Talk:Circumcision

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

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

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

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

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Page name

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

Circumcision 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
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
February 12, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
March 14, 2022	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Men's Issues High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Translation Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Body Modification (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Circumcision
Male Circumcision

Discussions:

RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, No consensus, 18 June 2008, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, No consensus, 13 August 2009, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 20 July 2010, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 10 October 2022, discussion

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.

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

Archives

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

Archive guide
Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

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

On ethics section the formulation of the sentence.

Why it’s called a (belief) that systematic neonatal circumcision is cost ineffective in developed countries when this is not recommended by public health by developed countries based on some studies and present data, except USA where STDs is more common with a bad health care system, this sentence is presented as if the statement is unfunded and entirely just opinions, and you’d call it a fact that systematic neonatal circumcision is cost effective in developed countries when this is not supported by studies in the context of developed countries with low STDs rate? 2001:56B:9F1C:EC33:15BD:3FCD:AC48:B731 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you could add those sources to the article. the wiki says many bioethicists so it's an expert belief/opinion Avy42 (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wildly inconsistent rate of complications

the numbers are kinda contradicting. lets use 1000 procedures as the comparator

I use the who scale for med side effects because we need some standard to compare. Very common, ≥ 1⁄10 (10% or higher) Common (frequent), 1⁄10 to 1⁄100 {1% to 10%) Uncommon (infrequent), 1⁄100 to 1⁄1000 (0,1% up to 1%) Rare, 1⁄1000 to 1⁄10000 (0,01% to 0,1%) Very rare, < 1⁄10000 (lower than 0,01$)

>The most common acute complications[...]These complications occur in approximately 0.13% of procedures, with bleeding being the most common acute complication in the United States. Minor complications are reported to occur in three percent of procedures.

so 0,13% are 1,3 procedures in 1000 (so uncommon/infrequent if we use the who scale for adverse effects in medications) 3%, are 3/100 or 30 in 1000 which is already common/frequent not rare. That would be minor complications, so acute and post surgery. this implies that either 29 of 1000 will develop complication after the surgery or the numbrs have a variation of like factor 1-30. thats a lot) most common should describe 3% not 0,13%

>Severe complications are rare. A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.

This part starts by using terms that suggest issues are more rare after already showing they're not, then excuses that the data is bad. Maybe a comparison with other local anaesthetic surgical procedures might me helpful so that the risks are described accurately

Maybe this also should be at the beginning of the paragraph. With an explanation who cites them and what from. Because we also have

>Significant acute complications happen rarely, occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.

thats 2 in 1000, so meaning 0,2% So 1. thats uncommon, not rare.

this means that a child has a higher risk of SIGNIFICANT acute complications (0,2%) than mild acute coplications?(0,13%)

So i think the bit about issues with reliability of numbers should lead the paragraph, it should explain that because of the lack of official standardised measures of complications, one paper counted more significant acute complications (meanin the might need surgical correction) than another study counted mild ones. i hope those are two different papers, I didnt ccheck.

And as this is a medical topic I do think that a consistent terminilogy about the occurance of complications should be used, sing the same language for numbers that can vary this much feels kinda manipulative and I would hope thats not the case. 178.8.231.70 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]