Talk:History of circumcision

This article is largely a repository for material removed from the main Circumcision article (where its purpose was argumentative) to help bring that article closer to NPOV. Tverbeek 13:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Indeed. As such the content of this dumping ground cannot be considered anything other than that: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." - Robert Brookes 06:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've read that based on interpretation of some Biblical verses, some historians think that ancient Egpytians only performed a dorsal slit of the foreskin rather than removing it entirely as Hebrews would start to do sometime later. Can this really be considered a circumcision though? Shouldn't they be able to tell for sure what the exact procedure was from looking at those supposedly cirumcised mummies? Anybody know? KingOfAfrica 01:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rho bite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (TC)

• Nonsense. There can be a link on the circumcision article for those who are interested. It needs to be remembered that the junk in this article needs to be seriously cleaned up. - Robert Brooke's 21:20, 31 Aug 2004 (TC)
  • Please point out the "junk" in this article, or merge it back with circumcision. Rho bite 22:26, Aug 31, 2004 (TC)

The study of the history of a subject is a legitimate separate study to the subject itself as illustrated throughout Wikipedia.

The use of the term 'junk' is wilfully offensive which merely reinforces prejudice. By failing for over 2 years to point out 'the junk', Robert seems to be admitting that he cannot and by default admitting that the content is legitimate. If so, the courtesy would be to remove the claim.Just2Jack 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Abu Hurairah is a despitued source, he has been known to have accompanined Muhammad for only three years and yet has produced a large number of Hadith's, in the neighberhood of 5,000, far more than any other companion of the prophet of Islam. His account is usually anti-women and dogs, all kidding aside, even his name in Arabic: ابو هريره means father of a kitten and it is argued that he was therefore partial against dogs. He is also mentioned as a thief and an embezzler. As a quotable source he is popular, in my opinion due to the large number of hadiths he claims to have witnessed, yet again, he only knew the prophet for 3 yrs. Again, he is popular to quote yet discredited by some, or many for that matter, myself included. --The Brain 09:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

This article is largely a repository for material removed from the main Circumcision article (where its purpose was argumentative) to help bring that article closer to NPOV. Tverbeek 13:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Indeed. As such the content of this dumping ground cannot be considered anything other than that: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." - Robert Brookes 06:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rhobite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Nonsense. There can be a link on the circumcision article for those who are interested. It needs to be remembered that the junk in this article needs to be seriously cleaned up. - Robert Brookes 21:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Please point out the "junk" in this article, or merge it back with circumcision. Rhobite 22:26, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The sources of this article is from anti-circumcision web sites. It is POV. It is selective in what it includes. It is not the edits to it which need to be justified but the inclusion of such POV junk in the first place. - Robert Brookes 00:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please read this. In particular, note

The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.

—Ashley Y 08:37, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

This article is now in merged form and it is much more comprehensive. It should be very NPOV because of the many viewpoints expressed. Robert Blair 12:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article has a strong anti-circumcision bias. See the references. It should be flagged as such. 24.84.40.22 18:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article is interesting, but long, and in many ways unrelated to the main article. Don't merge it back. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:03, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

This article contains no discussion at all of the anthropology of circumcision, or its practice among many African, Australian, and Papuan groups. A history of circumcision that starts with ancient Egypt is scarcely adequate; we can be fairly confident that Australian Aborigines did not get the idea there! - Mustafaa 05:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can be fairly confident or you? What are your objective grounds for asserting that circumcision did not migrate?

The article is incomplete. For instance it:

1. Fails to mention two of the most important figures in the history of circumcision: Abraham and Mohamed.

2. Dismisses a number of existing theories about the origins of circumcision. The fact that those theories exist makes them legitimate subjects of study in their own right. In the same way that social science has been studying beliefs and attitudes for decades.

3. Does not examine the period prior to ancient Egypt. Some may argue that the history of circumcision in pre-history is lost in the mists of time. The origins or species and the universe substantially predate circumcising. That did not deter science from seeking and discovering the origins of both.

All history is always biased. To the victor goes the spoils of war. One spoil is the power to write and re-write history in a way that is more often than not flattering to the victor. Today that may be seen in the attempts of the powerful to suppress alternative accounts and gain a record that is flattering to them.

