it doesn't fit the definition of consenting) to the circumcision during the neonatal period.
Of course they don't support rounding up people and forcefully circumcising them.KlayCax (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elsevier Health Sciences's Material Child Nursing Care, 7th Edition states: The organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication. It's hard to get more explicit than that. WP:MEDRS is passed.
This doesn't mean that the WHO is right. It just means that they presently hold that position, as of 2022. KlayCax (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not "passed" at all. Unless you can provide a source from the WHO itself confirming they recommend "universal neonatal circumcision"? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I didn't mean that they stated all men should be circumcised. Of course there's exceptions. Perry et al. (2022) states "the organization recommends early infant circumcision for newborn males weighing more than 2500 g and without medical contraindication". Do you just want that quoted verbatim instead? Elsevier Health Sciences is one of multiple WP:MEDRS-compliant sources which have stated similar. (My academic resource states the same.)
A lot has changed since Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) published.
It's okay if the article states things that occured past the year it was published which contradict it. KlayCax (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you can't provide a source from the WHO itself confirming? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Of course there's exceptions., the exception being that the supposed "benefits" are nowhere near enough to recommend doing it routinely. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry for the late response, Neveselbert. I contracted a bad cold and was sick for a few days.
So you can't provide a source from the WHO itself confirming? Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia (2010) is widely viewed as a recommendation for universal circumcision from multiple reliable sources. (Along with other statements published by them.) At the very least, the statement No major medical organization recommends circumcising all males is not universally agreed upon by reliable sources. (My Up-To-Date guidance states the WHO does recommend it.) The exception being that the supposed "benefits" are nowhere near enough to recommend doing it routinely In developed countries?
I agree. But this article isn't about what is the ideal policy. It's about what's currently policy.
The WHO has recommended infant circumcision (at least in areas of high HIV prevalence) since 2010. KlayCax (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 2010 PDF does not explicitly recommend the practice, stating The decision to have a newborn male circumcised is very personal and should be made after careful consideration of the risks and benefits and cultural, religious, and personal preferences. Therefore, the statement No major medical organization recommends circumcising all males is broadly accurate. As for In developed countries?, of course, though even in developing countries there is no consensus for a routine recommendation among the young. The WHO may have indicated such a recommendation in areas of high HIV prevalence, but this is still not explicitly stated by policy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many of the primary resources related to the World Health Organization have suffered link rot since the site transferred to a new domain in 2020. Because of this, it's almost impossible for many of these things to be primary sourced. (Luckily, it's not a requirement for WP:MEDRS - and if anything, it's discouraged - and it's harder to find a higher quality source than official guidelines published by Elsevier Medical to doctors.)
The World Health Organization now recommends that male circumcision be offered as an HIV prevention intervention... and recommends neonatal circumcision... should be an important component of prevention campaigns since "neonatal circumcision is a less complicated and risky procedure than circumcision performed in young boys, adolescents or adults [and] countries should consider how to promote neonatal circumcision in a safe, culturally acceptable and sustainable manner." - Acceptability of Infant Male Circumcision as Part of HIV Prevention and Male Reproductive Health Efforts in Gaborone, Botswana, and Surrounding Areas (2009); published in AIDS and Behavior. though even in developing countries there is no consensus for a routine recommendation among the young The statement is exclusively about the World Health Organization. It doesn't claim that there is a consensus in the matter. is broadly accurate Elsevier Health Sciences (2022) guidelines explicitly disputes Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick's interpretation.
At the very best, Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick's interpretation is disputed in reliable sources, and contradicted by Elsevier (from official 2022 guidelines).
That's heavily problematic. KlayCax (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a WP:RFC would be in order here? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to strongly oppose WP: RFC's whenever possible: it's a measure of last resort. I think it's entirely possible to work this out without one.
I'm okay with both statements - As of 2022, the World Health Organization recommends universal infant circumcision of male neonates, provided that there are no contraindications for the procedure and No major medical organization recommends circumcising all males being removed from the article. Since Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) contradicts the first (although I argue it's outdated) and (Perry et al., 2022) Elsevier Health Sciences contradicts the other. Perhaps a note could also be added explaining the differing interpretations of the WHO's position. KlayCax (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with removing the latter statement is that it's been included in the article for a long time, indeed for much if not most of the period since 2010, so I do believe an RFC would be advisable here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll start one if you feel it's necessary, @Neveselbert:.KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article's image for anti-circumcision protestors

The current image in the article makes opponents of routine circumcision come across as kooky. (e.g. It gives off major "crazy guy with a sign on a street corner" vibes)

Is there any better pictures we could use? If not, I think it should be removed from the article entirely. KlayCax (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m very open to replacing the photo. But for now, we should have at least something in ethics section. I don’t have strong feelings about the current photo, and in all honesty, it could be worse (think Bloodstained men kooky worse). Prcc27 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also open but not overly concerned with the status quo. There are more options at Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-circumcision. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also not really concerned about this. People seem to protest about everything, so I don't think protesting is necessarily looked down upon. Maybe this is more up to everyone's personal interpretation. Piccco (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do most major medical organizations actually take a stance on the ethics of circumcision?

A few months ago the statement in the lead:

Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on prophylactic efficacy related to the elective circumcision of minors.

Was changed into:

Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on prophylactic efficacy and cost-effectiveness related to the elective circumcision of minors.

As a compromise wording. But I honestly can't find many major medical organizations that take an official position on the matter at all — and it's not found in any sources.

Supportive:

Neutral:

Against:

Papers — among both supporters and critics of routine circumcision — generally comment on a "neutral stance" of major medical organization's as well. I can't find many organizations that actually come out and explicitly state it is ethical (outside of the American Medical Assocation/WHO) or unethical. (Outside of a few Dutch medical organizations.) KlayCax (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prcc27: What is the statement "major medical organizations hold widely variant positions on the ethics of circumcising minors" based on?
It's not found in Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012). The only major medical organization positions that I can find that explicitly state a position on the ethics of minors are the American Medical Association in 2010 and Royal Dutch Medical Association in 2011. Both medical organizations have automatically expiring policies after five or ten years and both are arguably non-major. There's been ethical discussions in the academic literature. That's different from major medical organizations. The claim is unsourced. KlayCax (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was consensus to give due weight to controversies like bioethics. There is more than one source, not sure if the Bolnick source is where the bioethics claim comes from exclusively or not. Also, I personally do think AMA and KNMG are major medical organizations. Prcc27 (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was an agreement to have a mention of ethics in the lead. There was no consensus to ever attach it to the statement "major medical organizations".
Adding it was immediately opposed by other editors at the time. (Including @Bon courage:, me, and others.) We already have an ethics statement in the lead, @Prcc27:. It's the part that says "major medical organizations" that's undue. not sure if the Bolnick source is where the bioethics claim comes from exclusively or not It's not mentioned in any source. Reliable sources — from both supporters and critics — state that most major (and minor) medical organizations have not made any statements favoring or opposing the ethics of circumcising minors.
The sentence is not found in any citation currently in the article. The sources about the matter that I could find state that a majority haven't published statements on the ethics of it. KlayCax (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where is the ethics statement in the lead..? Without the “bioethics” sentence, there does not seem to be one. Please review WP:Canvas, before tagging users in discussions they are not actively involved in. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added an ethics mention for the lead a few months back, per request. Without the “bioethics” sentence, there does not seem to be one. The lead states right after: There are varying cultural, ethical, and social views on the practice. I tagged Bon Courage because he was previously involved in the conversation.
The AMA statement was also a comment - not a policy paper - and their current leadership has made no similar comments. How can we say that major medical organizations hold "widely varying views" if: 1.) Even American medical organizations hold an official "neutral view" on its ethics and there's none with current policy positions that officially state it is ethical 2.) Official ethical opposition is limited to two Scandinavian (arguably non-major) medical organizations say it is not ethical 3.) The vast majority of reliable sources (from both supporters and opponents) state that major medical organizations have predominately stayed out of it.
The current wording is a sloppy WP: Synth, factually incorrect, and not sourced from any of the citations in the article. KlayCax (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prcc27:. If you can find a current policy paper from a major medical organization that currently and explicitly states that electively circumcising minors in developed countries is ethical: feel free to readd. It's not found in any present source in the article. This includes Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012). I'm (or anyone else) is not objecting to ethics in the lead. It's the major medical organization part that's unsupported and contradicts reliable sources. KlayCax (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ethical mentions are WP: Due and are (and should remain) mentioned in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seven issues with first paragraph alone

Seven issues with the first paragraph alone:

1. Circumcision is only a “procedure” (embedded link to surgery as medical specialisation) in cases performed in a clinical setting. What proportion of global circumcisions are thus performed? What proportion are performed in non-clinical settings? 2. If it is a medical procedure, then why not use medical parlance: amputates, etc. instead of the euphemism “removes the foreskin” (and what about the frenulum? the extent of foreskin ”removal” is highly variable). According to my OED, the only pertinent definition of “removal” is: “the act of taking away entirely.” This is clearly not the case for, e.g. traditional cultural forms of circumcision which only remove a portion of foreskin. According to my New Oxford American Dictionary (Apple Mac OS) the only pertinent definition of “removal” is: “the action or taking away of something unwanted” – extremely misleading in the context of non-consensual, non-therapeutic foreskin amputation. Who says the foreskin is "unwanted"? Typically not the owner of the mutilated (to use the correct medical term) penis. 3. “the most common form of the procedure” -- needs citation 4. “anaesthesia is generally used” -- needs citation 5. It is NEVER “usually elective” in cases of neonatal/juvenile circumcision; rather, in all such cases it is clearly a non-consensual (and non-therapeutic) surgical intervention; at very least this requires clarification; that consent is issued by proxy, and not by the victim/survivor/”beneficiary” of penile surgery himself, especially among neonatal foreskin ”donors” 6. It is (or medico-ethically, should be) a LAST RESORT not “an option” for cases of phimosis … 7. It is pointless to give a neat summary/description of the procedure here. In neonatal cases, the child must be forcibly restrained, and his foreskin torn from the glans to which it is fused. Alas one of our most widely-read descriptors of this procedure has been effectively banned (Marilyn Milos gives an influential account of her experience as a paediatric nurse, but it seems because of her activism she is blacklisted here)

There are wildly different forms of male circumcision (and of male genital cutting more broadly). What unites them all, if anything, is a systematic disregard for human and children's welfare and rights, and the intentional decimation of human sexual potential and the capacity for pleasure.

Circumcision long predates the medical paradigm, and persists despite the failure of medical rationalisations. In Australia, the research (both for and against the practice) strongly suggests that a medical rationale is the least of all factors driving parental choice to circumcise. Why does Wikipedia so strongly insist on its dubious (to say the least) medical credentials? Any reader of Robert Darby's history of anglophone "medical" circumcision would rightly scoff. And to my knowledge, there is no better medical history than that of Darby.

