Talk:Circumcision/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

---

Circumcision since 1950 changes

Here's new content for the last parts of that text, which starts out ..."Prior to 1989, the American Academy of Pediatrics had a long-standing opinion that medical indications for routine circumcision were lacking. This stance, according to the AMA, was reversed in 1989, following new evidence of reduction in risk of urinary tract infection."

Added is the text: They also state that incidence of UTI’s is “small (0.4%-1%)” in uncircumcised infants, and “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI...One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition.”[1]

And again later existing text, which states... "The major medical societies in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not support routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Major medical organizations in the United States state that parents should decide what is in their child's best interests, explicitly not recommending the procedure for medical reasons."

Added is the sentence: Physicians in "nearly half" of neonatal circumcisions "did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."[2] Neonatal circumcision remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today.TipPt 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The first addition completely disturbs the flow of the section, which is about the policy of the AAP, not the views of the AMA on UTIs. The second introduces original research. I'd have to evaluate the third in context, but it seems to be excessive detail. Jakew 09:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Added text to "Sexual"

The last sentence in the second paragraph should be:

A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding “participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision. This improved satisfaction represented a more satisfactory appearance of the penis and less pain during sexual activity.”[3]TipPt 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to reviewing the citations in this section yet, but if it says that, OK. However, what does it add? It just proves that there is no data that it affects one way or the other, b/c everything and the kitchen sink was agreed to in that study. It hurts performance, it enhances performance, it has nothing to do with performance, all were responses? -- Avi 01:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a second-hand report of Fink's study. There's no indication that it's AAFP policy, so no reason to include it in preference to the primary source. The primary source is already cited, along with other studies, in the main article (sexual effects of circumcision), and to include it and others here would just add clutter. Jakew 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A couple more added sentences to Circ since 1950

The existing text... A survey in 1987 found that the prominent reasons for parents choosing circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[4] A 1999 survey reported that reasons for circumcision included "ease of hygiene (67 percent), ease of infant circumcision compared with adult circumcision (63 percent), medical benefit (41 percent), and father circumcised (37 percent)." The authors commented that "Medical benefits were cited more frequently in this study than in past studies, although medical issues remain secondary to hygience and convenience."

Added text as the next sentence: They also concluded “Most parents have made a decision on circumcision before physicians discuss it, and physician discussions appear to have little impact on the decision. Ease of cleanliness is still the most common reason parents choose circumcision.” [5]

And existing text again... A 2001 survey reported that "The most important reason to circumcise or not circumcise the child was health reasons."[6] A 2005 study suggested that increased recognition of the potential benefits may be responsible for an observed increase in the rate of neonatal circumcision in the USA between 1988 and 2000.

Adding the text: “However, the increase may also result in a higher incidence of surgical complications of circumcision.”[7]

And existing ending... In a 2001 survey, 86.6% of parents felt respected by their medical provider, and parents who did not circumcise "felt less respected by their medical provider".[8]

That's all one paragraph.

Please look at the methodology in the Adler [9] survey ... it's really horrible. We should not quote that survey without specifying the limited context (to the selections on the multiple choice questionnaire).TipPt 00:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not up to that section yet. Anything I have converted to ref format, I have looked up, tried to drill down to earlier sources, and at times, had to make some changes b/c the text and the reference did not match. Also, when we have later studies, do we really need to refer to earlier ones? I guess that once we are done, the meat-and-potatoes of this section will be moved to "History of Circumcision" and we'll just have an overview here with a {{main}} tag. When I get up to this section, I'll keep your suggestions in mind as I try and review the sources. But you shoul dknow, some of your links seem to be dead, so I reverted them for the time being. -- Avi 01:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with this revert. Given that the findings of various studies were different, you can only quote Tiemstra's work in its own context. And once again, in adding "However, the increase may also result in a higher incidence of surgical complications of circumcision" you harm the flow of the text, which is about reasons for circumcision. Finally, as I've explained many, many times, we do not make original criticism of study methodologies. We can, however, quote criticism that others have made. Jakew 09:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Penn and Teller

Penn and Teller did an excellent show (Bullshit) regarding circumcision. Although they are clearly bias, could anyone that has access to the episode look into their sources? Perhaps it would be a good addition to the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarskane (talk • contribs)

I must admit that it was quite a while ago that I watched their show, but as I recall they only mentioned a couple of sources. The only one that I can identify from memory was Van Howe's discredited 'meta-analysis' of circumcision and HIV, which is mentioned in the medical analysis article. Jakew 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Penn and Teller reference any sources that aren't referenced here; they do speak directly with Edgar Schoen, Marilyn Milos, and others, which is interesting to see. Might it be appropriate to reference them in a section on circumcision in popular media? It's come up on The Simpsons, Seinfeld, Sex and the City, and probably many other places. And there's at least one reliable source (the book Marked in Your Flesh by Leonard Glick) that lists several of them, so it doesn't have to be OR.Zandrous 16:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely this needs discussion

"The Orthodox Church has been opposed to the practice of circumcision. For example, in 1471 Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was deposed on the mere allegation that he had been circumcised. On examination, it was proven that the allegation had been false, but he nevertheless lost his office. This event took place during the first decades of the Church's subjugation to the rule of the Ottomans, and it may be that charge against the Patriarch was not so much that he was circumcised, as that he had been forcibly converted to Islam in his childhood. However, the fact remains that circumcision was the charge levelled against him: the effects of circumcision are irreversible (the possibility of restoration notwithstanding), while the effects of conversion to Islam are, at least to the Christian perspective, wholly nullified by conversion to Christianity. It was therefore not his theological credentials, but his supposed lack of a foreskin, that was seen as disqualifying Dionysius from high ecclesiastical office. Further, if he had at any time become a Muslim (even against his will) and had reverted to Christianity, he would have been liable to capital punishment. "