Circumcision is an emotive subject. It has been throughout history.

Just2Jack 04:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

On the Circumstitions website there is a map of the United States which shows those states that do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. I provided a link to this map because it gives a clear picture of which states do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. Jake Waskett removed the link as a 'propaganda link'.

While I can understand that Jake might take that view of the web page, I see things differently. The website, of course, is against circumcision, but the map is very clear and informative, getting the information across in a particularly striking and attractive way. I think that the readers of Wikipedia are quite grown up enough to take what they want from this website, and to discard the rest. They don't need a nanny edit.

Perhaps the following wording will suffice to warn the poor unsuspecting reader that they might be exposed to blush propaganda!

See the map on this anti-circumcision website [1]. Michael Glass 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

As an alternative, why not just give a link to the map itself? I don't object to the map, just the crackpot propagandist conspiracy theories. - Jakew 14:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sounds OK to me! Michael Glass 07:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Not to me, because the page the map is on [2] gives the dates on which each state abolished funding and other documented information. "Crackpot propagandist conspiracy theories"? Please elaborate.--Hugh7 02:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect use of Language? Yes, there certainly is! I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.--MrEguy 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is being discussed at Talk:Penis#"Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised".—Chidom ^talk  19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

A elephant is an elephant. There is no need to qualify that description by saying that it is intact because it still has its tusks.

A penis is a penis. There is no need to qualify that description because it still has it's foreskin.

The word 'intact' is redundant. The word 'Circumcised' is sufficient to differentiate that penises which are circumcised.

Just2Jack 04:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves moving some content from that page to this one (or verifying that certain content there is already represented here). Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?. --Coppertwig 13:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm moving/copying information here from Circumcision#History of circumcision.

Repetition: In this article, a similar sentence about a decline in circumcision Greece due to not liking it appears in two places -- should probably be edited down. (I changed the wording to match Circumcision but it was already repetitive.) --Coppertwig 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

This sentence: There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. at Circumcision is mostly a repetition of a sentence here, and I have not put it in here. --Coppertwig 00:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re childbirth in hospitals: I'm replacing this link [3] with the one from the Circumcision article, except that I'm keeping this URL, as the one from the ref there doesn't work. --Coppertwig 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Stuff about South Korea and it being a unique case appears twice here (repetitive) and may not be precisely the same wording as at Circumcision. I'm not changing it at the moment. --Coppertwig 01:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I put in stuff about whether risks are discussed, and a prevalence table, because it was in the history section at Circumcision, but there may be a better place for it than this article.

I have essentially only added/changed information to make this article contain essentially everything from the history section of Circumcision; I haven't (yet) done any other edits to this article. --Coppertwig 01:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The obvious place for the prevalence table is prevalence of circumcision, but I think it would be inappropriate to include it in its present form (I'll gladly discuss at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision if anyone wishes to do so). I suggest deleting the table, and linking to prevalence of... instead. Jakew 10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Need to fix formatting of references. Two different styles are mixed. --Coppertwig 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suggest renaming the previous "References" section to "Bibliography", and putting the newer references that use ref tags under "References". --Coppertwig 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the Pang reference (re South Korea): I couldn't get the url given at the Circumcision page to load. So I also include the cirp url within comment tags so it only shows in the wikitext. I did get the cirp url to load. Someone else can verify whether the other url loads and delete one of them, I suppose. --Coppertwig 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deleting the table is OK with me. --Coppertwig 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I checked the reference list for duplicate references. --Coppertwig 13:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re this edit: [4] I think this information, if verifiable, should definitely be included in one of these articles; probably here, or perhaps at Circumcision and law or Prevalence of circumcision, except that possibly the info re Canadian health insurance can be abbreviated now that it's all the provinces -- it can be stated much more briefly, except that the info re a major hospital not permitting the operation is significant in itself and I think that sentence should be kept. It's definitely relevant information about circumcision. However, re one of the edit summaries, I think it's inaccurate to refer to circumcision as "outmoded". --Coppertwig 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some of it may be relevant to other articles, but including information about individual hospitals is simply absurd (think about it: how many hospitals are in the world?). Frankly, I'm not at all sure where to include health insurance coverage, if indeed anywhere. Jakew 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Information about each individual hospital is not to be included, but in this case information about one particular hospital is interesting -- in the same way Manitoba was interesting when it was the only province providing coverage, but probably no longer needs to be specifically mentioned. It's interesting whether "all hospitals allow the procedure" or "there exists a hospital which does not". --Coppertwig 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