Frankly, this page is a discredit to Wikipedia ... and I'm only at paragraph one. But if this is precisely how Wikipedia operates (an acronym - NPOV - eliminating the works of any scholar who happens also to be an activist) then what hope is there for a balanced perspective? The world's most prolific bioethicist (and critic) in matters of genital surgery, Brian Earp, doesn't warrant so much as a footnote? There's something terribly wrong with this picture, which gives a misleading account of the (putative) ethical acceptability of male circumcision. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m not sure if most sources say “removal” instead of “amputation”, but I am open to the “amputated” wording, and I believe the AAP used that kind of language in an old policy statement. Prcc27 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removal : rubbish, waste, defective organs (e.g. ruptured appendix), unsightly stains and spots. Not applicable to healthy, functional body parts - unless, of course, one's cultural norms tend to dictate the superfluousness, unsightliness, dirtiness, undesirability of the male prepuce (to use the appropriate medical term, instead of that most misleading of euphemisms, "foreskin"). Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's used by the National Health Service in the UK: The foreskin is removed just behind the head of the penis using a scalpel or surgical scissors.
It's also the definition used by the Canadian Urological Association, AAP, CDC, et al. Removal doesn't have a negative connotation.
Removal of the frenulum isn't circumcision. It's frenectomy. Ethical and legal issues are already covered in depth.KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“amputation of the prepuce, either in whole or in part, up to and including the frenulum” would accurately cover just about all known forms of male circumcision.
For the record, my own frenulum was "removed" as a matter of routine neonatal circumcision. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Darby-Svoboda's typology of male genital cutting, which I am happy to provide. You will find that many circumcised males, particularly in Anglophone medical contexts, have also been subject to frenectomy; and that such outcomes are quite intentional on the part of the circumcision provider. Is it possible to have a frenectomy without circumcision? I think not!
To complicate matters – including statistics on global prevalence – other forms of customary or routine male genital cutting (e.g. Filipino super-incision, which does not destroy either part or whole of either foreskin or frenulum) may have been erroneously included under the rubric of “male circumcision.” Pro-circumcision researchers have a vested self-interest in exaggerating global prevalence (i.e. it makes them feel better about belonging to a minority of sexually mutilated human beings). Accordingly, such statistics must be regarded with a high degree of circumspection. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS I'll bet my PhD in English that "removal" does carry said negative connotations (e.g. something "unwanted" as given in dictionary definition provided above). By what authority do you claim otherwise?
The UK-NHS notion that "the foreskin is removed just behind the head of the penis" describes only one of many possible circumcision procedures. Providers themselves often advertise a range of foreskin-cutting techniques and outcomes. American doctors in particular, are known for more aggressive procedures, and the styling of "tightly" circumcised penises.
More traditional but still extant forms of circumcision -- which target only the overhanging portion of the prepuce (e.g. African puberty rites, Hebrew customs prior to about 150 AD) -- don't fit the UK-NHS model at all. Its definition may be authoritative, but it is by no means accurate or comprehensive -- par for the course, I'd warrant. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is all WP:OR. We can't just make up our own definition on the talk page. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AAP (1999) said that circumcision produces “amputation of the foreskin.” I don’t really think the definition is made up or WP:OR. Whether it is WP:DUE or not is the question. Prcc27 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ethnocentrism, cultural bias, exclusivity

The emphasis on male circumcision as a “medical” procedure is wholly unjustified. Not only does Wikipedia ignore the fact that the procedure is, literally, “the world’s most controversial surgery” (Gollaher 2000), one which predates the advent of modern or even ancient medicine by countless aeons; it also ignores the fact that – even in former British colonies such as Australia, where no professional medical body has ascribed a single therapeutic benefit since 1971 – parental choice to circumcise male children is motivated by anything but medical necessity. According to a study by circumcision providers themselves (Xu & Goldman 2008), “hygiene” and “family tradition” outstripped “medical reasons” by a factor of 3 and 2, respectively. Circumcision opponents go even further, observing that: “few parents have any clear reasons for wanting their sons circumcised and produce them only when challenged. The most common justifications turn out to be the supposed need to look like the father or peers and not to be teased in the proverbial locker room. If ‘health benefits’ are mentioned at all, they enter as an afterthought or when other arguments fail” (Darby 2005).

The Wikipedia entry for male circumcision turns all of this on its head. From its opening gambit, ostensible medical benefit is vigorously promoted as the underlying rationale for the procedure. No history, no cultural context; just a bald regurgitation of the culturally myopic pro-circumcision lobby’s desperately evidenced claims. This, to any informed reader, must smack of cultural bias.

Unlike their North American counterparts, neither Jews nor Muslims nor First Nations people from Africa or Oceania, submit their sons to circumcision for medical reasons. That’s a significant swathe of the world’s circumcising population. What would they make of Wikipedia’s wholly ethnocentric approach, not just to male circumcision, but to its traditional female counterpart? The underlying assumption – that male and female forms of genital cutting are anything but equivalent – makes sense only to a Westerner steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition.

In its pedantic adherence to authoritative forms of institutional knowledge, Wikipedia runs the risk of collaborating with, i.e. facilitating, neo-imperialism. A loose coalition of leading bioethicists and cultural anthropologists has comprehensively critiqued US- and WHO-sponsored programs to circumcise e.g. sub-Saharan Africa – precisely on account of their glaring ethnocentrism. Black foreskins have been highly prized by the medical establishment since Victorian times; see Remondino (mentioned elsewhere on this page) for details. The global foreskin harvest, driven by recent advances in biotechnology such as iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells), demands ever more intensive bioethical scrutiny, not less.

Wikipedia must ensure that its holdings of knowledge are culturally safe, and appropriate.

NB full citations available upon request. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Prunella Vulgaris: You are definitely in the place to drop the citations. There is never a need to offer them by request, as no conversation here will advance without them. Consider starting with your few best ones and tie them to points. Alternatively and preferred, just starting editing the wiki article as you wish and cite your sources. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On ethnocentrism in hegemonic (WHO-sponsored) genital-cutting regimes:
(2012), Seven Things to Know about Female Genital Surgeries in Africa. Hastings Center Report, 42: 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.81
Earp BD, Johnsdotter S. Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation. Int J Impot Res. 2021 Mar;33(2):196-209. doi: 10.1038/s41443-020-0302-0. Epub 2020 May 26. PMID: 32457498.
Fish, M, Shahvisi, A, Gwaambuka, T, Tangwa, GB, Ncayiyana, D, Earp, BD. A new Tuskegee? Unethical human experimentation and Western neocolonialism in the mass circumcision of African men. Developing World Bioeth. 2021; 21: 211– 226. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12285 Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From its opening gambit, ostensible medical benefit is vigorously promoted as the underlying rationale for the procedure. The article never states that medical reasons are the primary reason. It states the opposite. It reads: "It is usually elective, performed as preventive healthcare, a religious rite, or cultural practice." and that Muslims make up at least 50% of circumcised individuals. Similarly, the article states that: Major medical organizations hold widely variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of circumcising minors. That's remarkably far from a ringing endorsement.
Unlike their North American counterparts, neither Jews nor Muslims nor First Nations people from Africa or Oceania, submit their sons to circumcision for medical reasons. That’s a significant swathe of the world’s circumcising population. We repeatedly and directly state that in the article. Again, what are you objecting to?
In its pedantic adherence to authoritative forms of institutional knowledge Then we need major medical organizations to state it. The fact that medical organizations in non-circumcising cultures overwhelmingly state that circumcision doesn't predominately affect sexual function (to respond to your post above) is why we can't state it.
makes sense only to a Westerner steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition. Judeo-Christian tradition? Christianity has no doctrine of circumcision and Jews make up a miniscule portion of the global circumcised population. Many Christian cultures have been outright hostile to the continued practice of circumcision: both religious and in a prophylactic sense. Most Western circumcision is secular.
The global foreskin harvest, driven by recent advances in biotechnology such as iPSC (induced pluripotent stem cells), demands ever more intensive bioethical scrutiny, not less. As someone in the urology field, the vast majority of neonatal foreskins are incinerated as medical waste. They're not being routinely "harvested". They're cell lines from a miniscule portion (50 or less) of neonates.
As for the final part: Wikipedia can't do activism or express a POV in terms of ethics. Articles just report what the world is. Not what we'd like it to be. KlayCax (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Circumcision article lacks intelligent structure, design or plan. It begins -- in media res -- with the post-hoc medical rationalisations for a Stone Age custom that wasn't even, to begin with, yet religious. Exact motivations for the procedure are similarly obscure, although I have indicated (with evidence) they are not primarily medical in nature (even in developed nations with advanced medical infrastructure).
Instead of this RRSS*, I suggest that the article on Capitalism be used as a model, with a logical format and structure, and including a brief summary of Criticisms, linking to a Wikipedia page of Criticisms in detail. As things stand, we have the equivalent of an article on Capitalism, without proper consideration of its history, typology, cultural and geographical variants, or any mention of Karl Marx (most of the leading circumcision critics are effectively blacklisted, on this very :talk page).
How's this for begging the question? The medical establishment doesn't have a problem with circumcision, because ... it's a "medical" procedure! It isn't harmful because ... doctors say it isn't! Not good enough, to countless victims of sexual mutilation, to whom Wikipedia adds insult to injury. We don't need medical organisations to confer authority, IF as critics argue, this is not a medical procedure at all, but rather a grim travesty of one (copious volumes have been written on the topic already; presumably none of which would pass Wikipedia's "medical" gatekeepers; but I shall have to marshal a few of them and give it my best shot).
Tissue engineering since the early 1990s has made a multibillion-dollar industry out of foreskins (not cultivated cell lines per se; foreskin fibroblasts etc. have only a limited shelf life and are not readily immortalised, to the best of my knowledge). Since circa 2006, foreskins have become "a hot commodity in science" (

Molly Glick. ‘Why Foreskin is a Hot Commodity in Science.’ Discover Magazine. 27 July 2021. Accessed 7 January 2023. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-human-foreskin-is-a-hot-commodity-in-science ), especially with the advent of iPSC technology. The pioneers of iPSC point to the need for a much higher standard of informed consent on the part of cell donors (i.e. NOT parental consent in lieu). If you have evidence that fewer than 50 neonates have powered a multibillion-dollar biotech boom, then by all means please adduce. Because, accessing knowledge of Big Pharma's financial and other operations is well-nigh impossible to those of us outside the loop. (Industry-insider information is prohibitively expensive!). In an era of gene therapy, pre-emptive foreskin amputation deprives the individual of a potential future therapeutic benefit: forget treating UTIs; how about cures for cancer, infertility, Parkinson's etc. -- if we are to believe the scientific hype.

"Wikipedia can't do activism" ... then why a page on Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky, etc.? Let's just have the Capitalism page without any criticism of it whatsoever! I remind everyone that the topic at hand, properly considered, is that of non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital mutilation (to use clinically precise terminology, rather than this overloaded signifier, Circumcision). Only further question-begging allows escape from that harsh reality ("the world as it is. Not what we'd like it to be," as mentioned above).
The Circumcision article comes nowhere near a NPOV. If it did, it would treat male and female alike, for starters. And take a much broader, more comprehensive -- and more humane -- view of one of the enduring mysteries of our species. Western medicine alone is a poor guide to understanding the compulsion to sexually mutilate our children. But certainly, it has been a principal driver of the practice in modern (post-Victorian) times. Things can only get worse, if we do nothing to check the flow of innocent genital blood.
(*RRSS is my personalised boffin-code for "right royal shit show" -- please excuse the language. Honestly, I've never come across a worse-written, grossly misleading Wikipedia article, irrespective of my ethical and political leanings. To the well-informed, it's virtually unreadable.) Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NPOV does not mean false balance. MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an emergent "global consensus" within bioethical and legal thought, on the malfeasance of non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital mutilation (citation to come).
Circumcision is not exclusively, nor is it even primarily, a medical phenomenon. It would be grossly inappropriate for medical doctors, especially those who profit from male circumcision, to govern public discourse on the topic.
False balance cuts both ways. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
J. Steven Svoboda (2015) Growing World Consensus to Leave Circumcision Decision to the Affected Individual, The American Journal of Bioethics, 15:2, 46-48, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2014.990760 Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's an "emerging world consensus" according to a commentary by the founder of anti-circumcision group Attorneys for the Rights of the Child. I wouldn't cite that in the article, just as I wouldn't cite the numerous other commentaries published alongside the target article "Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights", the central thesis of which appears to be that circumcision is not a human rights violation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I say "Judeo-Christian tradition" of the west, because Christianity was the vehicle or gateway for Jewish influence on Victorian medicine. I am fully aware that the sacred texts of mainstream Christianity preach opposition to male circumcision. In Puritan North America, however, anti-sex tendencies inherent within Christianity probably engendered the adoption of drastic measures to curtail sexual freedom of expression. This historical context, at least partially, explains why the United States alone among former British colonies, continues to adhere to a Jewish custom adopted by Anglophone doctors in the Victorian age. See, e.g.:
Robert Darby (2005). A Surgical Temptation: The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • The isolation of foreskin fibroblasts—a process for which, I do believe, Brian Morris holds relevant (typically undisclosed) patents and licencing agreements with pharmaceutical corporations such as Roche (citation needed)—is considered “the classic first step” in the derivation of human induced pluripotent stem cells or hiPSCs. [Fang, et al. Biological characters of human dermal fibroblasts derived from foreskin of male infertile patients. Tissue and Cell 49 (2017) 56–63.] But as one of the pioneers of iPSC has stated, in relation to the virtually limitless potential for foreskin cells to be developed into other organs and even so-called “embryoid bodies”: “Informed consent is a major ethical concern in derivation and applications of hiPSCs, and hiPSCs can be induced from somatic cells only if cell donors agree to take the cells from their bodies for derivation of hiPSCs. Cell donors in hiPSCs research have rights to know body parts from which their cells will be taken, the methods applied to derive the body cells, and the areas of hiPSCs research involving use of the donated cells.” [Zheng, Yue Liang. Some ethical concerns about human induced pluripotent stem cells. Sci Eng Ethics (2016) 22: 1277–1284, at 1281–1282.]

