Jump to content

Talk:Forced circumcision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article lacks subheadings and discussions of forced circumcision practice in both the USA and Israel, both which should be included.

[edit]

There is a heading for "History and contemporary forced circumcision", under which there is currently a breadth and depth of discussion for the practice across fourteen different historical or modern nations. All with their own subheading.

Yet outside of brief mention of the United States and Israel in the first paragraph of the article, there is no further discussion of forced circumcission practice in either nation.

The mention each of these nations in the firts paragraph is in the following statement: "The most common form of forced circumcision is performed widely in Israel and the United States, where it is known as neonatal circumcision".

A statement of fact that warrants the inclusion of individual subheadings as well as a discussion of the practice as it exists in both the United States and Israel. Toward the creation of a well written, comprehensive, and politically balanced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milner33 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

@Man-Man122: can you please discuss instead of constantly reverting? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous, and i'm sure you know that Man-Man122 (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you hold the view that the majority of men in the US have been forcibly circumcised, why are the statistics relevant? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason it should not be there. The vast majority of men in the US are cut at birth. Saying the statistics of it is not irrelevant. Why were you fine when it was the wring statistic, but not now? Man-Man122 (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, were they forcibly cut or not? As you well know, there is a debate to be had there, which is exactly why we should avoid including that material here. I wasn't "fine" when it was the other statistic, actually, as neither statistic is necessarily correct given they're both extremely rough estimates that have been widely contradicted by reliable sources, such as the AAP as you yourself noted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is, The US is included in this article. If you were to wish to avoid such a debate, you'd have to remove the US section in its entirety. If it stays, the stats should be included. Man-Man122 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the stats are heavily disputed, which is why we shouldn't include them unless we absolutely have to, which we don't. No other country included in the article goes into statistics anyway. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stats aren't really 'heavily disputed'. It generally agreed that the 58% stat is a lowball due to circumcisions not being counted after the hospital discharge period, not counting out of hospital circumcisions(bris), and a growing trend of having the procedure done elsewhere. The CDC acknowledged that and included Morris' estimate in their 61 page Background on the matter. Wolters Kulwer also found a statistic of about 80% Man-Man122 (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are absolutely disputed. The AAP themselves state "half of American males are circumcised and half are not", as you yourself affirmed in your edit to Circumcision controversies. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the stats should be mentioned Man-Man122 (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stats are unofficial and haven't been independently confirmed by a medical authority. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were included in the CDC's official document on the matter Man-Man122 (talk) 02:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were included but neither endorsed nor independently confirmed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the stats aren't government endorsed doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. It doesn't outright invalidate them. Man-Man122 (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still not directly relevant to the subject of this article. You'd have a point if we were discussing this at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision, but we're not. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Circumcision is commonly performed in the United States." saying how common it is not irrelevant Man-Man122 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary, that sentence alone is sufficient. Why exactly should it be necessary to go into detail when such a statement is not widely contested? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was almost exactly the same section but with a wrong number, not even a week ago. All I did was provide a more accurate statistic Man-Man122 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither statistic is necessarily accurate, given that there simply isn't a widely accepted statistic. That's why it ought to be avoided here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm starting to think it would be better for the US not to have its own section, considering that about all other sections are related to tribal, traditional, and historical cases and other developed nations where circumcision is common(Canada and South Korea) lack sections. Man-Man122 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's much less common in those two countries nowadays. Even in the US, all the evidence indicates that it's an obsolete practice on the decline. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That statement predates another publication in which they state "Individuals with penises between the ages of 14 and 59 years were surveyed. The overall prevalence of circumcision was aprox. 80%" I didn't say they weren't disputed, I said they weren't heavily disputed. It also predates The CDC's 61 page background on circumcision, which acknowledged that rates were higher than being reported and cited Morris' study for the rate. Man-Man122 (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just one publication, and their approximation is just that, an approximation that hasn't been independently confirmed. Morris is a quack, so the CDC's citing of him would be discreditable to using them as a source. Like I said, unless you want to prove a wp:point, the stats are not directly relevant to the subject of this article, so I'd recommend wp:dropping the stick. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It being one publication changes nothing. It is from only a few months ago. You don't have to like the man, but he's not a quack. The approximation itself is from a 6300 man study. Also, when the AAP said ""half of American males are circumcised and half are not"", that was only in a response from 2013. Man-Man122 (talk) 02:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:MEDSCI, peer review is essential, no matter the date of publication. Morris absolutely is a quack in every conceivable sense of the word; he's only a molecular biologist, the very definition of "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, qualification or credentials they do not possess". Again, that study hasn't been independently confirmed. The AAP response remains valid despite it being from 2013, given that it's extremely unlikely that the statistics have dramatically changed in the years since. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion on him, and that is all it is, but AAP's publication on circumcision supersedes its response from an expired policy statement. The response was also made before the said 6300 man study that showed a prevalence of 80 Man-Man122 (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, just as people are entitled to their opinion on Dr. Oz, which is just as widely held. What AAP publication? That study, again, for the final time, is just one study, and one that hasn't been independently confirmed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's just as widely held. You can't just invalidate legitimate studies by saying " Its just one study" Man-Man122 (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Circumcision | Pediatrics In Review | American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org) Man-Man122 (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Oz is more widely known, obviously. I'm not saying it's invalidated, I'm saying it's not authoritative. Do you have the URL? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the study isn't done by the government doesn't mean too much. also
https://publications.aap.org/pediatricsinreview/article-abstract/43/12/728/189948/Circumcision?redirectedFrom=fulltext Man-Man122 (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, actually. Would you trust census results if they weren't done by the government? That URL refers to data from 2010, so they're not operating on any new data since 2013, when the previous statement was made. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is new data. Although the data is representative of individuals from 2005-2010, the study wasn't published until 2013. Also, a study does not have to be conducted by the government to be accurate. Man-Man122 (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the study was published at the same time the AAP made their original statement. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No.
AAP policy statement- 2012
AAP response- March 2013
Prevalence Study that finds 80%- July 2013 Man-Man122 (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the response was published in July 2013, per pmid:23508207. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Publication history
Received March 7, 2013
Accepted March 7, 2013
First published March 18, 2013.
Online issue publication
June 18, 2013"
The AAP Task Force on Neonatal Circumcision: a call for respectful dialogue: https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/7/442.info Man-Man122 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't invalidate the original statement in any case. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it outdated Man-Man122 (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By one month? That's just silly. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? It doesn't matter by how much. The study was published after the AAP's response, making it outdated. The AAP's current publication now states a prevalence of 80% Man-Man122 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It states an approximation, based on a survey, which they haven't independently confirmed. The statement that half are, half aren't is still valid based on other surveys conducted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you find a study that finds a 50/50 prevalence? Man-Man122 (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does not invalidate the study, man. Man-Man122 (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just give it up, man. You could either remove the US' section, as that would be more in line with the rest of the article or you could put the stats back, with a relevance inline, if it calms you down. Man-Man122 (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove it, I'm not stopping you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a personal note, why did you find this necessary? Man-Man122 (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Find what necessary? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a talk and dragging this on Man-Man122 (talk) 06:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I'm the one dragging this on now. Goodbye. I'm certain we'll be in this situation again, not too long from now. Man-Man122 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every other mention of forced circumcision are tribal and historical cases, so that's probably why. Man-Man122 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being defined as male only?

[edit]

A source referred to here starts with: "Circumcision has been forced on hundreds of Christians, including children and pregnant women...", why then the exclusion of half of humanity? Tyreric (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because on Wikipedia it's known as female genital mutilation. Bon courage (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the female genital mutilation page it states that it is also known as female circumcision. Tyreric (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is (or rather mostly was), but that's not the term Wikipedia uses. On Wikipedia, circumcision is male circumcision only. Bon courage (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the explanation, and so much for the neutrality principle! Tyreric (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forced_circumcision&oldid=1233727817"