The source cited gives no indication that the hospital is special in this regard. It is simply a single fact about one hospital in isolation. Jakew 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Well, we could still say "at least one hospital no longer performs circumcisions" or something like that. Or even just leave the sentence about the one hospital. --Coppertwig 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is so important about this one fact about this single hospital that we need to discuss it in the context of the history of male circumcision? If another hospital closes their neurosurgery department then does that require explicit mention in the history of neurosurgery? Jakew 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see your point. It's not as if babies born in that hospital are not allowed to get circumcised -- they just have to have it done elsewhere. Maybe you're right. --Coppertwig 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not on all fours with closing a neurosurgery department. A hospital would close its neurosurgery department if it couldn't attract a neurosurgeon or couldn't afford to maintain the facilities and that would be unimportant to the history of neurosurgery, but it wouldn't decide that neurosurgery was against its principles. Circumcision is a fairly generic kind of surgery (which I have no doubt St Boniface's will continue to do where there is medical need), and the hospital's reason for cession has a bearing on the history of the operation, just as it is important to the history of circumcision in New Zealand that National Women's Hospital was the first to stop doing them, which closed the floodgates, as it were, and now none will.--Hugh7 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If the foreskin is infected sometimes they have to surgically remove it, but I have a feeling there are many different reasons for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.114.102 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes you are right. It is called therapeutic circumcision as opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision (done without medical need) that is done on babies. You are right there should be a section on this on the main circumcision page. I have brought it up but the editors there are literally non-responsive most of the time if it doesn't chime with what they want for the article. In other words they think they own it. I am not sure the history of circumcision page needs a section on therapeutic circumcision though. It can be dealt with within the article when it needs to be. Tremello22 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Considering it is of equal importance to religious male circumcision, which has its own spin off article, separating off the Medicalisation of circumcision 1850 - present day into it's own article too wouldn't be a bad idea. Particularly so, since a lot of what is in circumcision advocacy and opposition to circumcision is part of this history. I have most of the books so I could probably provide good sources too to make a good article. Better than it currently is anyway. We would then provide a short summary in the history of male circumcision page, which would improve the history of male circumcision by making it more concise and shorten it (as it is quite long). I have also suggested here:Talk:Opposition_to_circumcision#Move.2C_merge.2C_and_rename_request that if there is a new circumcision controversies article, then it could be reserved for recent controversies. Jakew has suggested the article would include non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision and HIV in Africa controversies- I don't think there are any more controversies. Anyway, what we should be trying to do is not to overlap; in other words have the same (redundant) information contained in numerous articles. Tremello22 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't follow your rationale, Tremello. First, religious male circumcision is a spin-out from circumcision, not history of male circumcision, so I don't see the connection. Second, I don't see why a spin out is needed in order to add material. NPOV material can be added to this article as it stands. I'd prefer not to spin out too early, as doing that can leave us with large numbers of small or incomplete articles that are difficult to do anything about. As contemplated by WP:SUMMARY, I would prefer to allow the article to grow until it is too long, then spin out.

It's unclear what section of the article you're talking about. You say "Medicalisation of circumcision 1850 - present day", but a section of that name doesn't exist, and you link to the section entitled "Medical circumcision from 1870 to 1950 in English-speaking countries", which covers a different timespan.

Since the word "medicalisation" has already been rejected in this discussion, I think it should be obvious that a title including the word "medicalisation" is unlikely to achieve consensus. I would certainly strongly oppose such a title. I'm not opposed to a spin out when it becomes necessary, provided that a more NPOV title were chosen. Jakew (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This new article would include the sections after "Medical circumcision from 1870 to 1950 in English-speaking countries" and the 2 sections before that too. I think you should change your mind over "medicalisation". It is the best way to describe the period. Not perfect, but it will do better than any other suggestions you or I can think of. Tremello22 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a needless content fork to me, sorry. Gigs (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed this paragraph, which had multiple issues:

"Apart from the now obvious advantages of male circumcision as a prophylactic against AIDS, circumcision survives in protestant countries other than the United States, largely as a distiction between male members of protestant churches (circumcised) and male catholics (uncircumcised)."