Are future prevalence estimates an actual instance of WP: Crystal?

@Prcc27:, why did you delete projections about future global circumcision incidence/prevalence from the article? Isn't this a clear instance where WP: Crystal does not apply?

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included...

Seeing as how the vast majority of circumcisions are Islamic (anywhere from 50% to 70% of the total circumcised male population in the world) — rather than prophylactic — is it really that WP: Fringe or WP: Undue of a notion? From an international perspective: whatever Anglophonic medical organizations decide is relatively inconsequential to global circumcision incidence.

Even if all of the countries within the Anglosphere stopped it completely (bringing future incidence to 0%) — Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the United States, and the United Kingdom — this is indisputably far offset by ongoing African and Islamic population growth. At least for the foreseeable future. (e.g. 2050. Where the projection ends.)

Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) is a reliable source/others have given similar projections. Others are from Jörg Albrecht (2021) and Basaran (2023). KlayCax (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would be interesting to see what those newer sources say; do you have a link? The 2012 source is old, so probably WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP: Undue states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. How does that rule apply in this situation? It's not a fringe perspective. It's entirely in line with the literature. It's indisputable given the % of circumcisions performed for stated prophylactic, cultural, and religious circumcisions, along with where world population growth and demographic trends are going. Outside of the United States, Canada, and remnant continuation in Australia and New Zealand, prophylactic-justified circumcision is predominately uncommon throughout the world. It's obvious that the main trends in incidence relate to the percentage of Muslims in the global world population and African population growth. Even a theoretical total abandonment of circumcision within the Anglophonic world would barely make a notable change in rates.
Circumcision and the Community (2020; p.11) by Ahmad Zaghal and ‎Nishat Rahman (in 2020) for instance states: The reason for the rise in MC prevalence could be attributed to the rising number of Muslims worldwide and to the initiation of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes encouraged by the WHO and the joint United Nations agency programs... I'm not going to overload you with references that state similar. But the rise in circumcision incidence stated by Jacobs & Grady & Bolnick (2012) is in line with the literature. What makes you think it's a fringe perspective?
Given that Islamic/African circumcision makes up a large majority of circumcisions. (Even now.) It's not a WP: Fringe perspective to state it's going to be rising until 2050. The projection is entirely conservative, from multiple reliable sources, and is entirely in line with current demographic data. The other statements deleted are near-verbatim quotes from Jörg Albrecht (2021) and Basaran (2023). Both of which are under two years old, are from reliable publishers, and sourced. If you have a source that states that international circumcision incidence is dropping (outside of the Anglophonic world) feel free to add. It's just that — whatever the Anglophonic world does — it won't impact the overall rise in incidence. KlayCax (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn’t seem DUE to use an 11 year old source for projections. A lot can happen in 11 years, and if there are newer sources, those would be preferable. Also, a paragraph on projections would need to be concise. Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zaghal and Rahman (2020) (slightly over two years old) states similar. I have no objections to making it more concise.
WP: Due wouldn't apply here. It's not a fringe perspective to say it's rising in the academic literature. KlayCax (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prcc27:. I made the sentence concise and provided a source from two years ago. Why did you delete? KlayCax (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The current consensus is that the 2012 source is UNDUE. The Zaghal and Rahman (2020) source could possibly remain in the article, but it wouldn’t be in the future section. @Piccco:, do you think the Zaghal and Rahman (2020) source is DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The two arguments from the Zaghal and Rahman (2020) quote seem a little more specific and not as vague as the 2012 quote. I guess that quote could have a mention in the prevalence section. Piccco (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think what may be a little undue about this subsection is not necessarily the date of the publication, but the usage of only one source that emphasizes only on the rising tendencies of the phenomenon.

The logic behind the prediction (the rise of muslim population in the past decades and the probable continuation of this tendency) seems substantial. What this source fails to do, however, is showcase the different tendencies for religious and non-religious/cultural circumcision and the different regional tendencies, mainly in the Anglophonic world.

Indeed, the prevalence of the procedure may have been steady in Africa and the Middle East (mainly due to Muslim & Jewish faith), but in other regions, where the procedure was prevalent in the past for non religious reasons, the tendencies seem to be a lot different in the past few decades. Mainly in Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand, maybe also in the USA and South Korea(?).

The prediction itself may not be mistaken. It tries to predict the numbers on a global level. Its weakness, however, is that by emphasizing on the global scale it doesn't give a clear image about the different regional tendencies in other places of the world.

Also, I think the point about the positive recommendations by medical organizations, may be little vague too, considering that these policies are constantly altered, renewed etc.

The challenge with this type of information is that it is constantly changing and needs to be regularly checked and updated with the latest data. Piccco (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National circumcision incidence and prevalence would have to be constantly changed and checked far more than international rates.
We have similar projections from other sources. Note that Zaghal and Rahman (2020) says similar. "The reason for the rise in MC prevalence could be attributed to the rising number of Muslims worldwide and to the initiation of voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) programmes encouraged by the WHO and the joint United Nations agency programs".
What this source fails to do, however, is showcase the different tendencies for religious and non-religious/cultural circumcision and the different regional tendencies, mainly in the Anglophonic world. Zaghal and Rahman (2020) could help with that. As for the other part: adding future circumcision rates of various countries raises its own problems.
Anglophonic prevalence appears to be decreasing. Although I'm uncertain if there's any current changes in current incidence. The nature of the United States — which compromises 333 million people out of the estimated 470 million in the core Anglosphere — healthcare system makes it notoriously difficult to calculate true circumcision incidence changes.
Meanwhile, the rest of the Anglophonic world (outside of Australia and Canada) has dropped non-religious circumcision long ago. KlayCax (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tissue disposal?

The question naturally arises, at least among certain sections of Wikipedia’s readership: What becomes of the amputated penile tissue? Across cultures the foreskin may be discarded, eaten, buried, sanctified as burnt offering, incinerated as medical waste, or collected for biotechnological ends (a lucrative output of cosmetics, engineered skin, and any number of biomedical research products). Obviously, nobody knows the fate of each and every foreskin, as there is extremely limited (typically zero) regulation of male genital-cutting practices.

(The only sources I can think of here would be anthropological texts, some of which may not pass some imagined “gold standard” of medical research for this topic? These same texts would also be of great benefit to understanding “origins” and “history” of male circumcision, to nominate two other sections sorely missing from this article.)

By including a few sentences on the fate of the amputated foreskin, something of the immense cultural, geographical and historical sweep of male circumcision would be conveyed. This information would help counter distortions generated by Eurocentric, Anglophone, and/or professional medical bias.

Caveat: the amputation and collection of healthy, functional tissue without knowledge or consent (e.g. in the case of neonatal circumcision) raises a number of ethical and legal concerns. Those could be addressed here, or in a separate section discussing said concerns more broadly. PS that’s not activism: just rudimentary jurisprudence and bioethics, on a firm foundation of scholarship, which have been routinely and actively suppressed from pro-circumcision arguments. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question does not "naturally arise" any more than questions like "what happens to removed appendixes?". Seems a bit odd. In the UK the Human Tissue Act 2004 applies. Bon courage (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The myth of the "Ridged Band"

Editors are once again attempting to weave together fringe information into articles surrounding male sexual anatomy. Absurdly implying that circumcised men have lost sexually important parts of their own penis or are otherwise dysfunctional. Unsurprisingly, the same anti-circumcision lexicon and "researchers" are back again.

The notion of a "ridged band" comes from an anti-circumcision activist, John Taylor, in the 1990s. The article on the matter was utterly absurd, unsourced, and overfilling with outright false information. Claiming that this mythical structure is supposedly responsible for the majority of male sexual pleasure, is overwhelmingly sensitive, the whole typical lingo.

Per @Bon courage:

WP:MEDRS sources generally need to be secondary and recent. This is getting off-topic but yes, the term "ridged band" seems to have been taken up by John Taylor in the 1990s and became part of the circumcision activist lore (another vital anatomical structure that circumcision destroys!). Indeed on the front page of cirp.org viewers are encouraged to visit the "Ridged Band" web site. Yet, if we get up-to-date, the term seems to have no lasting mainstream currency and the only recent WP:MEDRS secondary independent source I can find (Cox et al. 2015. PMID 26185672) had this to say: The “ridged band” seems to be a name used for the concertinaed distal skin that becomes stretched for retraction over the glans. We consider that such a conformation is merely a matter of individual idiosyncrasy and not a universal feature. Furthermore, different illustrations of the so-called “ridged band” do not appear to show the same structure.. .So presenting it as a fact in Wikipedia, even identifying it (as something different even from the sources) on the opening image caption of our Foreskin article (before I zapped it) was, to put it mildly, problematic.

The AAP denies the notion of a "ridged band" as well. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concept is now covered in some medical textbooks.[1] so this offers some better sourcing to include. Don't think there is so much material is needs to be spun off into a standalone article. Bon courage (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term still seems relatively fringe. A quick glance of Google Scholar (search the term "ridged band" since 2015) shows that almost no reliable source mentions it. The ones that do almost exclusively bring it up surrounding the history of the routine circumcision debate. Essentially none bring it up in its own right. I also don't think that the source is making an argument for or against its existence. It simply seems to be reporting what Taylor and McGrath believed on the issue. That's a big difference. In a book about the issue of circumcision, it's not surprising to see it being mentioned. Note that the American Academy of Pediatrics also disputes the existence of it as well.
I'd also note that medical organizations hostile to circumcision have never mentioned the term as well. Surely one of the Nordic ones, which seem overwhelmingly hostile to circumcision, would have brought the concept up, right? However, none of them do. This strongly suggests that the concept is still fringe and doesn't belong in an article. OntologicalTree (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As @Bon courage said, the term has some coverage in litarature making it worth a mention, but maybe not widespread coverage. As you suggested in your summary, the key points could merge in the foreskin article. I personally wouldn't really mind a merge. It was also proposed by @KlayCax. Tagging OntologicalTree Piccco (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The implication that it would make is that circumcised men are missing important/sexually sensitive parts of their penis. That's an extreme claim. The reliable source quoted by @Bon courage: is simply showing what McGrath and Taylor believed. Not whether it's true. It makes no statement for or against the idea. The one's that do, including from the AAP, directly contradict their given claims. That's why it shouldn't be included in the article.
We've had multiple RFC's finding that sexual sensation is not changed (improved or worsened) by circumcision. (A logical implication of the supposed ridged band being sensitive.) Yet people keep wanting to beat the horse. I'm not blaming you, since you've only made a few recent edits: but this is getting absurd.
It may be true that @KlayCax: was okay with a merge, but @MrOllie: and other editors have strongly opposed any mention of the ridged band in general. As do I. I'm unsure why a relatively fringe notion among anti-circumcision activists should be treated the same as an AAP. It's undue and misrepresents the scientific literature.OntologicalTree (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we didn't say that we would necessarily include all the controversies and discussions there. But a more detaild mention of some anatomical features of the tissue, predominatly from the source given by @Bon courage and maybe a picture. I agree that some things about the page, like the image of a circumcised penis, were not very necessary. Piccco (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erogenous zone article

@Crossroads: keeps trying to have Wikipedia state that circumcised men are missing sexually sensitive areas of their body. This notion is inflammatory, discredited, and overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources. Per a recent December 2020 study:

Those studies found MC has no or minimal adverse effect on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure, with some finding improvements. A consensus from physiological and histological studies was that the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, are involved in neurological pathways mediating erogenous sensation. In contrast to the higher quality evidence, data supporting adverse effects of MC on function, sensation, or pleasure were found to be of low quality...