For one thing this contribution refers to "The Orthodox Church." Yes, well....There are several Eastern Orthodox Churches, and that doesn't even contemplate the fact that there is an Oriental Orthodox Church. For another, it seems to indicate that the position of some centuries ago is the position today. The Catholic Church has taken positions in the past that it is not taxed with these days....Masalai 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a master's degree in the Christianities of Asia and Africa, so I am perfectly well aware of the potential ambiguities of the term "the Orthodox Church". There is, in a certain sense, only one Church; there are, in another sense, numerous Local, Particular, Autonomous, and Autocephalous Churches, as well as various Rites. For the period the above refers to, "the Orthodox Church" would be understood fairly universally as meaning Chalcedonian Christianity in obedience to the ancient patriarchates of the East, viz. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, together with the ancient Church of Cyprus and the newly autonomous metropolitan jurisdiction of Moscow. The fact that the paragraph mentioned the Patriarch of Constantinople ought to have made it abundantly clear which Church was being talked about. The non-Chalcedonian (or "Oriental") Orthodox Churches are not customarily designated the "Orthodox", but rather the "Coptic Orthodox", "Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo", "Syrian Orthodox", etc, Churches. Therefore, I think that "the Orthodox Church" as above is perfectly easily intelligible as meaning what I have just explained that it means. If I had meant any other sort of Orthodox Church other than "the Orthodox Church", I should have said so. That the paragraph followed on from one about Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodoxy, ought to have made it yet more clear that this concerned a different Christian tradition. Equally, you speak of "the Catholic Church"; I could object that "the Catholic Church" might be taken to designate the entire one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (even with a lowercase "c"), or the Old Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, or the Anglican Catholic Church, or - by some stretch of the imagination - the Church of England; however, I recognise that, unless otherwise specified, "the Catholic Church" means the Church in communion with the bishop of Rome, commonly called the pope.

Further, I carefully said, "has been opposed", meaning that during at least one phase of its history, the Orthodox Church has held that view. I do not believe that that is by any means liable to the interpretation that that is the position held by Orthodox Churches today. Indeed, I had not realized that this article was supposed to be a survey of purely contemporary attitudes. I thought that the deposition of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the primus inter paresof Orthodox Christianity, on a charge of circumcision was a significant enough event in the history of Christian attitudes to circumcision to warrant inclusion.

Finally, I am confused about the term "taxed with". It suggests that I am calling the Orthodox Church to account for its historical actions or attitudes; it is an expression that carries moral overtones, hinting at obligations or responsibilities. The Orthodox Church is not being taxed with anything: I was merely making a statement of fact about an event that took place.--AlexanderLondon 17:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Oriental Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. One needs to be careful of one's terminology. You have referred to the Church of England, whose (now otherwise largely rather ignored) Thirty-Nine Articles maintain that "the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England"; the Oriental Orthodox could equally legitimately maintain that the bishop of Constantinople hath no jurisdiction in...well, Iraq, Egypt, India....One needs to be careful of one's terminology. "Orthodox" by itself isn't enough.Masalai 19:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly well aware of the fact that the Oriental (or, as I think academics prefer to say these days, non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox Churches are not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and that he does not have any jurisdiction in those Churches. However, I do think that it is pretty much universally recognised that when somebody speaks of "the Orthodox Church or Churches", what is meant is the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church or Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. I do know that John Binns entitled his recent book An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches (Cambridge, 2002), and this was somewhat controversial at the time. In mitigation, I might point to the use of the plural Churches and also to the unconventional Christian Orthodox, rather than Orthodox Christian. Another standard textbook, Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (new edn. Penguin, 1997) represents by far the more conventional terminology. Likewise the School of Oriental and African Studies offers undergraduates two courses, one entitled Eastern Christianities, focusing on the non-Chalcedonian Churches, the Church of the East, and the Catholic Churches of the non-Roman and non-Byzantine Rites, and a separate course, Orthodox Christianities, focusing on the Chalcedonian Church of the Byzantine Rite in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch (the plural, "Christianities", is really a bit of academese in this case). However, if it really is going to cause this much controversy I suppose we could say "the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church or Churches", but to be honest I think that that would be bound to cause even more confusion to the majority of readers who probably do not know the significance of Chalcedon, or who may think it means all Chalcedonian Churches, including the Catholic and mainstream Protestant Churches.--AlexanderLondon 21:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

By all means add "Roman" to "Catholic" if you like; "Catholic," though, is less ambiguous than "Orthodox," and the latter does need an adverb.Masalai 22:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of Anglo-Catholics, Masalai? TRiG 23:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious implications

Anyone have any objection to a historical and logical re-ordering of the religions references to (1) Judaism; (2) Christianity; (3) Islam; (4) Sikhism; (5) Hinduism?Masalai 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, "Aesthetic" and "Secular tradition" should be placed last (2.7 and 2.6, respectively) under "2 Cultures and religions."... which should become "2 Religions and Cultures."TipPt 14:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Circ since 1950

The current text implies that the uti evidence has changed parents opinions about circ's...which is misleading (we don't know if it's changed, or if so, why):

Prior to 1989, the American Academy of Pediatrics had a long-standing opinion that medical indications for routine circumcision were lacking. This stance, according to the AMA, was reversed in 1989, following new evidence of reduction in risk of urinary tract infection. A study in 1987 found that the prominent reasons for parents choosing circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[10] A 1999 study reported that reasons for circumcision included "ease of hygiene (67 percent), ease of infant circumcision compared with adult circumcision (63 percent), medical benefit (41 percent), and father circumcised (37 percent)." The authors commented that "Medical benefits were cited more frequently in this study than in past studies, although medical issues remain secondary to hygience and convenience."[11] A 2001 survey reported that "The most important reason to circumcise or not circumcise the child was health reasons."[12]A 2005 study suggested that increased recognition of the potential benefits may be responsible for an observed increase in the rate of neonatal circumcision in the USA between 1988 and 2000.[13] In a 2001 survey, 86.6% of parents felt respected by their medical provider, and parents who did not circumcise "felt less respected by their medical provider".[14]

Note that the increase in the circ rate between 1988 and 2000 was mostly more blacks in the South.TipPt 14:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Circ since 1950 (part 2)

Existing text: The major medical societies in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not support (should be "recommend") routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Major medical organizations in the United States state that parents should decide what is in their child's best interests, explicitly not recommending the procedure for medical reasons.

Adding: Physicians in "nearly half" of neonatal circumcisions "did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."[15]

Continuing with existing text: Neonatal circumcision remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today.TipPt 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The addition completely disturbs the flow of the paragraph. You also misrepresent the source somewhat, which includes the preceding words "In another contemporary study..." Jakew 19:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK.....

In a study cited by the AMA, physicians in "nearly half" of neonatal circumcisions "did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision."[16]

As for flow, it fits in perfect.TipPt 19:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Change to "in one study cited..." and that's a lot better, but it still messes up the flow. If it belongs at all, it doesn't belong in that paragraph. Jakew 19:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a study an a survey? Why is it important? Adler et al looks like a survey to me, as it uses a 'forced choice' questionnaire and applies a quantitative analysis. Every survey is a study bubt not every study is a survey, I suppose, but I still wonder why the difference in wording is important.Zandrous 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that a study can report on the results of a survey. The study is the sum total of the survey results and the analysis thereof. Also, if we say "1996 survey" it's slightly ambiguous: was the survey performed in 1996, or were the results presented in that year? Another aspect to consider is that of consistency: several studies cited in the article use a survey methodology, but we generally describe them as studies. I see no reason to suddenly change the language with no good reason. Jakew 15:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The reader should know the nature of the research ... a simple survey. A "study" in my mind involves statistical work. Jakew ... other surveys should also be properly labled.

Jakew ... do you have any reasearch showing increased knowledge of UTI risks among parents?TipPt 16:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Study is the correct term, for reasons stated.

No, I'm not aware of any research explicitly identifying increased knowledge of UTI risks, though having said that many studies mention giving AAP literature to parents, which might suggest it. The present article simply states that the AAP's position changed due to recognition of this evidence, however. Jakew 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When the quality is so very poor ... note that many participants didn't even follow the instructions! when answering from the very limited multiple choice selections ... it is, at best, a simple survey.TipPt 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a study, Tip, and as I've explained before, Wikipedia is not the place to express your opinion of it or its methodology. Jakew 17:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This statement should be in the "Med Aspects" intro, not just in the UTI section

According to the Lerman and Liao, aside from its effects on UTI infection rates, "Most of the other medical benefits of circumcision probably can be realized without circumcision as long as access to clean water and proper penile hygiene are achieved."TipPt 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a speculative statement in one opinion piece, Tip. Why on earth should it appear in the introduction? Jakew 19:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not an "opinion piece" [17]

It's a "review of the literature" from a top institution, and applies to ALL the topics below. Basically, if you wash with water, you don't get cancer, hiv, std's ect any more than a circ'd guy. That is critical information for parents considering circ's.

Everyone should know to wash and pee after sex.TipPt 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, call it a review then. It's not a systematic review, so at the end of the day the meaning is the same: it reflects the opinions of the authors, rather than necessarily reflecting all the available evidence. More importantly, this particular statement is purely speculative, as is perfectly clear from the use of the word "probably". Jakew 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't speculate into the nature of the review. They reviewed and concluded. There is no misrepresentation.

You cannot deny that washing offsets (most of the) benefits to circ's.! You cannot deny the reader that information in the intro.TipPt 19:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to speculate, Tip. It's a plain review. If it were a systematic review, PubMed would have categorised it as such.

As for whether washing offsets any benefits, I'd like to see the evidence for this assertion. If it's mere speculation, it doesn't belong in the introduction. However, if it's based upon factual evidence, then what is this evidence? Jakew 19:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the AAP recommending washing ... for a reason, I'd assume.[18]TipPt 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one specific ... failure to wash the whole penis, including retraction of the foreskin in uncircumcised men, is more common among balanitis sufferers (O'Farrell, 2005)

Religious "requirement" in the second paragraph

The word "requirement" is too strong and inaccurate. Below in the text we use "tradition." "Rite" also fits, as would "observance."TipPt 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, "requirement" is not inaccurate; "rite" would, well, require a rite and whereas there are certainly prescribed rites involved in religious circumcision of Jews, there are none in Islam (although some Muslim cultures do have social traditions surrounding it). The strict requirement is only the circumcision be performed. Masalai 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

By the numbers (of circ'd), Muslims predominate. We also know that most Jews and Muslims are not significantly (in practice) religious. The topic must reflect practice. Here's a quote:

"Islam does not impose an obligation on parents to circumcise their children. Furthermore, its recommendations about circumcision apply to women as much as men. The Koran, the Moslem bible, makes no mention of circumcision at all, but the prophet Mohammed is reported to have stated that "Circumcision is a sunnah for the men and a makrumah for the women". (Note the reference to men and women: nothing about boys and girls.) The term sunnah means customary or traditional; the term makrumah means meritorious. The most you could conclude is that circumcision was customary for men and meritorious for women."

Lets try observance.TipPt 16:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to give the source of the quotation for it to carry any weight; in any case the proposition that "most...Muslims are not...religious" is iffy to say the least. And it is an inapt Protestant fundamentalist model that suggests the Qu'ran is the Muslim Bible if this is to indicate that it is the be all and end all of holy writ; a more apt (but really only less inapt) comparison would be to the Torah, with the Haditha corresponding to the Talmud. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find any Muslims willing to ignore the circumcision mandate, whatever ambiguity you may discern in it and however liberal they may be as to other do's and don'ts. Even pork-eating (much less alcohol-drinking) Muslims regard circumcision as non-negotiable. Masalai 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The quoted text is from an anti-circ activist site, here. Not exactly authoritative. Jakew 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"activist" site is silly Jakew. But then, I wouldn't even call it anti-circ. You're the one pushing pro-circ Adler!

Facts are facts. We are looking for a textual "requirement" for circ's. You have not provided support for that claim...what is the Muslim written "mandate" or is it mostly tradition they won't ignore?TipPt 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one from "beliefnet": "Though circumcision is not specifically mandated or mentioned in the Qur'an, many Muslims believe it is necessary because Allah ordered Muhammad to follow the way of Abraham, who circumcised himself. Many Muslims also believe circumcision is a form of cleanliness."TipPt 18:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just not germane. I don't think you quite took my earlier point. The Qu'ran is not the Muslim Bible in the sense that Protestant fundamentalists regard the Bible. Islam is not "silent where the [Qu'ran] is silent," to paraphrase the Campbellites. So no, the Qu'ran does not contain the prescriptions for daily living, alms-giving, prayer, the Hajj and other aspects of Muslim life; these are set out in the Haditha and — now non-negotiable — scholarly commentaries. The observation "circumcision is not specifically mandated or mentioned in the Qu'ran" is simply irrelevant. That many Muslims believe it is necessary on the basis of this or that rationale is neither here nor there; Muslims circumcise because they they believe they are instructed to do so. More to the point, it can be dangerous to enter into speculation as to the Prophet's rationale for his various practices that Muslims believe they are enjoined to emulate, particularly if this involves questioning settled dicta. Alas, I don't think I know how to put it any more clearly. Masalai 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You state "Muslims circumcise because they they believe they are instructed to do so," ... is your opinion backed up somewhere? Where in the Islamic religious texts is circumcision "mandated" or "non-negotiable."TipPt 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly do you consider this "questioning settled dicta" ... what exactly is the dicta?TipPt 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid it's not a matter of my opinion. Here's one of many accessible sources of the belief that it is required: Reliance of the Traveller, A translation of the classical manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Shari'ah) `Umdat as-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 769/1386), in Arabic with facing English text, commentary and appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Revised Edition 1994, p. 59.

The dictum can't really be any clearer: "BOOK E: PURIFICATION, e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert). (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)"

You misunderstand my point about the danger of questioning settled dicta: not that it is dangerous for you to question them where you presumably are, but for Muslims (and for that matter non-Muslims), particularly those living in traditional societies, especially if the questioning could be interpreted as challenging the reported sayings of the Prophet, it can invoke the death penalty in a religious court. (See for example the case of Dr. Younus Shaikh -- amply reported in 2001: you can look his case up on Google -- now on death row in Rawalpindi for suggesting to his medical students that the Prophet may not have been circumcised before he declared his prophethood.) Masalai 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like requirement fits. Thanks for the edification.TipPt 23:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

UTI information added (to the urinary tract infection discussion):

The AMA cites evidence that the incidence of UTI’s is “small (0.4%-1%)” in uncircumcised infants, and “depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI…One model of decision analysis concluded that the incidence of UTI would have to be substantially higher in uncircumcised males to justify circumcision as a preventive measure against this condition.”[19]TipPt 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But the AMA information is as of 1999, and Singh & Macdessi is as of 2005? -- Avi 17:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Singh review and the AMA cites have similar conclusions, specifically ... "100 circ's to prevent one UTI," and "This shows that the benefit of circumcision on UTI only outweighs the risk in boys who have UTI previously and have a predisposition to repeated UTI."

We should remove that Sweedish (2.2%) study and that data with the results from Singh ... "Existing studies suggest that from 1% to 2% of boys can be expected to experience a UTI within the first 10 years of life."TipPt 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian data

Tip, as an aside, on my march through the citations, EVERY example of Canadian prevalence of circumcision (and many others as well, IIRC) quote Patel for there source. There is nothing later that I have found. -- Avi 17:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read newer (much lower) numbers, and will try to forward them to you. Regardless, a seperate listing of Canada in the main article using old numbers is silly ... Canada is addressed the the main (prevalence) article with the "majority" uncircumcised.TipPt 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That didn't take long[20]

or "The Canadian Institute for Health Information, which in 1994 took over the national Hospital Database from Statistics Canada, reports that in fiscal 1996/97, circumcision was performed as a primary procedure on less than 17% of Canadian male neonates."

or, within you own Hist of Circ ... "The infant circumcision rate in Canada has fallen from roughly half in the 1970s to its present value of 11%, albeit with strong regional variations.[21]TipPt 18:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete other editor's comments.

"The Canadian Institute for Health Information, which in 1994" is a quote from CIRP's page, which does not conform to WP:RS either (note: my comment asked for a reliable source since courtchallenge.com isn't). And we cannot cite Wikipedia pages as sources. Jakew 18:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that the Canadian Institute for Health Information is WP:RS Facts ruleTipPt 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if the CIHI report this data, it's perfectly ok to cite them. I've not been able to find it on their site. What's not ok is to cite another, unreliable website that claims that the CIHI state this, since the claim is unverifiable. Jakew 19:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Your own Hist..." what does that mean? This is the only article I've been analyzing critically. Once this is complete, I think that we can move the heavy data to the daughter articles and leave this one as summary style, but since this one is the one with all of the eyes on it now, it pays to finish this. Further, we cannot quote Wikipedia as a source. Regarding the CIHI, I spent a while searching their site, and I cannot find the reference to 17%. If we find it on CIHI, by all means. Otherwise, the most recent reliable source we have is all of the quotations of Patel. Because The CPS 1996 (footnote 1), the AAP Policy Statement 1999 (footnote 8), etc. all quote Leitch 1970 , but Leitch is just quoting Patel 1966 wsing 1961-1962 data, that is where the 48% comes from. So I see no other WP:RS for another figure, if publications in 1999 are still (indirectly) referencing Patel. -- Avi 22:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-ordering

I trust there will be no objection to this minor editorial re-organisation. Sikhism makes rather a point of eschewing what it regards as the excesses of both Islam and Hinduism -- hence the otherwise somewhat puzzling requirement that one wear underpants. Possibly Sikhism should come between Islam and Hinduism.Masalai 22:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada rate

Here is a 13.9% rate in 2003.[22]TipPt 00:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's just a news article. Presumably the journalist got the statistic from somewhere, but sadly no source is cited. Jakew 10:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Although this is a secondary source, isn't that still acceptable under the Reliable Source guidelines? It's not like the National Review of Medicine is a minor publication put out by some fringe activist group, is it? Based on my understanding of the RS guidelines, I think this is perfectly acceptable for our purposes.Zandrous 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that we need to treat it as an ordinary news article, and apply the usual distrust of journalists' ability to check their facts. :) Jakew 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand; are you saying that this is not a reliable source? It appears to me to be perfectly encyclopedic to cite a medical trade journal for this kind of information.Zandrous 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Medical Aspects

Needs to include this review: [23]

The paragraph should make it clear that "medical" indications are lacking or inadequate to recommend neonatal circumcision.

Note that the "bias" is toward finding "benefits" to circumcision.

We should add this paragraph: Daily washing with water, and washing after sex improves penile health. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk." [24] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision."[25]TipPt 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'evidence' is mere opinion, which is inadequate to support the statement. Jakew 09:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to include this info: (And another reason the UTI studies are biased)

"The best protection from UTIs comes not from cutting off a small piece of the baby's skin, but from the mother herself. Jan Winberg et al (the Lancet, March 1989) concludes that the number of UTIs in newborn males could be reduced by strict rooming in of mother and baby or by active colonization of the baby with his mother's anaerobic gut flora. In this research, UTIs in newborn males were caused by Escherichia coli, bacteria not of maternal origin; therefore, infants had no passive resistance to these pathogens. During delivery in a natural setting, the infant acquires aerobic and anaerobic intestinal flora from the mother, together with the necessary immunoglobins to resist infections from these agents through the placenta and breastmilk. When an infant is born in a sterile hospital setting, he is carefully protected from the possible contamination caused by his mother's body fluids, and then isolated in a nursery. His first contact with the E. coli strain is from the hospital environment itself, against which the infant has no resistance. During the first few days of the infant's life, he should be handled by the mother and other members of his immediate family as exclusively as possible, whether circumcised or intact. The mother's resistance to the pathogenic effects of her own gut flora and that of the other family members should protect the infant from early UTIs. Once the infant has established his own gut bacteria colony, this will help protect him from colonization by stray pathogens. The baby born in a typical hospital labor setting who is then removed to the nursery is at much greater risk for UTIs from stray bacteria than the infant born at home. Circumcision is no guarantee of health; contact with the mother and her breastmilk are an infant's first and foremost protection from infections."[26]TipPt 23:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tip, we need to support credible sources from peer-reviewed journals. This dubious publication requests of the interested reader: "You are enthusiastically invited to write articles, make comments, tell stories, send techniques, ask questions, write letters or news items related to...". Jakew 09:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Still strong US and pro-circumcision bias

I smiled reading that it is only in recent decades that unnecessary circumcision has become contraversial. Even in 1930 in the UK the rate was 35%, when there was no free medical care and it was something doctors could charge for (as in the US today). I have made a couple of corrections about the UK, and cited the most recent BMJ paper [27] which again re-iterates the prevailing view in the UK: 3.8% of boys are circumcised here by age 15 and that is far too many. In some regions it is below 1.5%.

Do you have any evidence that this is the prevailing view? Jakew 12:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

About four or five years ago (I can only date BMJ article by where I was living when I first read them) the BMJ invited views on it, with one invited US doctor writing in favour. There was no consensus for making unnecessary circumcision illegal (which was a significant view) but there was for effort to reduce it. I will look it up when I have some time, but the grouped articles etc are hard to put together on the online version. --BozMo talk 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a lot more recent stuff. Both the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons and the BMA cited this paper in their position documents on circumcision (the BMA's was updated June 2006) not as an opinion but as accepted fact see: [[28]] which expresses concern in their policy statement on circumcision that unnecessary circumcisions are taking place citing only the paper. I guess a literature review would be ideal but these two organisations are collective groups of doctors who represent their members, and I see no signs at all of voices of dissent (except invited US ones). --BozMo talk 13:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by BozMo

BozMo, I'm reverting your recent changes to the introduction. The problems were:

Inclusion of: "By contrast, less than 4% of male children in the UK are circumcised in total, of which circumcisions about half are regarded as unnecessary. About 2% of boys in Denmark are circumcised [29], a level targeted by the UK."

It's not entirely clear that this belongs in the introduction. If it does, it's phrased too broadly. We can't say that less than 4% are circumcised, but we can say that Rickwood et al estimate this percentage. Nor can we say that they're regarded as unnecessary or that a lower level is targeted by the UK - these views are merely those of the authors of that paper.

See above--BozMo talk 13:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, that papers refers to 2% of boys in Scandinavia (a dubious assertion, given that the reported rate in Finland is 7.1%).

In a scientific paper this would be correct but the other references are not treated this way, and it is not usual for Wikipedia imply the uncontested numbers in a serious paper are not reliable. --BozMo talk 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On the Scandinavia report of course I went back to the paper that they cited in turn to check. It said Denmark which is why I correct this. --BozMo talk 13:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed "Medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend routine non-therapeutic circumcision" to "Medical associations in the UK, US, Australia, and Canada do not recommend routine non-therapeutic circumcision." This no longer reflects the cited source (AMA), which does not comment on the UK. Jakew 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I am relaxed about this, although the sentence did not seem source related to me (e.g. futher down the article is a full quotation from all these countries). However you also reverted the removal of the UK from the sentence justified by "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99):Neonatal Circumcision." I looked through that source (or rather word searched it) and couldn't find anything about the UK at all. Did I miss it or do you have quite a lot more cleaning up to do? --BozMo talk 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In general though this article is not well researched. A lot of the problem is the assumption that everyone everywhere always circumcised and it was normal. It is hard work finding stats but I cannot find any figure for the UK which ever went above 35% (the article describes it as "routine"), and this seems to be an interwar blip. --BozMo talk 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"before-next" images

the "before-next" images should be of the same person or people of the same skin color and similar hair. not for any "racial" reason, no, only to make it better distinguisable.

Gee, maybe we can get someone to have pictures taken, then go get circumcised, and get a new set of pictures. Care to volunteer? Fan-1967 19:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" versus "non-circumcised"

"Non-circumcised" returns 16,400 Google hits and is not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Uncircumcised" returns 998,000 and is listed in the OED. The term used in modern english to describe a penis that has not undergone circumcision is "uncircumcised". —ptk✰fgs 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

James xeno, if you insist on repeatedly replacing the established terminology, I would very much appreciate it if you would make some sort of post here explaining why. The edit summary "(Uncircumcised = biased/POV)" merely makes an unsupported assertion. The use of "uncircumcised" is 60 times more prevalent than "non-circumcised" in terms of Google hits. The Oxford English Dictionary lists "uncircumcised" in use since 1387 — during the life of Chaucer. The OED does not list non-circumcised at all. —ptk✰fgs 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not this again.... =\ Non-circumcised is the least POV term with the least objections. It's not confusing, but clear and to the point. James xeno 07:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind posting a link to somewhere this has been discussed before? I have searched all 12 archive pages and there does not appear to be any discussion whatsoever. Since the use of "uncircumcised" is so much more common than "non-circumcised", and since "uncircumcised" has been documented by the OED as being in use for over 600 years, I am having a great deal of trouble understanding why the terminology should be replaced. —ptk✰fgs 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The (3 or 4) discussions were about "uncircumcised" and other terms. "Non-circumcised" finally put an end to it, so we stay with "non-circumcised." James xeno 07:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the OED entries for the prefixes "un-" and "non-", and both entries state that the prefixes can be used to describe simple negation. "un-" shows two entries, one indicating that it is "freely applied with a purely negative force to several parts of speech", and the other "reversal or deprivation". "non-" shows only a single entry, described as "with the sense ‘absence or lack of’" or "corresponding semantically to ‘not doing, failure to do’". The major difference between the two prefixes appears to be its etymological origin, "un-" descending from Germanic sources, and "non-" from Latin sources. As either prefix can be applied with a connotation of failure to accomplish something, or with a connotation merely reversing the word to which it is applied, I do not see why "uncircumcised" should be read with any more normative connotation (with regard to the practice) than "non-circumcised". In the absence of any substantial reason why "uncircumcised" connotes the advocacy of a particular point of view, I would prefer to simply defer to the established usage.

Where are the discussions you are referencing? —ptk✰fgs 07:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should use uncircumcised, but whenever possible we should reword to avoid having to describe a "normal" penis as uncircumsised, but as a last resort use the that particular term. --Clawed 07:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It was January 2006; the contention at that time was between circumcised and intact; I'm not sure whether the matter was resolved or those who objected to "uncircumcised" simply gave up. I made the point that as the King James Bible uses "uncircumcised" and King James's men can hardly be thought to have taken a pro-circumcision stance, the discussion was more than a little silly. Masalai 08:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

After more thoroughly combing the archives, I managed to locate the discussions. As you state, they were mostly centered on use of "intact" and "uncircumcised". There was no debate on the use of "non-circumcised", so I cannot see how any previous discussion can be used to claim that "non-circumcised" is a preferred term by any consensus.

The discussions also lacked any detailed examination of the use of "un-" and "non-" prefixes, or any consideration of how or why "uncircumcised" could connote a normative judgement on the practice of circumcision. The major outcome of the discussion appeared to be a search for ways to avoid using any adjective to describe a penis that has not been circumcised, instead rewording sentences to avoid the issue.

For what it's worth, I have no preference between "intact" and "uncircumcised". My concern is that wholesale replacement of "uncircumcised" with "non-circumcised" is a deviation into unestablished usage, with no benefit whatsoever with regard to WP:NPOV. —ptk✰fgs 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't much which words as long as they are English. Non-circumcised is Unsense, sorry I mean nonsense and making up new words won't help anyone.--BozMo talk 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad I am not the only one who found the new terminology to be non-clear. —ptk✰fgs 08:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like to add. There are innumerable examples of "un-" prefixed words in English that do not connote a normative judgement on the root word. Would we say that describing an individual as "unmarried" implies that marriage is the preferred status? Would we say that describing a decision as "uncontroversial" implies that it should have caused controversy? Would we say that "unallocated" storage on a hard disk should rightly be allocated? What about "unshaven"? "uncontaminated"? "unharmful"?

On the other hand, we describe things as "non-compliant" when they don't meet standards. People are described as "non-believers" when they don't accept another group's religion. Confusing concepts are "non-intuitive", and deadbeat debtors are "non-paying" (all of these examples are listed in the OED).

Both prefixes are well-established in use for simple negation. What does "non-circumcised" get us over "uncircumcised"? —ptk✰fgs 09:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that I can see, and as an uncommon (non-common?) term, it just flows badly. I understand avoiding terms like "normal": to a middle-aged American, circumcized is normal; to a young European, the opposite. But I see no value in using an unfamiliar term when there's a perfectly good familiar one. Fan-1967 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision considered as child abuse in Finland

http://www.yle.fi/news/left/id40061.html

The boy’s father reported the case to the police after the mother, a Muslim, called a doctor to perform the circumcision. The mother was later accused of assault and battery.

The Tampere District Court determined that the circumcision was against the law. However, the mother was not punished because the she did not realise the procedure was a crime. The case continues to be handled in the Court of Appeals.

Circumcision of girls, or female genital mutilation, is clearly a crime in Finland. Circumcision of boys, when not for medical reasons, can also be deemed as abuse. Both the parents and the doctor performing the procedure can be charged in the crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.78.196.15 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be added to the UK association position statement

.…The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TipPt (talk • contribs)

As Avraham has already observed, this is redundant given the existing text. Jakew 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not redundant. The concept "rarely a clinical indication for circumcision" is NOT in the existing topic text. Please review the existing text and the above sentence. The likelyhood of a clinical indication is not addressed.

The BMA thought that the statement was valuable, and devoted a separate paragraph to that topic. Why do you and Avraham insist on including only parts of a first paragraph, none of a second (where the above quote is located), and then part of a third paragraph?

Looks like pro-circ bias. Note also in that the next section (BMA on non-ther) includes all text in the second paragraph, but LEAVES OUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH. [30][31]TipPt 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks redundant. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following from the Canada assoc "statement"

This info is a repeat again (again, again) of medical "aspects" dealt in other sections.

"There is evidence that circumcision results in an approximately 12-fold reduction in the incidence of UTI during infancy. The overall incidence of UTI in male infants appears to be 1% to 2%. The incidence rate of the complications of circumcision reported in published articles varies, but it is generally in the order of 0.2% to 2%. Most complications are minor, but occasionally serious complications occur. There is a need for good epidemiological data on the incidence of the surgical complications of circumcision, of the later complications of circumcision and of problems associated with lack of circumcision. Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required. More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed. Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood. There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However,"TipPt 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose is to give an overview of the associations' policy statements. Some repetition is therefore inevitable. Jakew 17:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the point of the topic ... "Policies of various national medical associations" The policy is contained in the following quote:

"...there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases. When circumcision is performed, appropriate attention needs to be paid to pain relief. The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. There is therefore no indication that the position taken by the CPS in 1982 should be changed. When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on personal, religious or cultural factors."

The preceeding material (what you like to see published) is already covered in at least two other circ topics.TipPt 20:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's significant that the Canadian association would mention it in their statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is very long, and need proper unbiased editing.TipPt 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the important points are covered in a neutral way in the current version. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor insists on blocking Relevant information....

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk." [32] Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision."[33]

At least he reverts to delete other editors work without cause or comment.TipPt 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tip, the AAP's 1975 statement is 31 years old, and the statement is not repeated in more recent policies. As for Hutson's claim, that's just the opinion of one man, and it isn't even a primary source. Jakew 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Jakew, the statement has relevant information. I'll get the primary source, though Hutson is quality.

The statement is supported by the cost/benefit findings, the penile health recommendations (basically that you wash ... note the very last sentence [34]), and by at least the study cited by Hutson.TipPt 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Tip, the statement reflects the state of medical knowledge three decades ago. I'll await your reading of the primary source. Jakew 20:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Let the reader filter Jakew.TipPt 21:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, editors have to filter. Medical recommendations from 31 years ago are not relevant, and are arguably dangerous. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The reader has the date and statement. Scary someone thinking knowledge is dangerous.TipPt 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring" Alexander Pope. Medical knowledge has advanced significantly in the past 30 years; it's scary thinking someone would recommend the state of medical knowledge as it existed then. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrected third paragraph ... Editor makes it wrong again

The text was not an accurate quote of the AMA's statement, which reads "do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."

An editor also keeps refusing (by deleting away) to include the UK associations as not recommending routine neonatal circs.TipPt 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The cited source for the statement (the AMA) do not refer to the UK at all. We must not misrepresent sources. Jakew 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)nd

There are two issues you are messing with. First, is the actual quote, which is "do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns." Jakew repeatedly makes the quote "do not recommend routine non-therapeutic circumcision."

The second issue is the inclusion of the UK. Jakew insists on taking the UK out of the sentence. But the citation I provide shows the BMA not recommending routine neonatal circs.[35]TipPt 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the first issue, ok, I've no objection to you changing it.

As for the second, combining two different sources is the very essence of original research. Also, the BMA do not refer to routine circumcision, and do not explicitly make a recommendation on the subject. Jakew 20:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The BMA simply states that there is rarely a clinical indication...which certainly means it's not routine.TipPt 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why have you reverted that incorrect quote several times?TipPt 21:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not a quote, it's a summary of the positions of three different medical assocations, none of them the UK. You keep inserting the UK into the list, and inserting a quote into the intro that is both unecessary, and attributed to 4 different assocations, 3 of which definitely didn't say that, and one of which doesn't talk on the same subject. Why are you inserting unecessary quotations into the intro, where they don't belong, and incorrect ascriptions to various medical assocations, several times? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I add the second citation (for the BMA position). I have made the paragraph accurate several times, and it's been reverted.TipPt 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, as explained, you made the paragraph inaccurate several times. You have a habit of doing that. That's why you get reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-examination of medical benefits of circumcision

So far: there are none.

45 days of homelessness, without showering, revealed absolutely no infection despite being uncircumcized. Doctor Octagon 11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

So, a sample size of one and with no controls. Good luck publishing this finding. Jakew 12:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Doctor Octagon seems to have edits that match the pattern of a certain vandal in Philadelphia who creates a new persona and array of sockpuppets every time his current one becomes a laughingstock. Then again, I've been wrong before. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 12:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Kellog

The article is missing some discussion on Kellog and his impact on the male circumscision in the USA.

In the section on Christianity I put:

"The prevalence of circumcision in the USA has its roots in Christian puritanism spurred by the mistaken view that circumcision prevents masturbation—this belief was popularised by John Harvey Kellogg in his anti-masturbation writings of 1888, which rapidly gained wide acceptance in the USA."

In the secular tradition section I put:

"Although originally motivated by non-secular puritanism, the 20th century secular American tradition that favoured infant circumcision had its cultural roots in the 1888 anti-masturbation treatise by John Harvey Kellogg."

An editor has removed both those paragraphs as they need supporting with more references and probably need a little fine tuning. I agree the improvement is needed and references need to be found. But I do not agree that these paragraphs should have been deleted. It is better that they are there so other editors can clean them up. (As I am only a casual editor and do not have time).

The paragraphs need a little expansion to include other influences and general anti-masturbation hysteria that pre-existed Kellog.

But I believe Kellog was a major player and spearheading the US circumscision movement. He was a puritan and a major financer of all the Seventh Day Adventist hospitals....he wouldn't fund them unless they did circumcision. My recollection is that he was also a big supporter of clitoridectomy, though thankfully that didn't catch on. If someone can also find a reference to him financing hospitals on condition of circumcision practice, I will give you a barnstar :-)

Sorry if you have to do my work for me, but I'm busy, and...after all wiki is a collaborative idea. bunix 05:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Documenting that Kellogg was a proponent of circumcision is easy. Demonstrating that his influence was so powerful that he is (effectively) the single person most responsible for the prevalence of circumcision in the US is a lot harder. A statement like that needs some serious support. (Just as an aside, where did anyone ever get the idea that circumcized males would masturbate less?) -- Fan-1967 05:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, authors Glick (Marked in Your Flesh) and Gollaher (Circumcision) both refer to Kellog. There seems to be no single root of US circumcision catching on; anti-masturbation was part of it, but so were lots of other diseases and developing ideas about the nervous system and the physiologic relations between different systems of the body (hence genital surgery to cure paralysis, epilepsy, masturbation, etc).Zandrous 14:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Glick's book (having been unimpressed with his ability to remain detached on the subject), but you are quite correct about Gollaher. If anything, Gollaher traces modern-day US circumcision to the work of Lewis Sayre, a physician who had early success 'treating' paralysis by circumcising a patient who was apparently suffering from acute balanoposthitis.

My own take on things: upto about the 1930s, the literature is somewhat strange, with peculiar ideas being stated as fact, with little or no use of the scientific method. The earliest application of hypothesis testing, as far as I'm aware, was Wolbarst's Lancet paper (1934, as I recall) on penile cancer. By modern standards, it was far from rigorous, but it seems to represent something of a turning point: arguments in favour of circumcision were based upon evidence, at least in some respect.

Interestingly - and this may be purely coincidental - according to Laumann's data (1997) in JAMA, the circumcision rate seems to have more than doubled during this decade, from ~30% in 1932 to ~65% in 1941. Jakew 15:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

45 on unwashed uncircumcized

I was just homeless for 45 days and found no ill effects on my uncircumcized penis. Obviously, it has no medical benefit. Doctor Octagon 18:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not from Philadelphia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doctor Octagon (talk • contribs) 14:25, August 20, 2006 (UTC)

And your point is?? -- Avi 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

45 days of being homeless certainly does not prove this issue one way or the other. Consider allowing drug companies to only have to do their clinical drug studies on a single person for 45 days. Your username has the word 'Doctor' in it, but it is certainly clear that you are not a medical doctor. --71.77.22.100 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Total removal of foreskin versus partial removal

I would really like to see some information regarding the prevalence of circumcision that removes all of the foreskin (might this be called "full circumcision"?) versus circumcision that removes only some of the foreskin; especially in the United States. Is either method more standard? And has this itself changed over the years?