1. There's no citation. 2. It's POV. The prophylactic effect against AIDS is disputed, not "obvious." 3. What "protestant countries" is this referring to? I believe today the USA is the only country in the world where the majority of Protestants circumcise. It's certainly not common among the Protestants of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or Germany. I'm not sure about Northern Ireland, but it's my understanding that circumcision has become rather rare in the UK the past several decades. -Helvetica (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good edit. Regarding your points 2 and 3, though, a couple of notes. First, the prophylactic effect is not a matter of serious dispute any more (at least not in reliable sources; random websites don't really count), and hasn't been for some time. This can easily be verified by performing a few date-limited PubMed searches. Second, "survives" is somewhat ambiguous (which is of course another problem with the paragraph): it might mean a >50% circumcision rate, but it could be taken to simply mean a non-zero circumcision rate, in which case several countries might qualify. I have no information about correlations between circumcision and protestants vs catholics, so can't comment on that. Jakew (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the RCTs in Africa, there are serious issues with the methodology, some of which are discussed in the relevant article here on Wiki. This scholarly article details some of those issues: http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193 -Helvetica (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I remember that article. If you're interested, there's a well-written rebuttal in the September issue. Regardless, an obscure opinion piece in a fairly obscure journal is hardly a serious controversy; it's possible, after all, to find an opinion piece claiming that HIV is unrelated to AIDS, but it would be misleading to say that this is a matter of serious dispute. Anyway, this seems rather off-topic, and it is not clear to me that further discussion would be productive in terms of improving the article. Jakew (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jakew, it's clear to me that you have a strong pro-circumcision POV, and therefor see a consensus where others don't. You're entitled to your opinion, just as the authors of the article I cited and the many other scientists who disagree with you are entitled to theirs. Like you said though, this discussion isn't particularly relevant to this article at this time, so it's probably best just to agree to disagree. -Helvetica (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I certainly agree to disagree, Helvetica, but for future reference, please remember to discuss content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Jakew, please don't try to insinuate that I was making a personal attack, when clearly I was not. Your point of view is relevant to assessing your judgment on this matter. Someone with a pro-circ POV will have a different subjective perspective than someone with an anti-circ POV (or someone with a more neutral POV, to the extent that exists...) and will judge differently what evidence and analysis they find more or less compelling. You're entitled to your opinion just like they're entitled to theirs. Obviously you find the evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection to be compelling, but many others, including many scientists in the relevant fields disagree. -Helvetica (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I happen to find it rather offensive to be labelled as "pro-circumcision", partly because I consider it a misrepresentation of my views, and partly because it is fundamentally a form of argumentum ad hominem. The easiest way to avoid causing such offence is to avoid making comments about an editor rather than the subject. Since this is exactly what WP:NPA advises, it seems obvious to follow it, whether or not a personal attack is actually intended. Note that this is also consistent with WP:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages, which states "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits" (emph. mine). Jakew (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Outdent) Jakew, given what I've seen of your editing and discussion on this subject, I find it quite surprising that you would be offended by being characterized as "pro-circumcision." If you say that its effectiveness against HIV infection "is not a matter of serious dispute any more," then that would imply that you're at least pro-circumcision in the context of preventing HIV. I do agree that in a debate it's generally a good idea to avoid addressing the individual so much as the issues, but when we're dealing with one person's subjective judgment, the opinion of that person on a topic is relevant. -Helvetica (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe it would imply any such thing. First of all, the issue under discussion is the balance of opinions expressed in reliable sources, not our individual opinions. It is perfectly possible for a person to agree that there is no serious dispute in reliable sources while personally disagreeing with that consensus. For the sake of argument, however, let's ignore that distinction and consider some other problems with your analysis. One might agree that circumcision is effective against HIV infection, while being opposed to it on grounds of risk:benefit balance or belief that it is unethical, to name but two reasons. It is, therefore, consistent with an anti-circumcision viewpoint. Finally, one might personally believe prophylaxis against HIV to outweigh any risks or disadvantages, but one might still regard oneself as neutral with respect to performing it on another person, believing that such a decision is for that person (or his parents) to make. It is also, therefore, consistent with a pro-choice/pro-parental choice viewpoint. Returning to the point, can I ask once again that you avoid labelling others. It isn't necessary. Jakew (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. That's very clear, I think, and Wikipedia policy. No more assertions or discussions about whether or not various editors here are "pro-circumcision" or not. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is a less misleading map not available? To show 20-80% as one group is ridiculous. Yes, it is not inaccurate to show the US and Israel as similar to Muslim countries, South Korea and the Philippines in this regard. Indeed, religion is not at all a reliable indication what the preference is in countries other than the US: Oriental Orthodox Christians are all circumcised in Egypt and Ethiopia, they consider it a religious rule, but none are in Kerala, southwest India. And 20-80% includes many countries whose rate is far closer to zero than to 100%. It would be much more realistic to include, say, groups of 20-50% and 50-80%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.73.83 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The quotes "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall" are from John Anthony West who is not a reliable source for this. This[5] is a better source. As for Ankhmahor it is true that this is seen as circumcision, see above, but more recently it's been interpreted as pubic shaving.[6] Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813204310/http://www.misericordia.edu:80/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm to http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817122201/http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html to http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817122201/http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html to http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103121616/http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/in-ai/2005/11-01_e.asp to http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/in-ai/2005/11-01_e.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817122201/http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html to http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