The American Academy of Pediatrics says similar. Why are we including WP: Fringe ideas? OntologicalTree (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That study's claim that in some studies, it has benefits on sexual functions, sensation, satisfaction, and pleasure for males circumcised neonatally or in adulthood is itself inflammatory, discredited, and overwhelmingly contradicted by reliable sources. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to agree with @Neveselbert and @Bon courage. Also, the studies say that the genitals of circumciced men are sexually functioning and sensitive. This is true. That doesn't mean that those who still have a foreskin, can't find it erogenous. Also, this discussion should have been made in the erogenous zone page, this is not the page. Piccco (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Claiming that circumcised men are missing sexually sensitive parts of their penis is an extraordinary claim. This is not to even bring up the fact that it directly contradicts the overwhelming majority of statements given by doctors on the matter. Nordic medical associations, which are obviously hostile to the existence of routine circumcision, don't mention it, nor does any of their policy papers. Why? Surely, if the ridged band was so important and so sensitive and inherently cut off in circumcision... one has to wonder why they have never mentioned it in any paper criticizing it.
We're apparently going to take it as a given that medical organizations in non-circumcising countries are unaware that the "most pleasurable part of the penis" (Any man here who is not circumcised can see how obviously absurd that notion is.) is being destroyed in circumcision. (Including the adults who underwent it!) The article presents a straight-up, utterly absurd notion. The source it is based upon was a 2007 one by a group of overwhelmingly anti-circumcision activists. Taking it at face value, the NSFW graphic shows that the glans is the least sensitive part of the penis, and even more so than the shaft, which is one absurdity stacked richly upon another. Note that the AAP (with some fancy words) has has called Sorrell's finding wrong or otherwise speculative.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical organizations have explicitly discredited John Taylor's notion that the foreskin is sexually sensitive or that the ridged band is a legitimate structure. Yet we're somehow supposed to take a brief mention in a source (Just summarizing Taylor and McGrath's beliefs! Not even arguing for or against its existence!) as a proof to make the obviously extraordinary claim that circumcised men are missing a sexually sensitive part of the penis. It's blatantly obvious how absurd of a claim that is. OntologicalTree (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your assertion that "the claim that circumcised men are missing sexually sensitive parts of their penis is extraordinary and contradicts the majority of statements from doctors" is misguided. Just because medical associations in "non-circumcising countries" may not mention it, does not mean it is not true. Your assertion that the source for this information is "a group of anti-circumcision activists" is also misleading. The source, a study by Sorrell, was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mentioning the foreskin was a longstanding part of that article but despite the fact it is mentioned in the source, OntologicalTree was coming through and removing it, basically expecting me to take their word for it. Apparently there's a lot more going on here than first seemed, but some of the arguments above are non-sequiturs - for example, that circumcised men can experience sexual pleasure, even to the same extent, doesn't mean the foreskin plays no role in uncircumcised men. Arguments about "anti-circumcision activists" aren't necessarily convincing because "pro-circumcision activists" also obviously exist and need to be weighted accordingly; additionally, as it is circumcision that is the intervention, the burden of proof that it is harmless lies on those promoting it, not the other side.
Here OntologicalTree added citations to Daily Dot and Cosmopolitan (seriously) to the very same article, which are obviously very poor sources on a MEDRS topic. Crossroads -talk- 19:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The changes come across as provocative and outrageously offense to this circumcised guy. I can't imagine that many of them are coming from good faith.
People are attempting to fringe arguments into the article saying that my penis is damaged and dysfunctional. Of course people are going to push back against that. Of course people like me are going to revert it. "However, a systematic review (detailed in the next section) of histological correlates of sexual pleasure attributed erogenous sensation to the glans and underside of the shaft, not the foreskin, with the erogenous sensations claimed to arise from the frenulum actually stemming from stimulation of nearby genital corpuscles in the glans and shaft rather than the frenulum itself." OntologicalTree (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your characterisation of the changes as "provocative" and "outrageously offensive" is not an appropriate response. The information being presented is based on scientific research and should be evaluated based on its validity and credibility, not on how it personally affects you. The idea that the changes are not coming from a place of good faith is also unfounded. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Danish College of General Practitioners - Mutilation Viewpoint

“The Danish College of General Practitioners has stated that circumcision should ‘only [be done] when medically needed, otherwise it is a case of mutilation’” has been included in this article for several years, and is now being removed by a couple of users. To Bon Courage’s last point, I would say that WP:MEDRS does not necessarily apply to an *ethical* viewpoint. And regardless of this source, wouldn’t this source be MEDRS compliant (assuming MEDRS even applies here)? What is the common practice as far as archived sources, and why is the archived version being completely disregarded? As I said before, this viewpoint is WP:DUE, since it is a significant minority viewpoint. Prcc27 (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like blatant cherry picking to extract this factoid out of that source, about GPs, especially when it relates what the actual Danish health authority's view was. Uneartheding some defunct web page from this minor group compounds the POV push. Bon courage (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I remember correctly, this was first put in the Wikipedia article, back when the webpage was still live, before the webpage was “defunct” and suffered from link rot. Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not clear why we'd report on the view of this organization in particular - they are quite small, about 1/7th the size of the main Danish medical association. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My penis isn't "mutilated". The quote is rude, outrageous and offensive. OntologicalTree (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is an ethical viewpoint, whether or not you find it to be rude isn’t relevant to this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless your Circumcision was done to treat a Medical condition, it is. Zoboili (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ridiculous attempt to frame opposition as antksemitism in the lead

The lead contains the following bit "Campaigns of Jewish ethnic, cultural, and religious persecution have repeatedly included bans on the practice as an attempted means of forceful assimilation, conversion, and ethnocide,[29][32][33] including in the Maccabean Revolt.[34][35]"

This is a ridiculous attempt at poisoning the well . It was probably true historically but there is no indication whatsoever that modern campaigners against circumcision are doing so because they're anti-jewish, so this is just a bad faith insertion. Whoever inserted this was fully aware of what they were doing. 2A02:A420:43:5E1D:DCFC:5E82:5EF9:5C83 (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the history section of the lead is WP:UNDUE, and I support removing the sentence referenced above. Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is important to summarize the main sections of the article, including the history section, and this is a major point in the history section. MrOllie (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The current wording makes it sound like this still applies today. At the very least, it should be reworded. Prcc27 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering that we've seen both a resurgence of anti-semitism across Europe as well as efforts to ban circumcision in Europe in the last decade, I think it is still relevant. If anything, we should probably be summarizing more of the content relating to that in this article - right now it is all over at Circumcision and law MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do the current sources in the lead even support the claim? If not, it should be reworded per WP:OR. Prcc27 (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they do. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where in the sources do they do that? The sources seem to give more weight to historical campaigns, rather than present-day campaigns. Prcc27 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The citations already in the article include quotes. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Those quotes specifically reference “history”. Insufficient to draw conclusions about present-day from that. Prcc27 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good thing the sentence starts with 'Historically', then. Thanks for adding that. MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I don't have a very strong opinion about this, but I also think that the previous wording (by KlayCax, I think) that referred to it simply as 'campaigns' was maybe a little more neutral for the lead. Piccco (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone object to these lead improvements/changes?

Is version #1 (new) or version #2 (old) of the second paragraph in the lead better?

Prcc27 recently reverted edits that I made to the lead. Objecting to:

  • The new version saying there's a consensus among major medical organization that consensual, adult circumcision reduces HIV/AIDS transmission in high-risk areas.
  • Removing a reference to penile cancer being universally rare
  • Broadening MSM/developed countries references to encompass other major medical organizations
  • Trimming fat surrounding major medical organization's positions

Wording on HIV/AIDS:

Old wording:

and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV transmission program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV. The WHO does not recommend circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men; effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.

New wording:

There is a consensus among major medical organizations that adult circumcision significantly reduces HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. They take variant positions on the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV transmission among men who have sex with men and in the developed world.

While the specific mentions of the WHO/UNAIDS were steamlined into a sentence that encompassed other medical organziations. (British Medical Association, et al.)

Note that the newer version makes several improvements:

  • It clarifies that there is only a consensus around adult circumcision only
  • Identifies that major medical organizations have variant positions surrounding MSM and the strength of its prophylactic effect in developed countries. (Which isn't clear in the original wording.) Rather than the initial wording: which seems to incorrectly suggest that there's a unified consensus on MSM.
  • The wording is much much concise, understandable, and easy to read.

Wording on Penile Cancer:

Old wording:

Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of rare penile cancer.

New wording:

Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer.

Since the article takes a global perspective to circumcision — rather than local — saying that it is blanketly "rare" across the world is inaccurate.

Kandeel (2007), for instance, states: The incidence of penile carcinoma ranges widely internationally. In many low and middle-income countries, "where poor hygiene is combined with a low circumcision incidence, it compromises one of the most common malignant conditions in men. Similar statements can be found throughout the academic literature on penile cancer.

Position of medical organizations:

Old wording:

Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors. The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and American medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk.

New wording:

Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors. [Details in body]

Trims down unnecessary wording for the lead. "Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors" makes the second sentence relatively unnecessary, with the lead already starting to verge on "two long" as is.

The large majority of these changes seem like obvious improvements to the article. Tagging recent talk page contributors on this page: @MrOllie:, @Prcc27:, @Bon courage:, @Piccco:, @Bluerasberry:, @Spaully:, @EvergreenFir:, @Doc James:, @Dashoopa:, @Markworthen:. If an agreement can't be found, then this is going to have to go to RfC. KlayCax (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally, in pages like this one, the wording of the lead is almost always result of past discussions and consensus built previously by other editors, therefore fast and big changes may accidentally lead to small changes in meaning that may have not been agreed upon in the past. Not saying this is what happened here, but I believe the rv by Prcc27 was in good faith for that reason.
Now as for the suggested changes in those parts, I think, If we are to change the wording, maybe one that encompasses both the old and the new version could be a good solution. Just making some suggestions:
1) Major medical organizations agree that consensual adult circumcision performed in areas with high endemic rates of HIV significantly reduces HIV transmission among heterosexual men. They take variant positions on the effectiveness of circumcision for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men without strong recommendations; effectiveness (of circumcision for HIV prevention) in the developed world is unclear
2) Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer in high-risk areas. I find this sentence to be precise.
3) As for the positions of medical organizations, the sentence is not too big and I think they are worth a mention in the lead. Piccco (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see any good reason to go from stating the HIV paragraph in Wikipedia’s voice, to trying to analyze what the “consensus” is among major medical organizations. The original wording seems more concise and neutral, in my opinion, albeit I do not necessarily oppose the “adult circumcision” clarification, if that is indeed what the sources say. Furthermore, the new wording on HIV in MSM & the developed world seems to be WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Penile cancer is far from being the main medical “justification” for circumcision, and without saying “rare”, or using Piccco’s wording, it would be WP:UNDUE (one could argue that even mentioning it in the lead at all is UNDUE). Finally, there was already a prior consensus that controversies should be covered in the lead, which is why the medical organizations’ positions is in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The consensus narrowly applies to VMMC programs in high-risk areas. The recent December 2022 RACP statement makes a similar statement. (On VMMC in high-risk areas) The dispute is in minors, the developed world, or in MSM. All of which are encompassed by the wording.
The other parts are not WP:SYNTH of WP:OR. The AAP 2012 report says it does apply to MSM/developed nations, the WHO implies that it does for developed nations (but not MSM), and the The British Medical Organization/couple other medical organizations state it doesn't apply to developed countries or MSM.
Controversies/disputes are still in the lead and unaffected. KlayCax (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot compare and contrast what the medical organizations say, and then say they take “variant positions”. That is WP:SYNTH. We would need a source that directly says that this is the case. Either way, for the lead we may just want to include what the majority viewpoint is (which would seem to be what the WHO says). Prcc27 (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the AAP says explicitly says yes and others explicitly say no in their given policy position statements... It's not an instance of WP: Synth or original research being violated. It's simply applying existing information onto to the text. None of that is problematic. What would be problematic is editors determining majority/minority viewpoints. KlayCax (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SYNTH: “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source”. Also, we do need to know what the majority viewpoint is, to determine if it is DUE or UNDUE for the lead.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prcc27:. The AAP + several others explicitly applies it to those situations. The RACP + a few others explicitly reject it for MSM/developed nations.
Both take explicit positions on the matter in their policy statements. Saying they don't take variant positions when it involves MSM, developed countries, and neonates is ridiculous. The statement is entirely reflected from sources. I'm not sure how you're getting original research from any of this.
Do they not take those positions?KlayCax (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KlayCax Seeing it again, it seems that this part of the lead refers specifically to the WHO programms that targeted high risk areas to regulate HIV rates. That's why it mentions only the views of the WHO. The views of other medical organizations are expressed below (in the part that you suggested to remove). That's why I suggested that we keep as it is. Currently, it seems that the views of both the WHO and major medical organizations have a sufficient and balanced coverage in the lead. Piccco (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's other VMMC-programmes being presently performed that are entirely unrelated to the WHO. (Including USAID, several by European medical organizations, et al.) It would be inaccurate to state that the programmes are exclusively being performed by the World Health Organization. The lead's talking about VMMC programs in general.
Since there's disagreement in the academic literature about whether circumcision in neonates/minors, MSM, or in developed nations has significant prophylactic effect, the fact that they have differing interpretations of the data should be expressed. (Without having to go into every individual position by every major med organization).
I oppose having the positions of individual medical organizations being removed.
I just think that the lead should simply state that there are variant perspectives on the matter. (WHO + UNAIDS + American + [probably] African/some Canadian v. European) seems to have implications that the "for" position is a majority one. Since the WHO is considered (the?) world's leading medical organization — it gives off the implication that it's the majority opinion. (Are we doing it by the aggregate # of medical organizations? # of people they represent? It's obvious how attempting to determine this is a WP: OR nightmare.)
I have no position on whether "penile cancer" should be included in the lead; staying out of the debate related to that completely. (Between @Bon courage:, @Prcc27:, and a few others below.) Outside of the fact that added "rare" presents a few problems. I'd honestly be okay with deletion. (Neutral on the matter.)
Note that the current lead doesn't mention that there is only a consensus on VMMC circumcision — simply vaguely mentioning "circumcision" — which is something that I think needs to be addressed. (If nothing else.) Are you alright with me adding that part if a consensus on the other stuff isn't reached within a week? KlayCax (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Piccco:. Tag. KlayCax (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KlayCax Sorry for the (somewhat) late response. I understand what you said above, but from what I see, the effeciency of circumcision in HIV reduction is already mentioned in the second sentense ...and significantly reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men within high risk populations. This is presented here as a fact, something that it is widely agreed upon (clearly by medical organizations). Then the text simply continues to mention separetely the WHO programms. What you suggest seems to be a mixing of these two sentences, but, If I'm honest, I'm not sure if this is actually necessary, considering that the current version carefully avoids any type of SYNTH. If you want to mention adult or voluntary, however, I guess there'd be no problem.
The present sentence has SYNTH problems.
"Effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear" is an actual case of SYNTH and is contradicted by the available citations within the article. The updated December 2022 RACP statement states that it is clear that circumcision doesn't have a significant prophylactic effect in developed nations. The 2012 AAP statement says it is clear that it does (At least that's the notion that they implicitly make). They both de facto state the evidence is "clear". They just come to starkly differently conclusions about where it leads. That's one of the reasons why I believe the revised wording is a significant improvement. It fixes that issue.
And I'll definitely add VMMC once a consensus is reached on the other issues. (Asssuming @Prcc27:, @MrOllie:, and @Bon courage: are okay with it as well.) Several major medical organizations in Europe explicitly state that it should only apply to VMMC circumcision in areas of extraordinarily high HIV incidence/prevalence. (e.g. Basically Sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, and Belize.) While stating that it should not be applied to neonates or other minors. KlayCax (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm.. the RACP statement says “it is not clear that the findings from African studies, where the predominant mode of HIV transmission is heterosexual intercourse, can be extrapolated to Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand or other western countries, which have much lower rates of HIV infection and where the predominant mode of transmission is penile-anal sex among men.” I’m not sure which part of the RACP statement you’re referring to..? The RACP source actually seems to back up what is said in the lead. Either way, we would likely treat them as a minority viewpoint, if they contradicted the WHO. Prcc27 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for MSM and the developed world, saying only that they take variant positions is maybe a little vague and it's not clear enough what these positions are. I don't know, I trully think that the current version is actually fine. Piccco (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The present version simply states that some major medical organizations: "X list of medical organizations state it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh small risks, while Y list of medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk" I'm just unsure how this wording isn't conveyed in the previous sentence. Or why it's necessary to include. 1.) Stacking the WHO on the "pro side" (which is true) 2.) "Regionalizing positions" in the lead probably gives off implications to readers that are likely misleading. (Such as the WHO believing benefits > risks in developed countries is a strong majority opinion within the academic literature. For instance. Or that there aren't prominent supporters or critics of the practice in both areas.) KlayCax (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that if we indeed make any changes to the wording, they should be carefully discussed and agreed upon by all editors. It makes sense that this discussion is complicated because there are distinctions that need to be made, like neonatal/minor circumcision and voluntary-adult, for example.
Another distinction is between efficiency/benefit and recommendations. Over all, when it comes to recommendations, it seems that routine circumcision for MSM and the developed world is not a recommendation. When it comes to efficiency, American organizations typically say it has some benefits that overwight the risk (though not enough to recommend routine circ.) and European say the opposite. Since the lead should equally represent modern views on a global scale, these are all things that should be clearly stated there and not just implied. That is why I was a little sceptical about the changes.
Then we also have the WHO; can we actually merge them with the rest of the organizations or should they have their own separate mention? Don't know what other editors think. Piccco (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For statements about consensus, WP:RS/AC is needed; the reference to "rare" penile cancer is POV and odd, as if there's some special sub-variety of penile cancer which is rare (whatever "rare" means in the context of cancer!). It's almost as if Wikipedia is trying to play down the risk reduction. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It is not POV to say that penile cancer is rare. The AAFP, among others, have said the same thing [2]. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Exactly, making USA = The World is POV. It's not that rare in developing countries. Bon courage (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Bon courage: Are you going to discuss this, or edit war? Other alternatives have been proposed on this talk page, including Piccco’s proposed wording, and my proposal to say “relatively rare” (in line with this source). Until consensus changes, the status quo should remain. We are trying to work towards a consensus and/or compromise. If you think the status quo is too contentious, the appropriate action would be to add a disputed tag. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        You're the one who's in danger of being blocked for edit-warring. Rather than use ancient sourcing and trying to decide editorial between Wikipedia editors, why not reflect modern sources? The world is more than America, and penile cancer is a more serious problem elsewhere. Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The current wording makes it seem as though penile cancer prevention is on the same footing as UTI & STI prevention. I think it would be better if it was not in the lead at all, unless the wording is clarified, per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Penile cancer is a profoundly debilitating disease, and not being circumcised is a risk factor. Follow the sources. In developing nations this is a big deal. WP:HOSTAGE tagging doesn't help. Bon courage (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Something being sourced, does not automatically mean it should be included in the lead. If this is a big deal in developing countries, say that. The current wording makes it seem like it is a big deal, full stop, when it is actually very rare in many parts of the world. Definitely UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            It's all in the body; the lede is a summary. The article has an entire section on cancer, so something is due. We don't privilege the African view (significant prevalence) or the US view (rare) in the lede. Some (no doubt American) editors seem to want the latter. Bon courage (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Developed world vs. developing world is an important distinction. We make the distinction for HIV, so why not with penile cancer? Yes, the lead is a summary, which is exactly why I was concerned about the sentence being included at all. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              We do make the distinction (in the body). Just calling it "rare" does not make the distinction, and it actively misleading in a global context. If an aspect of the article has an entire sub-section, summarizing it in the lede is due. Bon courage (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              It can be considered "rare" in a global context as it accounts for less than 1% of all cancers in men worldwide. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              Source? Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              World Cancer Research Fund International. It's actually even lower at 0.4%. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              You've just linked to a document tabulating "the most common cancers in the world". So it's among those. Bon courage (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              Well, on a global scale penile cancer is indeed considered rare. The thing here is that its prevelance varies widely, as KlayCax quoted above, making it very rare in some places and more common in others. That's why I suggested the wording in high-risk areas, or something similiar, since it is concise and doesn't leave space for misconceptions. Any opinions? Piccco (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              “If an aspect of the article has an entire sub-section, summarizing it in the lede is due.” That sub-section is actually about cancer in general (penile, prostate, and cervical). Also, let’s not assume that that sub-section is DUE.. Prcc27 (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              Most men who develop penile cancer do not have any identifiable risk factors. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              That may be your opinion, but it's not what our MEDRS source says. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              Penile cancer is a relatively rare form of cancer and the exact cause of most cases is not known. Some studies have found that up to 70–80% of men who develop penile cancer do not have any known risk factors. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              Well, it's not in the article so I'm not sure why you're raising it. But the abstract of our MEDRS source contradicts your view. Bon courage (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Penile cancer being mentioned in the lead seems UNDUE. The lead only covers the most common circumcision risks, so why are we covering a relatively uncommon “benefit” in the lead? I don’t buy the argument that penile cancer’s debilitating nature means a mention in the lead has merit, we don’t mention circumcision deaths in the lead, and that’s pretty debilitating. Nevertheless, the “rare penile cancer” wording kept the peace for the most part, up until now. As Piccco noted above, penile cancer is rare when judging from a global perspective. I think that merits the “rare” reference per WP:DUE. I’m also open to “relatively rare”, since it is rare relative to whether you live in a developing country or developed country. I do not particularly like Piccco’s proposed wording, but would accept it as a compromise. I’m also open to the “current” wording, with a collapsible note explaining that it is rare, especially in the developed world. We need to find a compromise here, the status quo is not acceptable, and part of the consensus building process is trying to find something we can agree on. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                We're through the looking glass here. We have a detailed source saying it's rare in developed countries and not in developing countries. We say that. Globally, Neveselbert has produced a source placing it among the world's "most common" cancers. It isn't bowel cancer, but it's not a rare one like heart cancer either. We can't just assert it's "rare" in the face of these sources. This is basic NPOV. We should say nothing contentious in the lede; let the penile cancer article do the heavy lifting on prevalence, and include more detailed description about regional difference in the body (as we now do). Bon courage (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                And Piccco shared a source which suggests it is rare, from a global perspective. And you have not addressed their comment. The sources say that it is rare, even if some of them note that developing countries have significantly higher rates. It makes sense to state the general global perspective in the lead, and explain that developing countries have higher rates in the body. Prcc27 (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                If good sources say different things, it is a very bad idea to come down on one side. Put Piccco's source is a weak, non-MEDLINE journal, and they cherry pick it to leave out the "however" qualification which follows the comment picked. This all looks like a pretty desperate POV-push, even the Penile cancer article itself doesn't mention prevalence in the lede, and there are many other global qualifications one could pick out (like that it's psychosexually devastating, or that it's on the rise in Europe, for example). Bon courage (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                The source I produced confirms that the cancer can be considered "rare" in a global context as it accounts for less than 1% of all cancers in men worldwide. Heart cancer is extremely rare, while penile cancer is understood to be relatively rare. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                Your list of the most common cancers, yes. Are you proposing we say "relatively rare among the most common cancers worldwide", to be faithful to your source? Can't you see that being reductive in the lede is necessarily being misleading? Bon courage (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                Just “relatively rare” or “relatively rare” with a collapsible footnote, would suffice.. Prcc27 (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                When you're writing something so unclear in the lede it needs a "collapsible footnote" (whatever that is) to add explanatory commentary, then that's a writing failure. Best to say nothing and let the body do the explaining. I strongly oppose the addition of any single qualifier here and think it POV. Bon courage (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                What are your thoughts on keeping the current wording exactly the same, with a collapsible footnote? KlayCax made a similar edit in the past, albeit I would suggest we make the footnote more concise. Prcc27 (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's almost as if you are trying to play up the risk reduction. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Circumcision seems to eliminate the risk, so it would be hard to "play up" that! But we don't mention that in the lede. Do you think we should? We should keep things plain and neutral in the lede (you know: summary), and let the body do the explaining. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it is not a guarantee of protection, other factors such as HPV infection, smoking, and poor hygiene also play a role in the development of penile cancer. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one's disputing it. But this is an article on circumcision: not HPV infection, smoking, or poor hygiene.KlayCax (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is precisely why claiming it "seems to eliminate the risk" is nonsense. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would definitely oppose any suggested wording that included that. The edit itself only mentioned that it reduced the risk of penile cancer in the aggregate. (Although the impact of the intervention would, obviously, vary significantly in the context in which it is applied.) KlayCax (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These edits seem to be an improvement. Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Female circumcision hatnote

It looks like we are going back and forth regarding the female circumcision hatnote. Is there any reason why we wouldn’t want to clarify to readers, that this article is about male circumcision only? Prcc27 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The opening sentence "Circumcision is a procedure that removes the foreskin from the human penis." seems to convey that idea rather succinctly, without engaging with the idea that male and having a penis are not necessarily synonymous or dealing with the fact that "female circumcision" and "male circumcision" are not "equivalent" procedures.
I don't think we need to "clarify" what should already be sufficiently clear. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That sentence does not redirect the readers to the appropriate article, if they are looking for more information on female circumcision, the hatnote does. Prcc27 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The context makes it obvious what the article is referring to. "Female circumcision" is an obvious point of view violation. OntologicalTree (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's mentioned in five references in the article. Are they POV violations? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Neveselbert and OntologicalTree. Want to make sure you're aware of this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We used to have a disambiguation page (it was deleted), which was able to provide a landing spot that could direct readers to the other article with the proper context to avoid equating the two. Perhaps we need that back. MrOllie (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumcision (disambiguation). This is a WP:2DABS situation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is unfortunate that ripple effects of that discussion have caused a problem here, but that is now the situation that we have. - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually no, that page was only created 6 months ago. This edit changed the hatnote that was in place then to one linking to a disambiguation page that wasn't actually a disambiguation page. The hatnote in place before that date should be restored. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foregen and the "ridged band"

This is not a forum. This section seems to be about addressing the Foreskin article, not relevant to the Circumcision article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles have been sprinkled with assertations from a "foreskin regeneration organization" known as Foregen to argue that circumcision commonly causes psychological issues in circumcised men. Most of it was removed after @MrOllie: made several edits. That being said, until today they were still claims that it made about circumcision and the foreskin that were present in the article until today. I removed more citations from the group here. Are they actually a reliable source? OntologicalTree (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to be crude: but as someone who was not circumcised and then became so as an adult due to conversion to Reform Judaism. I don't recall the supposed "ridged band" (or my foreskin in general) being sensitive in the least during the time that I possessed one. I'm sure other editors here who presently have one can make a similar observation to my own.
It's utterly absurd for editors to try and have the article claim, or at least promote the idea of, the structure being "critical to sexual function" based entirely off of a 25-year old paper by an anti-circumcision activist. It seems like an extraordinary statement for the article to make. One has to wonder why medical organizations predominately critical of circumcision have failed to make an even brief mention of the supposed "vital structure".
Looking up "ridged band" online on Google from the past year reveals that the term is pretty much exclusively used by three groups: Mens Rights Activists, anti-circumcision organizations, and incel forums. It shouldn't need to be said that attempting to weave it into the article as a widely accepted idea or indisputed fact is massively problematic. OntologicalTree (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We edit Wikipedia based on reliable sources, not based on your anecdotal observations. What you experienced personally, is irrelevant to this talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comment wasn't about my personal experience in converting to Reform Judaism. It's about the article making claims that circumcised men don't have normal sexual function. I was simply stating that I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it absolutely doesn't.
Relying on a source from an anti-circumcision activist from 1996 is a clear attempt to push an agenda. I'm not the only one who thinks so. @MrOllie: and other editors have explicitly stated that medical sources over 10-15 years+ should almost never be used. This isn't to mention the fact that a group known as Foregen is almost certainly not a reliable source, yet editors keep trying to add it on multiple pages.OntologicalTree (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Foregen are clearly not a WP:MEDRS compliant source. The donation-driven 'research' they are conducting has little in common with actual medical research. MrOllie (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure why you even created this section, if you are referring to edits made on the Foreskin article. Is there something specific you want to address about the Circumcision article? This is a talk page, not a forum. Prcc27 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first part is my personal experience of the matter. I'm sorry if the second part was confusing. It's a paraphrase of what editors other than me have stated (Bon Courage, KlayCax and MrOllie) have said on this talk. The first two stated that search terms for the matter have shown that it's not used in reliable sources. MrOllie said Goldman and Foregen shouldn't be used. OntologicalTree (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, what does this have to do with the Circumcision article? Are Foregen/Goldman sources currently being added to this article? If not, this discussion is not constructive. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Include hatnote linking to Female circumcision?

Should a hatnote linking to Female circumcision be added at the top of the article? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No The term, when applied to women, is purely metaphorical. The procedure in women is essentially different. Any such hatnote would be done with a view to providing a spurious "balance"; no such balance is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The argument that "the procedure in women is essentially different" is not a valid reason to not include a hatnote, as the hatnote serves as a way to direct readers to relevant information and provide context, not to imply equivalence between the two procedures. The goal of Wikipedia is to present information in a neutral and accurate manner, and a hatnote linking to the article on female circumcision is a way to achieve this goal. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: No. Obvious bad faith argument. Editor has repeatedly tried to have Wikipedia compare circumcision and FGM in articles. (Disclaimer that I've been in the argument surrounding whether it should be in and have somewhat of a conflict of interest. I am a convert to Reform Judaism who was circumcised as an adult, underwent no change (positively or negatively) in sexual function, and was upset about the current bias surrounding articles in this topic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OntologicalTree (talk • contribs)
    Allegations of bad faith are serious accusations and should not be made lightly. The inclusion of a hatnote is a standard Wikipedia practice for directing readers to related articles and providing context, and it should not be viewed as an attempt to compare or equate the two procedures. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No - Female circumcision is genital mutilation. Readers can be expected to know the difference and the addition of a hatnote like this seems insulting, wether intentional or not, to observant Muslims, Jews, and others who practice circumcision. BogLogs (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of the term "genital mutilation" is a matter of debate and has been used to describe both male and female circumcision. The hatnote serves as a way to direct readers to relevant information and provide context, not to make a value judgment about the practices of any particular group. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It`s bad form to make an RfC then WP:BLUDGEON every comment. Take a step back and let the process you started play out. BogLogs (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BogsLogs I disagree with your reasoning, especially since female genital cutting can also be done for religious reasons too. This hatnote has nothing to do with religious genital cutting and/or whether genital cutting is justified. Even if readers know the difference between male and female genital cutting, it is still convenient to have a hatnote up top, to direct readers to the FGM article. At the very least, I would expect the FGM article to be listed in the “see also” section. Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you honestly cant see the difference between the two, no amount or debate here is worth the time. Hatnote and see also section with this included are both unnecessary and uncalled for. BogLogs (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said below, a hatnote actually clarifies that the two are different. Your personal POV on religion and genital cutting is not relevant to this RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I said I'm not interested in explaining to you the difference between circumcision and gential mutilation. You are welcome to do a google search and listen to some of the victims of FGM. The sky is WP:BLUEand this is an insult to muslims, jews, and women who have been mutilated. BogLogs (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLUE is an essay, not a policy. And honestly, I didn’t ask you to explain the difference between the two, and whether or not the two are different is pretty irrelevant. You keep saying that what is being proposed, is to equate female genital cutting with male circumcision. Not true. A hatnote’s purpose is to clarify, not to make comparisons. It is not insulting to anyone, to help our readers to easily navigate our articles. Nobody should be saying “we should have a hatnote, because female circumcision is equivalent to male circumcision” either. Let’s discuss based on Wikipedia policy, and what’s best for the readers and the article, not based on personal POV. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe what I've written above is POV, this action would be needlessly controversial from what I and others have stated. As other editors have already noted adding a hatnote would give the impression that these are analogous or similar. But if that still appears too pov to be given due consideration this is the last I'll say on the topic. We have a search bar at the top of every page. If readers want to learn about female genital mutilation or any other topic they only need to write a few letters and they can go directly to the article. Hatnotes should only be used when the names and topics of articles are very closely related or easily confused with eachother. This ain't it. BogLogs (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realise that such a hatnote had been included in this article until only very recently (in July last year), without any issues? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do realize if there were no issues it wouldn't have been removed right? BogLogs (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it was replaced with a hatnote to a disambiguation page which has since been deleted per WP:NOTDAB, and then the hatnote got removed entirely. There were no issues prior to this dispute, with the hatnote being there for years. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess that is the nice thing about RFCs, they get wider community feedback and build consensus among larger groups of editors. Sometimes we may not like the result but that is a part of any community effort. The RFC here is should a hatnote be added and I have still not found any arguments here compelling to add one. BogLogs (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to add that per WP:NOTCENSORED, hatnotes do not have to be popular among specific religious people. Prcc27 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable here as nothing is being censored both articles still exist in full exactly as they were before the start of this RFC, only a link at the top of one that is irrelevant will not be added. BogLogs (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes It clarifies what this article is about, and redirects users to the appropriate article, if they are looking for information about female genital cutting. A hatnote would not necessarily imply that male circumcision is comparable to female circumcision. Actually, the purpose of a hatnote is to say, “this is *not* what the article is about.” The fact that the title of the FGC article already says “female genital mutilation” not “female circumcision”, makes the concerns about a hatnote creating a false comparison somewhat moot. Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. It is important not to equate or conflate these two things without context, and a hatnote simply does not have the space to provide the necessary context. Any minimal navigational benefits do not override this concern. - MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak No On one hand, it is beneficial to link to related topics. On the other, a hatnote may be interpreted by some as a sort or equivalence between the two, which not only offends some people, but is also misleading if that is the reader's takeaway. (I'm fairly callous about offending the sensitive when plainly presenting facts, but allowing potential readers to come away with a slanted perspective is something I think should be avoided.) Seems to me that the proper place for the link is in the "See Also" section, which this article curiously lacks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clear Yes include. Summoned by bot.[3] Experienced RFC closer. Involved parties here have clearly gone off the rails. Most arguments above should carry little or no weight. With all due respect for the clearly experienced and responsible editors above, any problems with past disputes or past arguments have zero bearing on whether a hatnote is appropriate here under Policies and Guidelines. The issue here is simple. Why do we have WP:Hatnotes? In summary it is sometimes predictable or expectable that readers will end up on the wrong page. Hatnotes exist to aid readers after they have arrived at the wrong page. That is their purpose, and that is the criteria for using them. I expect few, if any, people opposing will seriously dispute that a non-trivial number of people searching for information on the female-practice may enter "circumcision" in the searchbox and end up on this page. "Circumcision" may be the only term they have ever heard for the practice. It is important to remember that our most important service is to readers who LACK the knowledge to enter any better search term. Clearly a hatnote is needed here to help those readers.

    I also note that "Female circumcisions" appears no less than five times in REF tiles, and that it appears no less than nine times in REF tiles when you include "Female Genital Cutting"*2, "Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery", and "Circumcision Status...Females". This stands as further evidence of association between the topics and the significant risk of people landing at this article but needing a hatnote to the other article.

    Furthermore, I invite opposers to consider the rather serious real world harm that could ensue if we fail to abide by hatnote guidelines and we fail to assist those readers in reaching the other article.

    Note that WP:HATNOTERULES says Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur. This is exactly one of those exceptions. Female circumcision redirects to Female genital mutilation. Even the least eduacted and least sophisticated reader who has landed at Circumcision can immediately recognize Female circumcision guides them to a more relevant article. Exactly those readers most in need of help may never have heard the term Female genital mutilation, and may struggle or skip past the later words as unfamiliar. Alsee (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Strong No; "female circumcision" has widely fallen out of use — Similar to @Mr swordfish:'s statement. Adding a headnote would be WP: Undue and would give off a misleading impression to readers that the two things are seen as analogous by a significant minority/majority of major medical organizations and researchers and/or still in common use.
"Female circumcision" has also widely fallen out of use in the English-speaking world. Outside of contextualizing it in the communities involved: the vast majority of reliable sources use "female genital mutilation" or "female genital cutting" to describe the term. "Female circumcision" is in contrast a term that has rapidly fallen into disuse.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose it being added in a "see also" section. KlayCax (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it is true that the term "female circumcision" has fallen out of use in some circles, it is still a commonly used term, particularly in certain communities where the practice is still performed. For example, some communities may use the term "female circumcision" as a way to describe the practice in a culturally or socially acceptable manner. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No The sources we have which are thoughtful about term selection recommend against this. The sources which apply the term circumcision to FGM are incidental; the recommendation to not use it is intentional and comes from deliberated expert consensus. Here is an example source from the United Nations -
A counterargument that would move me is if anyone presented sources which demonstrated that there is organized expert or stakeholder community consensus in favor of using the term "female circumcision". I do not think any such activism exists; the sources suggest that there are 1000s of activists specifically recommending not to use this term, and no one thoughtfully advocating to keep the old term. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluerasberry, I would invite you to read Alsee's argument in favour of the hatnote (see above). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alsee gives an excellent argument against the hatnote, i.e. hatnote rules disfavor linking to a redirect. If the hatnote was to female genital mutilation it would probably generate less opposition, although I still think the proper place is in a See also section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, there had always been a hatnote prior to July 2022. This was that hatnote. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neveselbert: I can support a hatnote like "For Female genital cutting, see Female genital mutilation". I understand the importance of directing readers to female cutting on an article about male cutting, but I do not want to present the term "female circumcision" in a hatnote because that normalizes and propagates its use. I agree with Alsee that readers need to be able to easily navigate from the male cut article to the female cut article. I disagree with Alsee that having cited reliable sources normalizes the use, because in this case, there is recent broad expert consensus to avoid the term.
Thanks for sharing the old hatnote Neveselbert and agree with swordfish about hatnote to FGM only because there is reason to believe there may be reader confusion. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also support such a compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:NOTCENSORED, we shouldn't be beating around the bush here. The title of this article is "Circumcision", therefore it only makes sense to mention the term "female circumcision". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree to an extent. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, it may not matter if a hatnote offends certain religious people. Other than that, I do not think WP:NOTCENSORED necessarily applies/compels us to use “female circumcision”. I prefer the “female circumcision” wording since, as you pointed out, this is an article about circumcision. But again, I am willing to settle with “female genital cutting”; whether or not we have a hatnote seems more important than what the hatnote says. Prcc27 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable here as nothing is being censored both articles still exist in full exactly as they were before the start of this RFC, only a link at the top of one that is irrelevant will not be added. BogLogs (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Additionally you have not garnered a consensus to include a hatnote here which is the RFC. You shouldn't really be negotiating amongst the few of you yourselves about what wording should be used before you get consensus to include any hatnote altogether. BogLogs (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link.” Prcc27 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion is part of the consensus building process, and this RfC is not over. Concurring with a user isn’t “negotiating”. Prcc27 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neveselbert: Can you tell me more about why you think this is a censorship issue? For censorship, I would expect that there is a stakeholder community that wants the term. In this case, so far as I know, no one prefers this term. I imagined that the user community for this term is disengaged from the contemporary conversation, and either is remembering a term from a generation ago or is somehow reading old publications now. Do you know or imagine otherwise? What evidence indicates that some community is expecting to see this term? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not state that this is a censorship issue. However, the use of the term "female circumcision" is not limited to disengaged communities or old publications. The term is still in use, particularly in communities where the practice is still performed, and it is important to reflect this in our articles. Additionally, the exclusion of a hatnote could be perceived as promoting a particular point of view or disregarding the perspectives of certain communities. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I want readers to perceive that Wikipedia is "promoting a particular point of view or disregarding the perspectives of certain communities". I am coming into this discussion with the assumption that 100% of FGM is bad, all cultures and communities which have this practice are either ignorant or wrongdoing in their acceptance of this practice, and that global or digital colonial forces should take the position that everyone's responsibility is to eliminate FGM immediately. Wikipedia itself as a publication takes certain positions in social issues. I see no room in Wikipedia for presenting multiple sides or apologetics, except to showcase FGM as an error in communities who tolerate the practice.
@Neveselbert: I am not asking you to debate the issue, but to be clear about my position: yes, I believe Wikipedia does and should take ideological and editorial positions when expert and activist consensus seems universal and the other position is extreme WP:FRINGE. This is such a case, and I think Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy requires bias against and suppression of any language tolerating this practice.
I may be in error or ignorant myself, but this does not seem like an ambiguous situation. If anyone has another view I would be interested to hear it, because I assumed that everyone here in this conversation would feel the same way. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are indeed, frankly. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The term "female circumcision" is bolded in the lede of Female genital mutilation, if the term really was that wp:fringe that wouldn't be the case. Whether you like it or not, the term is still commonly understood and that's why a hatnote is necessary to avoid confusion, otherwise it's entirely possible someone who was brought up in a culture where FGM was referred to as "circumcision" might just assume "female circumcision" is indeed related to this article based on the citations that refer to the term. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, one could easily apply your I am coming into this discussion with the assumption that 100% of FGM is bad, all cultures and communities which have this practice are either ignorant or wrongdoing in their acceptance of this practice, and that global or digital colonial forces should take the position that everyone's responsibility is to eliminate FGM immediately. stance to all forms of involuntary genital modification and mutilation, including the subject of this article. I would personally agree with that, but it's not of any service to this discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neveselbert: I hear you, and for almost all similar situations I would agree, but this one case is different.
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS does not apply to this situation because the evidence shows 100% global consensus that FGM is bad. The wrong has already been righted, and the only thing left for Wikipedia editors to do is to choose to side with the ~100% or the ~0%. Among everyone who participates in the global discourse, there is no informed and respected person identified anywhere in the world who is advocating for this practice. We know this because neither you nor anyone else is bring sources to cite to Wikipedia.
The reason why this does not apply to male circumcision is that the citable sources easily demonstrate that there is not 100% global consensus to ban male circumcision. Someone might have a personal opinion about male circumcision, but for FGM, we have the rare case where all good and informed people agree that there is no place in this world for the practice.
I could be convinced otherwise if anyone presented a contemporary source using the term "female circumcision" in an informed way, somehow comparing it to male cutting. No one has presented such a source. For that reason, Wikipedia is justified in taking a position, and avoiding the propagation of the term. To do otherwise would be to make Wikipedia contrary to the experts and human rights activists. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is important to acknowledge the serious harm caused by FGM and to work towards its eradication. However, treating the issue as a binary, black-and-white issue is problematic. Not all forms of FGM are considered equivalent to the most severe forms and not all communities who practise FGM see it as a harmful tradition.
Moreover, the idea that there is 100% global consensus on the issue is questionable. While a significant majority of the world may condemn FGM, it is still practised in some communities and is culturally and socially entrenched. Simply suppressing the term "female circumcision" and taking a biased stance on the issue without fully understanding and acknowledging the complexity of the situation is not a productive solution.
Additionally, it is important to maintain a wp:neutral point of view, presenting information and perspectives from diverse sources. Suppressing a term, even one that is widely regarded as inappropriate, without presenting it in context and considering its use in certain communities and cultures is not in line with wp:policies.
‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry I violently agree with almost everything you've said in your various comments, but none of it has any relevance to WP:HATNOTE. The debate here reminds me of Abstinence-only sex education, where some people get caught up in a crusade-of-appearances and disregard that such programs actively increase teen-STDs and teen-pregnancy. You literally argued FGM is bad, it may as well have been "teen-pregnancy is bad".

WP:HATNOTEs exist to help people who arrived here but who need to read the other article. My Google search on "female circumcision" turns up over two million hits, including many medical, academic, and scientific sources among the top hits using this term this year. Furthermore there are portions of the world where that practice is endemic and openly advocated under the term "circumcision". It is obvious that significant numbers of readers will type in "circumcision" as the only term they know, as the only term they've been given by advocates. Opposition here actively impedes those people from reaching the article they need to read. Alsee (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neveselbert and Alsee: I have said that FGM is bad, but that is not the reason for excluding prominent links to the term. Here are actual reasons:

  • There is a side against using the term "female circumcision" which controls 100% of the published discourse. If I am wrong, then you should be able to demonstrate otherwise.
  • As a complement to that, the side in favor of using the term "female circumcision" is absent from the published discourse.

Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Systemic bias for citing published sources. "Systemic bias" does not mean bad or good; usually when anyone brings it up, they are complaining, but in almost all cases, no one brings it up because Wikipedia's bias is simply its nature. I feel like you are coming to Wikipedia making arguments without sources. I have cited the United Nations advising against doing what you propose to do, and at Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology, I see sources showing 100 years of recommendations to avoid use of this term and analogy. I disagree with what you are proposing because I see no evidence that anyone is advising to propagate this term. I do not see propagation of this term as neutral because using it does not continue an existing conversation, but instead, it revives and empowers nearly dead analogy which for many decades others have been suppressing. I have shown you sources for my position. If I am in error, then prove me wrong by showing insightful contemporary sources which either advocate for the use of the term or use it routinely in stakeholder community published descriptions of the practice. I doubt the existence of the community for which you are advocating, who are searching for this term and who would benefit from Wikipedia's cataloging system making it equivalent to the other available terms. Hidden redirects are enough to get readers to the content they need. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry: I understand your perspective on this issue, but I strongly disagree with it. You are presenting a limited view of the situation, as it is not accurate to say that 100% of the published discourse is against the use of the term "female circumcision." There are several communities that do use this term, and they should not be suppressed or excluded from the conversation.
Regarding the sources you cited, the United Nations and the recommendations from the last 100 years are not necessarily the only sources that should be considered. Other sources and perspectives should also be included in order to present a more comprehensive and inclusive view of the issue.
Furthermore, it is not accurate to assume that the term "female circumcision" is absent from the published discourse. There are numerous communities that use this term, and they should not be dismissed simply because they do not align with the dominant perspective.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of promoting a wp:neutral point of view. This requires acknowledging and including different perspectives and sources, rather than suppressing or excluding any particular point of view. I would encourage you to consider the other side of the argument and allow for a more comprehensive and inclusive discussion on this issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neveselbert: Can you provide sources proving the existence of the communities for which you are advocating? If not, then why not? Can you respond to my request for sources? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Alsee's comment below. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry You and others are trying to argue that this does not belong in this article's content - and you are correct. As I said, I violently agree with pretty much everything you've said. Pause and consider - you are trying to win an argument by repeating things that I agree with. Hopefully you've noticed that there's something wrong with that picture, chuckle. Hopefully I've caught your intellectual interest.

I'm not disagreeing with your arguments, I'm saying they don't apply. If you want to change my mind you need to focus on why I think your arguments don't apply. I'll try to distill my key point more clearly. Quoting the WP:HATNOTE guideline, The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. A HATNOTE is an encyclopedia navigational element, not article content. A HATNOTE is not part of the article, it is part of the page. A HATENOTE lives above an article, it has absolutely no relation to whatever the topic or content happens to be on that page. Any arguments related to the topic or content of this article have no bearing on encyclopedia elements outside the article - even if that navigational element happens to live on the same page. The article on this page is a red herring.

As I mentioned before my search on "female circumcision" turned up lots of medical/academic/scientific sources. I won't bother linking any, because what Reliable Sources say is irrelevant to the current question. What is relevant is that we know many people exist who have been told that the term for the female-practice is "circumcision". It doesn't matter who told them that, it doesn't matter whether we consider them reliable. The only thing that matters is that we know that they WILL type this term into the search box and we know they will land on the wrong page. The only thing that matters is that we know those readers will need a navigational aid to help them arrive at the correct page. Alsee (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alsee: Thanks, we agree on a lot, and yes, I am enjoying the conversation.
Here are points on which I disagree -
  • "we know many people exist who have been told that the term for the female-practice is "circumcision""
  • "we know that they WILL type this term into the search box"
  • "they will land on the wrong page"
  • "those readers will need a navigational aid"
I doubt the existence of these people using the term. My evidence is decades of reliable sources which use another term, and where sources do use the term, either the sources are older, or they describe it as an older term to be avoided. There still is some legacy use of the term, but since it is universally deprecated, Wikipedia's avoiding it would be conventional while Wikipedia's continued use of it would be unorthodox revival of a term which without our intervention to save it would die more quickly. Some few people use the term, but based on the sources using the term, they seem likely to be Western librarians, activists, or anthropologists in whom I have faith to arrive at the article with the usual hidden redirects we have set up.
How did you arrive at your premise that there is community using the term "circumcision" to describe this practice, and what do you presume about their demographics that leads you to believe that they need more assistance to find what they want than Wikipedia's usual hidden redirects can provide? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry I'm surprised this part is still in question, but ok. There are several parts of the world where the practice is utterly endemic with close to 100% of women affected, which includes almost universal acceptance of the practice among the local population, with "circumcision" being used in commercial advertisements for the practice and use among medical or quasi-medical professionals preforming it. Where the practice is endemic and accepted they obviously do not call it "female genital mutilation". They don't even call it "female circumcision", they simply call it "circumcision" (or the local translation of "circumcision"). Google turns up an endless flood of sources I could cite, but I'll try to cite just a few to make key points:
  • ABC.NET.AU news reports on commercial advertisement: Bring your daughter to "mass circumcision" for $10, a Facebook advertisement in Indonesia's South Sulawesi province reads. I cite this first, western news calling out a Facebook ad, for the raw point that this is how practitioners advertise to people in populations where such practice is considered normal, expected, or even mandatory.
  • BBC news: Uganda FGM ban: 'Why I broke the law to be circumcised aged 26' Perhaps the best source to read-in-full to demonstrate the point. Note that this article has zero occurrences of "female circumcision". It has 18 occurrences of "circumcision", every one vividly illustrating that this is exactly how members of these populations use the word. It's not "mutilation", it's not "cutting", it's not even "female circumcision", the word they use is just plain "circumcision". For many people "circumcision" is the only way they've ever heard it described. It's the only thing they'd know to type in the search box.
  • pulitzercenter.org reprints VICE News Another story demonstrating a first-person account that this is the word used by victims. The female circumciser, an older woman whom Tracy recognized as a member of a neighboring community... Tracy believes she and the other girl were cut because being home from school due to the coronavirus pandemic made them vulnerable to undergoing this practice. "Because we’ve stayed at home for long, so the parents just decided they would just circumcise us". If Tracy came to Wikipedia, before or after it happened to her, she likely would have typed in "circumcision".
  • New York State has significant populations of immigrants from affected areas. The New York Department of Heath has a page dedicated to female circumcision. What is Female Circumcision? It is the practice of removing either part or all of the external female genitalia ... It is estimated that more than 7,500 girls and women in New York State are at risk for having FC performed on them either in the state or overseas. The Department of Health has an additional page for heath care providers. That same page actively discourages health care providers from using the phrase Female Genital Mutilation, instructing them that It's more appropriate to use the term "cutting," or "Female Circumcision" as it is more commonly known.
  • egypt.unfpa.org 86 percent of Egyptian married women between the ages of 15 and 49 have undergone FGM, 74 percent of whom by doctors. Although a positive change in women’s attitudes about circumcision has occurred, there is still widespread support for the continuation of FGM in Egypt. The percentage of mothers who intend to circumcise their daughters in the future has declined to only 13%. Note how the source itself wants to refer to it as FGM, but proceeds to say Egyptian women themselves have attitudes about "circumcision" and intent to "circumcise" their daughters.
The language of the Ivory Tower vs language of population. The hatnote isn't for authors of prestigious Reliable Sources. The hatenote is for the millions who hear and say circumcision in real life, so that they can learn what Reliable Sources say. Alsee (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Section break. The new reply tools are confused by {outdent}

It's not irrelevant and you know that, don't be disingenuous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For it to be relevant you would have to show that circumcisicion is closely linked to female genital mutilation, the article you are trying to link. This is something you have not done. Additionally please assume good faith even when discussion doesn't follow your own views. Thanks. BogLogs (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've pointed out, only until recently has there not been a hatnote. Again, this isn't about "closely linking" the two topics, it's about disambiguating them. I'll assume good faith, but I'm struggling to understand the reasoning that a hatnote isn't relevant when there is obviously a need for one. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll assume good faith too even though we are clearly at opposite ends of this RFC discussion. Could you explain why you think disambiguation is relevant for the two articles Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation if you are not saying they are closely linked? You also say there is an obvious need for one. Could you explain what that need is and how that is more pressing than the concerns editors have expressed?
Also a hatnote from last year isn't relevant here as we are discussing wether a hatnote should be included going forward not wether one was appropriate in the past. BogLogs (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While they are not the same thing, they are related in that they both involve the alteration of genitalia, and it is important for readers to understand the distinction.
Regarding the need for a hatnote, I believe that it is more pressing than the concerns raised by other editors because it helps readers to understand the difference between the two practices and avoid confusion. A hatnote serves as a quick reference for readers who may not be familiar with the subject matter, and it provides a convenient link to the relevant article for further reading.
As for the hatnote from last year, I understand that we are discussing whether a hatnote should be included going forward. However, the fact that a hatnote was included in the past suggests that there is a need for clarification between the two articles, and I believe that this need still exists today.
‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, of course. It's a form of circumcision, and it would be natural that someone would look up "circumcision" even if they weer only interested in the female one. It would help the readers navigate.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please have another read of this discussion, and perhaps both of the articles at issue. The hatnote should be excluded so people don't incorrectly equate the two as you have apparently just done. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually I think excluding the hatnote does the exact opposite, as it means we're not disambiguating the two. This article mentions the term "female circumcision" in five citations, yet without a hatnote who's to know that the two aren't equatable? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support for the pre-July 2022 status quo as pointed out by Neveselbert: [4]: This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation. There is clear benefit to readers to be informed that there is a separate article covering FGM, and the previous wording both acknowledged the potential for confusion and directed to the modern preferred term. This doesn’t conflate the two articles at all, while being clear that the two are not wholly un-related. I don’t see where any offence would arise. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. Please remember that hatnotes exist to aid navigation, per the guideline WP:Hatnote. The points above about whether or not the topics are related and whether or not the term is metaphorical are completely irrelevant. The word "circumcision" is used in many sources with this meaning (just search for "her circumcision" in quotes on Google Books to see lots of examples), so a hatnote is needed to aid navigation.
There should also be a hatnote to The Circumcision, again to aid navigation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes "They're different because because because" doesn't change that FGM is very often called "female circumcision".★Trekker (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Already voted no above) Possible alternative solution: using the "see also" tag as disambiguation instead of a straight "yes" or "no" — "female circumcision" is included... but in the see also section in the same way that the current consensus on female genital mutilation resolved the term's use in the article: mentioning "female circumcision" with Martha Nussbaum's quotation on it. This is one of the rare cases where a simple lead disambiguation would be misleading and the use of notes and/or other information would better inform readers. I don't think a consensus on the matter will be reached otherwise. And I think this would be unobjectionable to both sides of the discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @KlayCax I had trouble interpreting what you wrote, but I don't think anyone is suggesting any changes to the lead of this article. Also I can find no relevant comparison to anything at the Female genital mutilation article.
    What is proposed is to restore a hatnote above the article here. I think(?) you are suggesting putting a link down in the See Also section instead. If so, you're mistaken in suggesting that would be unobjectionable. The purpose of a hatnote is to help someone who arrived at the wrong page. Specifically, someone who entered "circumcision" in our searchbox or Google's searchbox seeking encyclopedic information on circumcision of females, and who ended up on the page here. That person obviously isn't likely to read this irrelevant and unhelpful article long enough to find a link to the correct page buried in the See Also section. That renders such link worthless for the intended purpose. Alsee (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry for the ambiguity. Part of the text got jumbled up and/or incorrectly removed for some reason. (I didn't notice at the time.)
    You're understanding it correctly.
    It would be moved to the "see also" section of the article, stating something like: "Female circumcision: a dated/anachronistic (or similar wording) term for female genital mutilation" Then placing a note on it that repeats what is currently on the FGM article's description of it in the lead: Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision. I'm open to including something and I don't think a consensus is going to be reached otherwise.
    (Since right now the responses seem right down in the middle.) @Alsee:, @BogLogs:, @Bluerasberry:. What do you think? KlayCax (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @KlayCax My last comment explained why your 'See also' suggestion didn't work. You emptily repeated your suggestion, without noticing or disputing why I said it didn't work.
    Regarding your read on the !vote and predicted result, I'll attempt to offer what insight I can. Yes the headcount is currently 7-7, but this is one of those cases where raw headcount is misleading. Notice that every 'No' all came in first 9 responses. It was 7 people piled against the RFC author - and me the only person to support their proposal. Every response afterwards has been 'Yes'. The direction of discussion completely reversed. I (correctly) called out the initial votes as dominated by involved parties, gone off the rails stuck in irrelevant past arguments. I cautiously foresee reaching a 'yes' consensus. You failed to notice, or failed to engage, why the discussion has reversed. Alsee (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    P.S. Your 'See also' suggestion is a proposal/argument for editing article content. That's exactly where the argument fails. That argument and reasoning have no weight or validity outside the article.
    The page with the bicycle-Cycling article has a hatnote at the top for a strategy Cycling (ice hockey). The fact that the strategy-hatnote happens to live on the same page as the bicycle content is incidental. It should be obvious that any reasoning or argument relating to bicycling-content carries no validity or weight in a debate on a hockey strategy hatnote.
    You're focused on old content-arguments here, you're mistaking the hatnote for part of the article here, you're mistakenly trying to apply local-article-content reasoning to something that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Alsee (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. The "no" side makes many absolutely valid statements but fundamentally misunderstands the point of hatnotes. A hatnote is not there to make claims about the article's topic but to provide for navigation. From WP:HAT: The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. [...] Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because [...] [t]hey may be seeking an article with a similar name to, or that otherwise might be confused with, the article with the hatnote. See also more specifically WP:SIMILAR and WP:HATCONFUSE, and note that hatnotes aren't supposed to link to articles that are topically related (WP:RELATED). It's irrelevant whether the discourses in which a reader may encounter the term are academic or reliable, what matters only is that they exist. It's clear from the above discussion that term "circumcision" (with or without the qualifier "female") has a solidly attested, if now obviously deprecated, use for FGM. However, this doesn't mean that the hatnote shouldn't be carefully worded (if Wikipedia editors can misunderstand the point of hatnotes, then so can readers!). How about something along the lines of This page is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation.? There was a suggestion to have this link in the "see also" rather than the hatnote, but that would do nothing for readers who have arrived at the wrong article, and it will actually be validly exposed to the criticism currently levied on the hatnote proposal (unlike hatnotes, "see also" entries are expected to be topically related: MOS:SEEALSO). – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Uanfala How about something along the lines of This page is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation.? While I appreciate an urge to find options for compromise, I think you'll reject that text on second consideration. Consider a reader who typed "circumcision" in our search box or Google search, and landed on this page expecting this page to provide them with information on circumcision of girls/women. The article content is actively unhelpful, deliberately designed to avoid any association between the male and female practices. That reader rapidly scans random stuff on the page hoping maybe something helpful jumps out at them. Do you think that text would work for the hatnote? The reader likely has never seen the term "female genital mutilation" before. If they are from a community that practices "female circumcision" their English skills are likely weak or unsophisticated, they may not even recognize the words "genital" or "mutilation". I don't think the target reader is likely to successfully catch the hatnote unless the link itself jumps out as Female circumcision. Alsee (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes. Female or male circumcision are both circumcisions. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No to a hatnote to Female Circumcision, but Yes to a hatnote to Female genital mutilation. If we are talking about navigation then we should have navigation to the article name in Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Unfortunately, I think the RfC wording is not the best. So to clarify, do you oppose a hatnote with the wording “This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation”? Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I oppose such a hatnote. If hatnotes are for navigation the wording should be "This page is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation." That is the article with have, not anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying. Prcc27 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes to some kinds of hatnote, perhaps using {{about-distinguish|male circumcision|female genital mutilation}}, which should render as This article is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FGM = Male circumcision analogy discussion on FGM page

Go to talk of female genital mutilation. OntologicalTree (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Direct link: Talk:Female genital mutilation#FGM = Circumcision analogy. Alsee (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision"