Talk:Circumcision

Misinformed page.

The circumcision page on Wikipedia is grossly incorrect and biased. It states that there are basically no downsides, and no changes in pleasure. This is incorrect.

source:

https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php 104.194.36.23 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This precise topic over whether circumcision decreased pleasure during sex was debated last year (see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 85#"Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure."). After a prolonged and, at times, heated debate, it was decided to retain the statement involving pleasure.

To the topic of the specific reference you provided, the article was published in 1997 (so approaching 26 years old) and was authored by Paul M. Fleiss, an anti-circumcision activist and a person who is "known for his unconventional medical view(s)". Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of circumcision and pleasure since that article was published. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons. They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon. Wikipedia has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.

212.97.248.58 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussions challenging the protective effects of male circumcision against HIV seem to come up every few months. The last one was in April to June of this year (see: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_85#Lack_of_Consensus_on_HIV_prevention).

Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons.

Both US-based medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), and international based medical organizations (including the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS) have all acknowledged that male circumcision offers a level of protection against acquiring HIV. The argument that circumcision is primarily supported by the U.S. medical industry for financial gain overlooks the substantial body of evidence that supports the claims of reducing the acquisition of HIV. The claims that "the US medical industry" strongly supports circumcision for financial reasons appear to be WP:FRINGE.

They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon.

As per policy. The Wikipedia policies WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE require that due weight and proper balance be considered when editing articles. Wikipedia does not give equal weight to all points of view; it gives weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

Wikipedia has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.

The comparison of HIV prevalence rates between countries must consider a multitude of factors, including but not limited to sexual behavior, access to healthcare, education, and public health initiatives. The casual claim that Western European countries exhibit lower HIV prevalence than the U.S. does not account for these variables. For instance, South Korea presents a counterexample to these claims: it has an HIV prevalence rate that is significantly lower than that of many European countries, despite having a higher circumcision rate than the United States. Regardless, without WP:reliable sources, your claims appear to be original research and not eligible for inclusion under the policy of Wikipedia:No original research. Even assuming you are able to locate sources to support this view, they would still need to be evaluated in conjunction with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE policies discussed above. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Circumcision obviously increase frictions making sexual activity such as masturbation less easy due to the lack of skin, many circumcised man use lub to reduce that friction their lack of skin create, and

circumcision obviously make the glans keratinized discoloured and the mucous dry while all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated the glans is obviously made to stay hydrated and covered, not uncovered and dry,

those are obvious and observable facts we can all do by making comparisons to circumcised and not circumcised penises by thousands of pictures we can find online and experience. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-84

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-86 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Some circumcised men, like some uncircumcised men, use lubricants during sexual activity, but many circumcised men do not experience any issues without them. This point seems irrelevant to the article. If you are suggesting that circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure or decreased sexual function compared to uncircumcised men, the majority of studies indicate that circumcision does not lead to any decrease in sexual pleasure or cause sexual dysfunction, as referenced in the article. There has been extensive debate on this topic on this talk page.

Regarding your claims about circumcised penises being "discolored" and the notion that they are "supposed" to have "mucous" (presumably referring to smegma), these views are not applicable to the article. Your personal opinion that penises "supposed" to be uncircumcised does not make it so and does not warrant inclusion in the article.

It is crucial to consider the quality and context of the research. The first study you mentioned is a retrospective cohort study, which is generally regarded as one of the lowest quality of studies available (especially compared to studies like randomized controlled trials). It's first author is the open anti-circumcision activist, Morten Frisch, and numerous researchers have voiced their concerns about a large number of methodological issues in that specific study (see: [1]).

Even if the study were conducted in a neutral and methodically sound manner, a handful of cherry-picked studies of questionable quality cannot substantiate biomedical claims in an article, as per WP:MEDRS. This is particularly true when there is a substantial body of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials that contradicts those findings. Again, Wikipedia articles give weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Content not uploaded

Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-84 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-86

Pros and cons, para1

The opening paragraph includes three pros, one neutral, and no con. I suggest for the sake of balance this edit to the last sentence: The procedure is contraindicated in cases of certain genital structure abnormalities or poor general health[4][5] and is controversial. Dan Bollinger (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

References

•  Not done Saying something is "MOS:CONTROVERSIAL" is not very useful. If you have a COI with this topic you should declare it on your user page.

We literally have an article called circumcision controversies, I think it might be fine. Or maybe we could say it is a “source of controversy”. If we do add this, maybe we should clarify that it is mainly controversial when performed on minors; I don’t think there is significant controversy when performed on adults that consent to the procedure. Prcc27 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

== Why is this page titled "circumcision"? ==

Why is this page titled "circumcision" and not "male genital mutilation" like the Female Genital Mutilation page is? 97.147.65.171 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision/FAQ Bon courage (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to related topics at least ChecksMix (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

"Tens of thousands die from circumcision yearly"

I don't have permission to edit the circumcision article but noticed that the article has been changed to claim that tens of thousands of children die yearly from circumcision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=1251489386&oldid=1245650378

I couldn't find anything about the journal and it appears to be basically opinion yakes. The editor who it is named Dan Bollinger. The claim is cited to a @Dan Bollinger. I'm assuming that the editor is therefore claiming that the source cited is him. (???)

This looks promotional but I can't change it back and not sure what the rules are here. I couldn't find anything else about the scientists' reputation outside of this link which says he does not have a degree and dedicates his life to anti-circ activism.

https://intactamerica.org/intact-america-names-dan-bollinger-of-west-lafayette-indiana-as-vice-chairperson-of-its-board-of-directors/

The only thing else about him I could find is an article from the New York Times which reports that his circumcision figures aren't taken seriously by scientists.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html

"By one estimate, put forth by Dan Bollinger, a prominent opponent of circumcision, based on his review of infant mortality statistics, about 117 boys die each year as a result of circumcision. That estimate is cited often by critics of routine circumcision but widely disputed by medical professionals."

Why were the World Health Organization sources removed and replaced by this? It is wrong to me. If applied globally then 10,000+ children are dying from circumcision yearly. That claim is absurd.

I suggest replacing the sentence with: "Although Dan Bollinger in 2010 suggested that 117 children in the United States die from circumcision yearly, these claims are not supported by medical professionals." Or removed altogether. Does that seem right?

I can't edit the articles and English isn't my mother speech so hope this is readable.

@AnimeSteve: I am also concerned with the October 16 edit you referenced made by Dan Bollinger.

To summarize, the edit changed the sentence Severe to catastrophic complications, including death, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports. to read as Severe to catastrophic complications, including death estimated at 1 in 11,000 cases, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports. along with a supporting reference to a March 2010 article entitled "Lost Boy" in the journal "Boyhood Studies" that had the single author listed as "Dan Bollinger".

The 2010 article by Bollinger presents several issues and appears to not be generally accepted by the medical community. As you noted when you cited the August 27, 2012 article "Benefits of Circumcision Are Said to Outweigh Risks" in the New York Times, it is stated that "by one estimate, put forth by Dan Bollinger, a prominent opponent of circumcision, based on his review of infant mortality statistics, about 117 boys die each year as a result of circumcision. That estimate is cited often by critics of routine circumcision but widely disputed by medical professionals." Bollinger even acknowledged in his article that previous research from other major medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Family Physicians, estimates the risk is nearly 1/50th of his. ("The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP, 2002) statement says death is possible, but (according to this study's findings) significantly underreports the risk as 1/500,000.") Other studies conducted by prominent anti-circumcision activists appear to contradict Bollinger's claimed death rate. A 2018 study led by well-known anti-circumcision activist Brian Earp estimates that for neonatal circumcisions, "over 10 years, 200 early deaths were recorded among 9,833,110 subjects (1 death per 49,166 circumcisions)".[2] This is a small fraction of Bollinger’s claim in his 2010 estimate.

A 2021 study from Canada by Schroder et al. found the fatality rate from neonatal circumcision to be even lower, estimating a mortality rate of approximately 0.0012%.[3]

With the Bollinger article’s claims having been "widely disputed by medical professionals" and in direct conflict with most other research on the topic (even research performed by another anti-circumcision activist estimating it is a fraction of the estimates made by the reference in question), WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE would likely necessitate a removal.

If the editor is indeed Dan Bollinger, the researcher and anti-circumcision activist, and there's no reason to doubt this, then it seems necessary to consider WP:COI, given that the editor is incorporating their own research into an article. An editor adding their own previously published research into an article is not prohibited and is in fact allowed per WP:SELFPUB and WP:SELFCITE (so long as all the relevant guidelines are followed). However, those same policies also state that it is generally for editors who are an "established subject-matter expert", state that editors "should not place undue emphasis on your work", and that even then "caution" needs to be exercised when adding one's own material. The WP:SELFCITE policy goes on to state: "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." It is not clear that the writer of this article is indeed a subject matter expert in circumcision, or any medical topic for that matter, and the referenced article is very problematic even for all the reasons written about above, which, to again quote The New York Times, have been "widely disputed by medical professionals".

The editor acknowledged they have a conflict of interest on October 20 (after their edit to the article) when they posted a public declaration on their user page that they have a conflict of interest with the articles "Circumcision" and "Circumcision controversies". They stated, "I am an independent research for men's issues including psychology, childhood, and newborn circumcision." While I applaud the editor for acknowledging a conflict of interest (COI) after a suggestion on their talk page, it only reinforces the need for a thorough review of the edit and the inclusion of the study in the article.

Given the reference given is "widely disputed by medical professionals", more recent research (even by anti-circumcision activists) gives vastly different results, and the fact this research was added by someone who has since self-declared they have a conflict of interest with the circumcision article and appears to be adding their own research, I believe it advisable to revert the edit in question for the time being. If the editor feels the study should be included, then they should "propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it" as it is outlined in WP:SELFCITE. Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

These are all very good points. I also note that 'Boyhood studies' doesn't meet WP:MEDRS and is an extremely weak journal to cite for this information. I have removed the citation and the statistic it supported. MrOllie (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Bollinger’s claims are dubious and not reliable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. As far as COI goes, I think if it is him, he should at least be allowed to make edit requests without directly editing the article. Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)