The figure in the main article, about 55.9% of male newborn discharged from USA hospitals with a circumcision performed, as it's much higher than the number of persons reporting adscription to Moshe's law in America, and of course, of kids having a stenosis of foreskin channel: 'phimosis', requiring medical care to avoid complications, sometimes in an emergency procedure, is something not addressed at all by authors; as Exodus 20 points all connected to hebrew should have circumcision, the issue of consent and freedom in accepting foreskin cut in such a huge part of babies is important, and unexplained.

PMID 22672975, and PMID 26407411 discuss the serious dangers in 'Metzitzah B'Peh', the habitude, the 'old way', of officiant restaining kid's blood with his mouth, full with a sip of wine.

'Fellatio' was the Roman name for this, and same as 'Cunnilingus', this type of 'oral sex' was repressed among them. No data are reported about the possible lifetime psychological effects of penis manipulation in an 8 days old kid, having recovered from the delivery shock, penis reacts as any sense, single way, with genital pleasure, in this case, linked to a man, as a kid can distinguish very early the gender of those approaching them.

Circumcision, whatever its goal, is a medical procedure, to be performed only by physicians, under at least some sedation-amnesia, an anaesthetist is required for this. The American Pediatrics Academy statement was: 'Circumcision should not be a routine procedure for all male babies'. The whole case is obscure, as John 7, 22; points: 'Circumcision does not come from Moshes, but from Patriarchs', and Acts of Apostles 7, 51; remarks: 'Circumcision opened not your heart neither your ears'. Salut +

All circumcision is male. There is no other kind.

Female genital mutilation is not circumcision, and it would be helpful to stop perpetuating that mistaken term. Calling it that is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The term means "cut around" and since it's used to refer to the amputation of the male prepuce, the analagous equivalent (amputating the clitoral hood) in females is probably an appropriate use of it. The central problem is that people not understanding the meaning of the "circum" prefix (not sure why, we use it in circumference, clearly refers to 'around' for anyone who does basic geometry...) will misuse it to refer to other more extreme forms of FGM like amputation of the external glans of the clitoris itself, which is definitely something we should avoid perpetuating. I believe that emphasizing it's appropriateness for hoodectomies would aid in quelling that though, as clearly there is some desire to use the term, the best way to quell misunderstanding is to have the term used appropriately rather than to censor ALL uses. WakandaQT (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

There should be something here in the last section about WHO recommending, based on studies, circumcision, for HIV prevention especially in Africa. Also, most of the comments on this talk page appear unaddressed a decade plus later.

Page reads as lacking a neutral POV as anti-c. Histories are explored (especially Greek) much more than what the page is supposed to be about. Came her to find out why so many American adult men have undergone this. Didn’t learn much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:2C69:EFFF:A501:CEA6 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The quote paragraph linked to citation 18 is not to be found on citation 18. I do not know how to fix this. The paragraph makes it appear as if the young men die from a circumcision alone, the actual article makes it clear that they die also from beatings and the fact that circumcisions are done with blood and in cleaned instruments. As presented the incorrect quote is both incorrect and biased.

The "revival" section here which uses this source compared the 9th edition from 1876 (by Baynes) to a 1910 publication.

Encyclopædia_Britannica#Edition_summary indicates this would be the 11th edition, either overseen by Chisholm (NY) or Hooper (London) Confusing: were there different versions of the 11th tailored to UK and US with two different editors? A pattern also seen for the 12th

Do we have any indication as to what was in the 10th edition (1902-1903) between these two cites?

Chisholm/Hooper worked on that too but had helpers: Wallace helped Chisholm on the NY edition and Hadley hepled Hooper on the UK one.

I notice it lists "supplement to 9th" so maybe it wasn't a full printing and got skipped for that reason? WakandaQT (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The figures for the United States only go up until 1975. They need to be updated to include the last ~50 years. Netside (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Section #3 Ancient world includes 3.5 Medieval Judaism and 3.6 Decline in Christianity. Starting with the New Testament period the latter ends with "today". 3.5 and at least some of 3.6 should be separate sections. Mcljlm (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I recently deleted false/fringe information that was in the article. (The vast majority of which was unsourced and/or from activist websites.)

If anyone objects to the deletions: feel free to ping me on talk and we can discuss. Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The fact that this had to be pushed into talk is a little dumb, but okay. I can somewhat understand removing Charles III and his brothers, but we should keep William and Harry as Harry confirmed in his memoir. Is this okay? @nevesselbert Man-Man122 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not. William has not confirmed Harry's claims and is unlikely to do so. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you're gonna stoop that low, should we, at the very least keep Harry? Man-Man122 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's called WP:BLP, try reading it sometime. Why are Harry's claims relevant to the article? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because its a section about circumcision in the British Royal Family from a British Royal Family member. Thats why Man-Man122 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not about that, the section is titled Revival in the English-speaking world. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Im talking specifically about the wall of text in that section that is about circumcision in the royal family Man-Man122 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not like its something coming entirely out of left field Man-Man122 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

What are your terms? What are you willing to agree to? Man-Man122 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, just because William himself hasn't confirmed it doesn't make it untrue. The source isn't some random blog poster or something, it's literally his younger brother. Man-Man122 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't make it true either. Per WP:BLP, it's entirely inappropriate to include such an intimate detail as this that hasn't been confirmed by the person. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it were included that it was not confirmed by William himself, would it be alright then? Man-Man122 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. See WP:BLPGOSSIP. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources"

Harry is a reliable source

It is relevant to the subject

Harry is not an anonymous source

No weasel words

That being said, are you willing to compromise to any degree? Man-Man122 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Harry's pretty reliable at most points, hindsight given Man-Man122 (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, read the rest of the page. It's clearly an inappropriate detail and one that borders on defamation. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert or maybe you don't want this in the page for some personal reason? It's neither inappropriate nor does it border defamation in the slightest. How, in any way shape or form, is anyone defamed by this? Man-Man122 (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, it's quite obviously an invasion of William's privacy. Again, can you please read WP:BLP? Content regarding living persons must always respect personal privacy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert explain how it's almost defamation Man-Man122 (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Read WP:BLP. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've read this already. I want to know how you come to the conclusion that this is defamation, when it is clearly not Man-Man122 (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I said it borders on that. It's a deeply personal and intimate detail about a living person who has not disclosed, let alone confirmed, such claims, which could be considered disparaging. Indeed, William has let it be known that he is “absolutely horrified” by what Harry has written about him. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

1. This does not border on defamation at all. Please read the definition of defamation.

2. If it all just comes back to this border-line "defamation" of William, should Harry's report on himself be included? Man-Man122 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Revealing personal and private details, particularly those of a sensitive nature, without proper consent or justification, can be viewed as unethical and potentially defamatory. WP:BLP emphasises the need for caution and accuracy when including personal details about living individuals. As for Harry on himself, I don't see how it's relevant since he is no longer a working royal. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is a member of the British royal family. He is the younger son of King Charles III and Diana, Princess of Wales."

That's why its relevant. His not being a working royal does not matter. Man-Man122 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I still don't see the merit in including it, but maybe you should launch a WP:RFC to see what others might think. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not really that big of a deal. Its a statement from a member of the British Royal Family saying that he is circumcised in paragraph about circumcision in the British Royal Family. Clear cut, simple as that Man-Man122 (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Very punny. Actually he used the term "snip", which betrays an ignorance of the operation itself which is much more invasive than just that. I still don't feel comfortable basing information off his book, given both the controversy over the veracity of claims made in it as well as the fact that it's ghostwritten. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, it's not really a pun, it's just a term we use where I'm from.

Secondly, IT'S LITERALLY HIS PENIS.

Lastly, do you have a bias? Man-Man122 (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's ghostwritten, so it's literally not. I'm not biased against Harry, but I do understand that many of his claims struggle to withstand scrutiny, even those about himself. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Its literally his memoir. As ghostwritten as it is, it is still his memoir.

Also, I didn't necessarily mean a bias against Harry. Man-Man122 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's still a compromised source with serious questions raised about its reliability. Anyway, that's just my take, I think you should launch a WP:RFC or ask an admin to comment. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

So would you object to me putting Harry in the section? Man-Man122 (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would tag it with {{Relevance inline}} until a consensus can be reached here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is there anything you'd like to propose to reach a consensus? Man-Man122 (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I already suggested an RFC. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind explaining the process a bit? I didn't expect an edit about penis snips to go this far... Man-Man122 (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We're not talking about vasectomies, but in answer to your question, see WP:RFC and follow the instructions there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert You're right, nobody's talking about vasectomies....I'm not sure where you got that from Man-Man122 (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, so I don't know where you got "snips" from. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert You literally quoted it from Harry's book several replies ago. You know exactly what "snip" refers to. Also, the title of this page is History of Circumcision. The most basic inference that can be made is that it refers to circumcision. Man-Man122 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's an incorrect reference, as a "snip" refers to a vasectomy, not a posthectomy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert (mobile) 1. Not the point. The point is that you knew exactly what was meant. Being disingenuous isn't exactly very kind.

2. Posthectomy is an extremely outdated and obsolete term. It's hardly used in the medical community and in studies.

3. Snip colloquially refers to both Man-Man122 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't be ridiculous, "posthectomy" is the correct medical term. It isn't "extremely outdated and obsolete term" at all. No, it doesn't refer to both: The word circumcision is from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around". That is very much not just a "snip" by any definition. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert Anyway, wouldn't getting a third opinion be easier than an RFC? Man-Man122 (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Neveselbert it's not "the" correct medical term. Either way, does any of that change the fact that

a. It's still colloquially called a snip?

b. You already knew that and tried to play dumb?

This game of semantics you want to play is absolutely absurd. I'll have to figure out how to do an RFC, but if not, I'll live happily with a relevance inline. Man-Man122 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's a perfectly valid way of describing it, unlike "snip". If it's colloquially called that, it's a result of ignorance and misunderstanding of the procedure, given that it's never been just a "snip". Only a vasectomy can accurately be described as such in males. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I never said it was invalid, just plain out of use(which it is). Neither of your statements change the fact that you knew what was meant by "snip" and that it is also a colloquial synonym for circumcision. Whether you find it ignorant or not is subjective. Man-Man122 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's not out of use, I just used it. I knew from secondary sources reporting on it, not from the book itself. It's a colloquial synonym for vasectomy. It's not subjective, it's objective for the reasons I gave. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you think just because you say out of use words, they're suddenly in use? Man-Man122 (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll use the words I like, thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

That....doesn't mean they're not out of use. Man-Man122 (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't care less about what you believe is or isn't out of use. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Look man, this is completely ridiculous. You are so dead-set in your own mind and your own biases, that you believe that your own subjective opinions are objective.Just chill. Why do you feel so abnormally fired up by this subject. This has deviated so far from the subject matter. Man-Man122 (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is getting far too out of hand Man-Man122 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply