Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Anybody got a better source on this than yahoo or Oprah ? http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html If it is as widespread as this then the med or med research literature must mention it a good bit. Views ? Should it go in the "Economic Considerations " section or in the med sections ?--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Anybody got a better source on this than yahoo or Oprah ? http://voices.yahoo.com/human-foreskins-big-business-cosmetics-201840.html If it is as widespread as this then the med or med research literature must mention it a good bit. Views ? Should it go in the "Economic Considerations " section or in the med sections ?--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
:See ] for Misplaced Pages's policy regarding the fitness of blogs such as the one you linked to as reliable sources. Re {{tq|If it is as widespread as this then the med or med research literature must mention it a good bit}} -- I agree, so I searched PubMed for secondary sources covering "foreskin keratinocyte circumcision" and "foreskin fibroblast circumcision" and found nothing suitable, so a search of the medical literature did not find that it mentions it a good bit as you were hoping. Regardless, if appropriate sources can be found, the logical place for this would be ]. We have covered this before. In fact, Tumadoireacht, by my count this is the ''tenth'' time you've brought this up without offering a satisfactory reliable source to support it (I can supply diffs if needed), and it is becoming tendentious. <code>]]</code> 04:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
:See ] for Misplaced Pages's policy regarding the fitness of blogs such as the one you linked to as reliable sources. Re {{tq|If it is as widespread as this then the med or med research literature must mention it a good bit}} -- I agree, so I searched PubMed for secondary sources covering "foreskin keratinocyte circumcision" and "foreskin fibroblast circumcision" and found nothing suitable, so a search of the medical literature did not find that it mentions it a good bit as you were hoping. Regardless, if appropriate sources can be found, the logical place for this would be ]. We have covered this before. In fact, Tumadoireacht, by my count this is the ''tenth'' time you've brought this up without offering a satisfactory reliable source to support it (I can supply diffs if needed), and it is becoming tendentious. <code>]]</code> 04:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
::New source article Zad and thus new information and thus new debate that is the wonderful part of a live encyclopedia.- perhaps it might be best to conduct a search on it elsewhere than in medicine( as it is notable as much for its commercial or supertstitious significance than medical) on WP to get some discussion going. It does nor belong as a subject in foreskin article alone because it is part of circumcision. The body part gets cut off and then gets sold. They go together like a horse and carriage. Also if you read my short entry above with care you will notice that I am looking for a '''BETTER''' source for article reference use so please do not characterize it as suggesting that that source be used - such characterizations are unhelpful and contrary to civility policy and best practice. Medical companies are selling the foreskins(for about 200 dollars in USA) and derived products. This is easily confirmed. Of course my mentioning it is tendentious - namely I hold the view that it should be mentioned in the circumcision article that circumcised foreskins are sold for cosmetic and for science and medical use and research. Did you mean to say tedious ? Perhaps we do need a new section given over solely to describing how the different cutting religions and cultures and tribes dispose of the circumcised foreskins after they are cut off. I know the Xhosa bury them to avoid evil spells Some Jews bury them after circumcision, others incinerate them as do most USA americans I have no idea what Muslims or Aborigines do with the cut off foreskins - does anyone here have a good source ?--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Can I suggest a change to the picture? It paints a misleading picture of the surgical procedure as circumcision is not done on a desert floor with village elders all sat around. Almost all of it is done in a medical setting, like at a hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hiya Oxr033, the main problem with the image you uploaded is that it is almost certainly a copyright issue - it looks like it was scanned from a medical textbook without attribution. The listed source "I had it on my hard drive" isn't going to pass Misplaced Pages copyright muster and how it's used won't be a valid fair-use exception. Most likely that image will be deleted shortly. Besides, the image is far too small and low-resolution to be useful. Also, although sources indicate the procedure is mostly done in medical settings, the existing picture gives a nod to its ties to culture and history in a way the new image doesn't. Zad6800:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi thanks for replying, I see what you mean about the copyright i'm not really familiar with how strict Misplaced Pages is, I don't have permission but it is widely available on the web (like everything else that can be digitized). Circumcision is performed by both Muslims and Jews, and a lot of Americans and South Koreans. Many black Africans too. The picture I feel could mislead a viewer. In giving a nod to it's ties and history, it also colours the reader's impression as something ancient and 'other'. Most people reading this in the English speaking world will have circumcisions being performed in medical settings, so I think it's important a reader doesn't the wrong impression The other picture of of just the penis circumcised and uncircumcised, is a lot clearer on what actually happens, and it's free from bias/prejudice too (unless you count the skin colour - which i'm not sure is the central defining object of the image).Oxr033 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure... Yep indeed Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and the rule is: if you can't prove it's OK, it's out. If you can find the location on the Web where the image is published, proof that the publisher owns the image, and proof that the owner released the image under the CC-by-SA (or compatible) license, we can use it. If not, we can't. There are certain exceptions to these requirements but they wouldn't apply here. It's a good image, it'd be great if you could do that research - maybe we can use it, but until it's proven the image is released in a way Misplaced Pages can use it, we can't.
Regarding concerns that the existing image paints a picture that the procedure is something ancient and 'other' well... the History section shows circumcision predates recorded history, so it's ancient. Also, the Prevalence section shows that most men (about two-thirds of all men) are not circumcised, and so it is 'other.' So if the image reflects that... more reasons it's a good image! Zad6801:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure 1 33% of men represent an 'other'. 5-10% maybe, not not a whole third. It's common enough for it not to be considered 'something they do'. I don't think i'll be able to prove it, i'll look for a more widespread image that doesn't have copyright attached to it, not now but when i'm less busy. ThanksOxr033 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure... Don't get me wrong, an illustration very much like the one you provided, but released under CC-by-SA, would definitely be useful in the article. We would only be having a discussion over whether it should replace the infobox image, or be placed elsewhere in the article. That discussion might be done with a request for comments. But please do look, and thanks for doing so. Zad6803:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is a great photo of a circumcision in progress(Circumcision with a clamp) which has been cleared for wikipedia use. Oddly I remember it being in colour last time - has the naughty circumcision fairy been at it ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk19:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's the colour version. Would there be objections to making this the primary photo? I haven't checked the archives for previous discussions, perhaps someone can give a brief summery of the issues. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the picture we have now. There are enough pictures of the procedure itself in the article; this one reflects the antiquity of the procedure. Also, in general, I prefer througout all wikipedia to have less graphic images in the lede Misplaced Pages is not censored, but it shouldn't be a pencil in the eyeball either. This photo is relevant and considered excellent ("featured") and is a better choice than any of the others posted here. Especially with the images found later in the article. -- Avi (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Tippy, actually yes, that specific image has come up for discussion before and we had a full RFC about it here. The consensus that emerged as a result of that RFC was that that image should not be used in this article. Doc James made a good point that the image was too specific to be of use in this general overview article; based on that discussion we created a new subarticle Circumcision surgical procedure, where that image is now, and that article could use further expansion. We also had a separate discussion about the merits of the existing infobox image just six weeks ago here; there was no consensus to change the existing image. Zad6813:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Heaven forbid that an article on circumcision have a lead photo of a circumcision instead of a lead photo of a group of men sitting around a hundred years ago wearing turbans. Perhaps the turbanned gentlemen would be happier if "featured" in the History of Circumcision WP article and we replaced the turban wearers club with this contemporary photo of the central procedure of the central subject of the article. A "pencil in the eye ball" What does that even mean ? A scissors in the willy ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk09:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Tumadoireacht, I hope you'll forgive me for not understanding you here, but you have repeatedly said "circumcision is primarily cultural and not medical", or words to that effect: The article currently has a WP:Featured pictures-quality image for the infobox photo that emphasizes the cultural and historical aspects of the procedure. Based on your past statements I would expect that the current image would meet with your views. But you seem to be repeatedly favoring a purely medical image that entirely discounts the cultural and historical aspects of the procedure. You last brought this up just six weeks ago here, we discssed the pros and cons of the current image, and you did not counter the content-based arguments in favor of it at that time. It really seems you're just having another whack at a WP:DEADHORSE here; I'm not sure what - if anything - might ever make you happy regarding this article that would still be respectful of Misplaced Pages content policies. Zad6813:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Your concern for my happiness aside Zad, another editor( we are not the only two after all) has raised the issue and so dead horse red herrings do not apply. I am delighted with the chance to revisit the choice of lead photo you imposed when we last discussed it and heartened to see another editor thinking along the same lines. While circumcision is primarily a cultural phenomenon, someone still has to do the cutting. You have been at pains to point out in the past that you regard this article as being primarily concerned with the clinical procedure but yet you refuse to countenance a photo of that very act. What is wrong with this picture ( as they say)--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk13:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
"You have been at pains to point out in the past that you regard this article as being primarily concerned with the clinical procedure" Can you post links to where Zad68 said that?89.204.135.68 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid going down the road of the law of diminishing returns as Avi points out below, but... I've pointed out that doing a Google Scholar search shows that the sourcing predominately covers medical aspects, and Fiachra corroborated this in doing her own research on Web of Knowledge and Publish or Perish. Nobody, including me, is suggesting that this article cover only medical aspects, and this article appropriately covers non-medical aspects such as culture and history. In fact, non-medical aspects make up more than half the article. No good argument has been brought forward as to why the infobox image should be changed to ignore what more than half the article content covers. Zad6816:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Law of diminishing returns
Zad, I appreciate your efforts, but as you point out, Tuma has been somewhat self-contradictory. At this point, it is pretty clear that current the lede is appropriate per policy (general and Medical) and the image is fine and both are approved by a consensus of editors. Tuma can contiue to make his (I presume Tuma is a he; perhaps she is a she) "witty" comments and rail against the massive conspiracy of chopaholics who are busy chopping away at all Chopopedia articles about chopping procedures and how we have a distinct turbanistic POV which is unfair to all homburg, derby, bowler, deerstalker, beanie, bicorne, and fedora wearers everywhere. However, unless s/he can demonstrate distinct policy violations, there is no reason to change wording that is among the most scrupulously measured in all of Wikimedia. As for the apparent obsession with all things cutting, if his wording is making you or anyone else on this page uncomfortable, there always is WP:RFC/U. -- Avi (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this also. Definitely, Tuma can be hugely annoying. No question that he goes out of his way to rile up people, but so far the regular editors of this article have been doing a good job of passing over his innuendo and antagonizing, while following up on the useful suggestions he makes every once in a while. Regarding the picture of the surgical procedure, yes it is rather shocking but I would include it in the article. Compare to a WP article such as rhinoplasty, where there are plenty of pics to discomfit the squeamish. My preference would be to move the "before/after" illustration to the top so that it is the first picture that readers see, move the 19th century photograph down to a history/culture section, and add the color photograph of the surgical procedure to a medical section. Note that I am opposed to including images of complications which are both rare and severe, which would give such complications undue weight.89.204.135.68 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem I have with the image is that it doesn't add and support the article content, it only subtracts. Aside from being hugely distracting for a lay reader of the article, it's very confusing. What is happening in the photo? What is the clamp supposed to be showing us? Which type of procedure is this, and what step in that procedure is being shown? Why does the penis appear to be stretched like that?...the article content doesn't say that is a step in the procedure. Why is that particular step being shown and not any of the other steps? Is it the most important step? If the whole idea behind a circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, why isn't that happening in the image? This is why the existing procedural illustration is much more useful: it clearly shows the steps described in the text it supports, in a logical order, and the information in that illustration is easy for the typical non-medical reader to view and access. Images need to support and add to, not distract from, the article content. Zad6819:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Zad wouldn't nearly all of these objections apply to any static image of any portion of any circumcision procedure that doesn't detail the entire procedure? You endorse the "Circumcision surgery with hemostats and scissors" image even though it is not representative of most circumcisions and has a header that makes it sound as if it were the only procedure in use. Are you opposed to images from other circumcision procedures in general in this article? Are you opposed to static images of portions of any medical procedure appearing in any wikipedia article that do not show the entire procedure? Would not all or nearly all of your objections be better raised as captioning objections rather than apparently objectioning to the image appearing in the article in any form whatsoever?Zebulin (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I want the supplemental media to add encyclopedic value. They should 1) Materially add encyclopedic information; 2) Be directly supported by the article text; 3) Not distract from the prose, keeping in mind that our audience is a non-specialist reader. Can we agree that these are the goals for the use of media? This article Circumcision is the only WP:MEDICINE-scope GA article about a procedure, so I looked to other kinds of articles for examples. I did the review for (and passed) the article Burn for WP:GA. It has a really nice table of the different burn degrees. There's a description of the requirements to diagnose each degree, and there's an image illustrating each. This is done very well: it is easy to see that each image clearly illustrates the specific article content it is linked to, and it's done in a way that the images do not distract from the educational value being provided, even though some of the images are a bit stomach-turning.
If we're looking for images to educate the reader about the forceps circumcision procedure (which does not use a circumcision device), and our choices are the existing illustration or the image proposed in this section, which also appears to be a circumcision without a device just like the existing illustration, clearly the existing illustration is better. It conveys the information, is supported by the article content it's next to, and is very easy for a non-specialist general reader to understand, without being a distraction. The proposed image has none of these good qualities.
If we're interested in illustrating the procedures using the devices, why don't we make better use of the Stanford videos, currently in the External links section. Each of the three videos is produced by Stanford University's top-notch medical school for the express purpose of educating about circumcision techniques. They are explicit videos that show each circumcision technique in its entirety, along with expert running commentary by the MD performing it, and are directly supported by the article content. We can move the links to these videos up to the main article body alongside the existing illustration, and then the four most commonly used techniques will be supplemented with educational multimedia. Sound good? Zad6803:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
@Avi - delighted to see you have a sense of humour Avi. I especially enjoyed the tongue in cheek illogical argument extension hat list. You too, however, fail to see, for whatever reason, that contemporary cultural practice inclusion does not require historical illustration from 100 years ago. Further, if one is discussing proportionality, then naturally medical sources will of course be overwhelmingly about medical aspects(Duh) The vast literature on anthropological, religious, news, political, psychoanalytic and other aspects of the chop will perhaps loom larger. Trying to use the guidelines for med info to censor other info on cutting is transparently silly but surprisingly effective. No contradiction then but several attempts since at obfustification-Why ? I will also ask the question that if Zad or any other editor is of so delicate a disposition that the mere mention of cutting gives them the vapours- what on earth they are doing editing an article about it ?
(reposted from 89's talk page ) Hi 89 - I would be delighted to find you a representative example of Zad stating that the circumcision article is or should be about the clinical procedure, but it would be vastly simpler and easier for you to ask the editor whether he/she has said so and where. Is there a reason why you stay an IP (is that the term?) number and do not fully join WP - would you be willing to share the reason ? I have not seen Zad deny that he has said so -only several greek chorus singers clamouring in a misguided defence. What would be the consequences for you, your attitude or the betterment of the article if he/she or I confirm to your satisfaction that he/she has said so ? I am glad to see you support the photo.
Zad -your barrage of new objections to the photo of the article's subject is fascinating - should I attempt a meta-analysis of a sub-text ? would it be "confusing and HUGELY distracting"? Is it partly prompted by one or two or three editors liking the idea of a photo more in line with your oft stated article purpose ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk20:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The photo may well have a place in the article; I do not prefer ir for the infobox, however. -- Avi (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
In common parlance in Commonwealth countries these terms are used to refer to the cut and the uncut. Has anyone got a good reference ? It could form part of a new "Humour about circumcision" section Also Nelson Mandela writes about his teen Xhosa circumcision in his autobiography - should we also have a new section on such prominent cut figures from many cultures who have written about the experience ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk11:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you maybe expand on that bald opinion Avi and let the rest of us know what you mean by inappropriate ? Is it inappropriate like mentioning the sale of foreskins after they are cut off ? or inappropriate like the 3,600 jewish kids at mortal risk in NYC each year from oral genital contact with herpes infected circumcisers or is it a different kind of inappropriate ? Should the wit of "Roundheads and Cavaliers" go unfeted -even if not in a humour section it is a very common method of referring to the cut and uncut. Here are some circumcision humour sites the first one is run by a mohel from Ontario who apparently is capable of appreciating the lighter side of it all ....http://www.drjesin.com/bris7aj.htmlhttp://www.jokebuddha.com/Circumcision and Jay Leno on the recent attempted ban on circumcision in San Francisco http://www.jokebuddha.com/Circumcision--—⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Are these two suggestions in any way related? What high-quality, authoritative secondary sources will you be providing, Tumadoireacht, to demonstrate that the new content added will be in compliance with Misplaced Pages content policy? Zad6821:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
What edit are you suggesting? Sorry Tippy -could not resist the p.d.- but seriously -have you listened to the Carlin routine -he is satirizing those who minimize rape, but it may be that you are right -that humour even of a useful kind like Carlin's might be offensive to a rape victim reading the rape article. The mistake you are making however is extrapolating that mindset onto this article - if a mohel can run a website featuring just circumcision jokes, or the English apply pythonian wit in distinguishing intact wrinkly ended knobs from bright shiny keratinized chopped ones it is noteworthy and the information rounds out the article. Two suggestions related ? No - that is why there are two imtermitted by a full stop followed by the word "Also" I find it a little difficult to understand from the brevity of your sentence about rape, what it is you are attempting to say - are you saying that rape and circumcision are similar serious assaults on the body ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I was pointing out the absurdity of your suggestion. Anyway, this strikes me as equivalent to having a WP:TRIVIA section, such things should be integrated into the article, if we agree they're somehow relevant. Make a concrete suggestion so we can evaluate it. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes great truths are contained within humour. Your rape analogy absurdity point is still a bit muddled to me To answer your last demand I will refer you to closer reading of the first 25 words in this section. Evaluate away. Would you have similar heartfelt objections to a section on circumcision in literature ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk23:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
It's generally problematic to start with some idea that crosses your mind ("roundheads and cavaliers") and then scout about trying to find a source to back-fill the idea. It's better to survey the best-quality sources and then let the sources lead you to the content. In this particular case, these slang terms appear to be uncommon and extremely localized, and I found that once again to read up on a suggestion of yours I had to go to anti-circumcision websites - ... none of these would be reliable sources, of course. Zad6804:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
here is a video of a circumcision that is alien to that described in our article
here is a video of a circumcision that is alien to that described in our article - would we regard National Geographic (the eminent and one of the largest non-profit scientific and educational institutions in the world) as a "dodgy" source and so exclude this account of cutting so very different from our carefully tended article ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not suggesting an edit yet Tippy -I am initiating a discussion. Which may lead to a consensus driven better edit. To improve the article. Which is the purpose of this talk page.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk21:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
I think Tumadoireacht is just suggesting to add this link to a YouTube video of a Xhosa circumcision from National Geographic, now added. Zad6821:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The link is a little out of place right now because the article does not mention Xhosa circumcision yet, so it is "orphaned" at the moment from the article content, but a few weeks ago we did discuss proposed new content covering it. There was broad support for that new content. I will finish the editing it still needed and add it, hopefully later tonight, and that will support the new Xhosa video. If anyone is uncomfortable with the new Xhosa video being orphaned from the article content until then feel free to revert my addition. Zad6821:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the video link Zad, I look forward to seeing here on the talk page what text you propose adding about Xhosa or tribal MC generally--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk23:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My thanks to Zad and others for helping this article improve! It is listed as #6 out of the most controversial articles (if the table is in order) according to a recent study (and there is a link to the study in this news coverage). Good work. =) Biosthmors (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposed new section on traditional and rite-of-passage
Proposal is to add a new level-2 subsection after Adverse effects, adding:
Traditional
Religious and cultural circumcisions are frequently performed in non-clinical settings by those with little to no formal medical training, with techniques ranging from being considered safe to very risky. Typically, these procedures involve pulling the foreskin forward and cutting off the portion of prepuce that extends beyond the tip of the glans, with some variation in the technique used and the resulting amount of foreskin removed. Jewish mohels may use a technique similar to that employed by medical providers with the Mogen clamp: after the foreskin is pulled forward, it is placed through the narrow gap in the clamp shield before excision, and then any remaining foreskin is removed. Some Muslim traditional practitioners may use a very similar device and technique; others may use a grass straw to push the glans in while pulling the foreskin forward, and then bind the foreskin with a knotted cord before excising it. These non-clinical techniques employed by Jewish and Muslim ritual practitioners are considered relatively safe, and the neonatal timing of Jewish and some Muslim circumcisions is safer than when done at an older age.
In southern and eastern Africa, traditional circumcision is generally done as a rite of passage, when the boy is between 13 and 20 years of age. Certain cultures in East Africa do not remove all of the foreskin, leaving some to hang down below the glans; others remove all the foreskin along with some skin from the shaft of the penis. The Xhosa of South Africa perform their rite with a razor or penknife, and without anaesthesia. The wound is then covered with maize, or with eucalyptus, which has antiseptic properties. The rituals of these cultures have the potential for significantly more serious complications. It has been found that in parts of East Africa, traditional rituals made up the large majority (80% or more) of those admitted to hospital for circumcision complications, with several individuals suffering catastrophic complications including the loss of penis and death. Particular ritual customs, such as the Xhosa custom of dehydrating the initiate before the rite, may also exacerbate complications. The data published is too limited to draw strong conclusions about complication rates of rite-of-passage circumcsion traditions in eastern and southern Africa, but such traditions have a significantly increased risk of complications, and of more severe complications, than circumcisions performed on neonates or in medical settings.
That seems to fit the bill well Zad. Well Done. Perhaps "the neonatal timing of Jewish and some Muslim circumcisions" could become "the neonatal timing of most Jewish and some Muslim circumcisions" Did you come across any overall estimate of the total numbers circumcised annually amongst the Xhosa ? Forced circumcision of teen males is also a factor there - worth a mention ?
Thank you! I think we should wait another day or two for more comments before adding to the article, but we're off to a good start.
Regarding the suggested change to "the neonatal timing of most Jewish..." - the source we're using, WHO GTDPSA 2007, states that the Jewish traditional circumcision is "a neonatal procedure" and this is backed up by our other sources like Glass 1999. So, the sources we're using don't support changing it to "most", unless you can identify an equally authoritative source that would support the suggested wording change?
Regarding the Xhosa, I did not find any specific numbers of Xhosa circumcised annually, but my back-of-the-envelope calculations estimate it to be something less than 0.2% of those performed worldwide (although we can't include my original research). Forced circumcision by the Xhosa would be even more rare. For other cultures, the sources I've read on this indicate that it's very rare, reported as individual case reports like this one. There was also this incident from 2007, and that was not related to the Xhosa but rather the Luo, and it appears to be something related a particular political event local to the region that happened at that time. These sorts of low-level details specific to relatively small populations would make sense to locate at the articles for the individual cultures they affect, like Xhosa people, and at the specialized Forced circumcision article, if sufficient secondary sourcing can be brought to support a mention. Zad6812:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
What text and links are there at present from this main article to the forced circumcision article ? It gives examples of historical forced cutting and contemporary forced male cutting in Uganda, Australia and Yugoslavia - reference number four there refers to the generally accepted practice of open season for forced cutting on any uncut male over twenty five years of age amongst Xhosa. These alone are noteworthy for the main article. It is not just about numbers but on the numbers front there are 8,000,000 Xhosa - to paraphrase the movie Jaws - I think you need a bigger envelope !--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk22:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hoping to keep things straight here:
Are you OK with the current proposed new content as given above regarding the techniques of traditional and rite-of-passage circumcision, and their complications as compared to circumcisions performed by medical providers, even if the proposed new content does not mention "forced circumcision" at this time? Or are you saying you now oppose the new proposed content if it does not mention forced circumcision? I think this forced circumcision topic is unrelated to the proposed new content above, and I'm hoping it does not derail its addition to the article if it's not mentioned. I am now unsure whether we have agreement at least between the two of us regarding the proposed new content, please clarify.
What encyclopedic theme involving forced circumcisions are you proposing to develop in this article? My impression is that it's not something fundamental to the understanding of circumcision itself; rather, it's fundamental to the individual cultures where it happens, and should be developed at those articles, as I mentioned earlier. As an analogy, imagine that there is a relatively small cultural group, the Smokhas, where everyone smokes cigarettes, and if someone doesn't smoke, they are made to suffer cigarette burns. I can see a brief mention of the Smokhas in the article Cigarette but the discussion the peculiar cultural feature of Smokhas' use of cigarette burns would be in the article Smokhas because that topic isn't fundamental to the understanding of cigarettes. If you still think the sourcing supports it, feel free to develop the proposed content and bring it here for discussion (in a separate new section dedicated only to its discussion, please). Personally, I'm not seeing an encyclopedic theme fundamental to circumcision to develop here.
Thank you Zad for sharing once again and again at length your opinions, characterizations, suppositions, delightful if misguided analogies, and inferences. There is however a danger of overstepping and presenting these as if they were co-terminus with policy. Doing so is counterproductive and not in line with best practice. Instead of stating your assumptions repeatedly about the imagined opinions of other editors it might be more productive to address the arguments raised about content and to address content itself only. The forced circumcisions are an integral part of the subject of tribal bush circumcision culture or religious or political terrorism and have been a factor of circumcision throughout history.
In recent years forced circumcision is occuring on three continents; in Europe, in Africa and in Australia. Thus it needs to be mentioned in the text body of the main article not just as a template. You have proposed some text for the new section on one of the many omitted aspects of circumcision which I have been proposing for some time. This one is non clinical circumcisions. This is where the forced circumcisions are occuring so a separate section for discussing how to include them in the new section is not appropriate.
It is not just about the numbers of teen or adult males whose foreskins are involuntarily cut off and in this case often literally chopped off – though I understand you abhor that verb, it is a central part of what we are writing about.
In the Jay Leno clip I referenced, he jests that 100% of the neonatal males in San Francisco "voted in favour of the ban" on circumcison then contemplated there. He has a point. All of these are involuntary circumcisions too, though no literature that is presently permitted to be mentioned in this article acknowledges this so we will have to park it where we parked your envelope calculations for now.
From a human rights perspective the mostly failure of government and international bodies to fully address this horrific practice( forced circumcison) is also notable. It is foreskins not any other body part which gets lopped, thus it belongs here. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk21:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes or No please, are you now stating that you no longer support the proposed new content, as shown above? Zad6803:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Things seem to have stalled regarding this new section covering traditional and rite-of-passage techniques and their outcomes as compared to those done in medical settings, so I've asked for more input from WP:MEDICINEhere. Zad6819:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the proposed content is well written and would make a good addition to the article. The only thing I am not sure of is where to put it. Does level 2 mean ==Traditional==? Consider putting it in society and culture maybe? (Off topic) For that matter, it struck me as strange to have ==Effects== and then ==Adverse effects==? The former seems to be discussing only beneficial effects, whilst the latter discusses mostly immediate complications or possible long term negative effects. Consider renaming to Beneficial effects, or having beneficial effects and adverse effects as the 2 subheadings? Alternatively, consider a complications section for immediate adverse effects, and then discuss the possible negative long term effects in the above mentioned section. Lesion (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah that was a quandary, where to put it. I considered Society and culture but this particular bit of new content is really covering the technique and complications so it belongs near the other medical content, it's not really society and culture. The other options were to break it up into separate paragraphs and put the pieces in the individual sections but it all goes together as a unit, so I didn't want to do that. That's why I ended up proposing it as a separate section. The existing section names follow WP:MEDMOS, that's why they're named and ordered the way they are. Zad6821:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment Would be best under society and culture IMO as more discusses these procedures generally than just adverse effects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
@Lesion - I have attempted to have the adverse effects reflect that cogent point you make about balance in the "Effects" in the past. So far without success. @ Zad - the content you propose fills a glaring gap and is fine as far as it goes but is incomplete without reference to forced circumcision which is a well documented integral part of tribal circumcisions in several settings worldwide. So your question Yes or No is not appropriate. It might be wiser to seek opinions from areas OTHER than medicine as it is more a sociological, anthropological and, in the case of the forced circumcision attacks, a human rights question rather than a medical one.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk21:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it impossible to address the medical consequences of tribal circumcision without also talking about forced? Why can't we develop.them separately? They are orthogonal. That is my only question here. Zad6822:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I honestly still don't know what your position is here and wish that you would make yourself plainly clear. Others are supporting and at the very least you don't appear to be expressing yourself as plainly against it so I'll just move forward from there. Zad6804:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Not so happy with this passage:
Jewish mohels may use a technique similar to that employed by medical providers with the Mogen clamp: after the foreskin is pulled forward, it is placed through the narrow gap in the clamp before excision, and then any remaining foreskin is removed.
Well, sure, they "may" use that technique. But do most of them do so, or do they continue to use the traditional combination of Mogen shield and scalpel? From what I read (unfortunately, not in WP:MEDRS compliant sources), the traditional technique is still the method of choice. Also (again, not from WP:MEDRS compliant sources), the Mogen clamp, while better at stopping bleeding, is supposedly much more painful if no anesthetic is applied. My apologies for not being able to show acceptable sources.89.204.130.197 (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, you're right, in my proposed text, it should say "narrow gap in the shield" and not "clamp", I just checked that against the WHO source, good catch, I'll fix it above... you know your stuff! I have WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that compare the Mogen clamp with the Plastibell and the Gomco but I don't know of any sources that compare the Mogen clamp vs. Mogen shield, most likely because the shield isn't used in medical settings, the clamp is. As I'm sure you're aware, with an article like this, the content doesn't change unless we've got excellent WP:RS to support. Zad6804:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
sale of excised foreskins to cosmetics or med research industry
See WP:BLOGS for Misplaced Pages's policy regarding the fitness of blogs such as the one you linked to as reliable sources. Re If it is as widespread as this then the med or med research literature must mention it a good bit -- I agree, so I searched PubMed for secondary sources covering "foreskin keratinocyte circumcision" and "foreskin fibroblast circumcision" and found nothing suitable, so a search of the medical literature did not find that it mentions it a good bit as you were hoping. Regardless, if appropriate sources can be found, the logical place for this would be Foreskin. We have covered this before. In fact, Tumadoireacht, by my count this is the tenth time you've brought this up without offering a satisfactory reliable source to support it (I can supply diffs if needed), and it is becoming tendentious. Zad6804:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
New source article Zad and thus new information and thus new debate that is the wonderful part of a live encyclopedia.- perhaps it might be best to conduct a search on it elsewhere than in medicine( as it is notable as much for its commercial or supertstitious significance than medical) on WP to get some discussion going. It does nor belong as a subject in foreskin article alone because it is part of circumcision. The body part gets cut off and then gets sold. They go together like a horse and carriage. Also if you read my short entry above with care you will notice that I am looking for a BETTER source for article reference use so please do not characterize it as suggesting that that source be used - such characterizations are unhelpful and contrary to civility policy and best practice. Medical companies are selling the foreskins(for about 200 dollars in USA) and derived products. This is easily confirmed. Of course my mentioning it is tendentious - namely I hold the view that it should be mentioned in the circumcision article that circumcised foreskins are sold for cosmetic and for science and medical use and research. Did you mean to say tedious ? Perhaps we do need a new section given over solely to describing how the different cutting religions and cultures and tribes dispose of the circumcised foreskins after they are cut off. I know the Xhosa bury them to avoid evil spells Some Jews bury them after circumcision, others incinerate them as do most USA americans I have no idea what Muslims or Aborigines do with the cut off foreskins - does anyone here have a good source ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk18:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
More logical sequence of imagery
Following up on the discussion of what image(s) to include, I wish to propose a different and in my view more logical ordering of images. The table below shows, from top to bottom, the current sequence in the first (leftmost) column and my proposed changed sequence in the third column, with my notes to the right of each image column.
CURRENT
Notes
PROPOSED
Notes
A circumcision performed in central Asia, possibly Turkmenistan c. 1865–1872
A very specific place and time, not a generic image.
Adult circumcision, before (left) and after (right). The glans is exposed even when the penis is flaccid.
As generic an image as one is likely to get. The "before/after" format shows what the procedure is all about.
Circumcision surgery with hemostats and scissors
No. 2 position is right for this image. Artist's illustration more generic than a photo, deserves to come sooner.
Circumcision surgery with hemostats and scissors
However: is this method the most frequently performed worldwide? If not, can an illustration of the most widely performed method be found?
Adult circumcision, before (left) and after (right). The glans is exposed even when the penis is flaccid.
No.3 position too lat for this pic. Should be No.1.
Kawai Dreamatone (multi)
Obviously just a placeholder. This should be a montage of the most widely used c. devices: Mogen clamp, Gomco clamp, Plastibell, ...?
Prevalence of circumcision by country
Position is good for this pic (complements text). However, currently 21 paragraphs of text with no pic before this pic appears.
Operation of a canal lock 1-3. Boat enters 'empty' lock 4. Bottom gates are closed, bottom paddles closed, top paddles opened, lock starts to fill 5. Lock is filling with water, lifting boat to the higher level
Another placeholder. A sequence of color photographs, taken from same position, showing exemplary moments of the most common circumcision procedure used worldwide.
File:Egypt circ.jpgColored drawing of Ankh-Mahor tomb carving (2400–2300 BCE) depicting the circumcision of an adult male (left), Saqqara, Egypt
Makes sense here (section "History / Middle East, Africa and Europe")
Prevalence of circumcision by country
This pic and the following are later in sequence due to insertion of two new pics
Köçeks dancing at the circumcision celebration of Sultan Ahmed III's sons (1720); miniature from the Surname-i Vehbi, Topkapı Palace, Istanbul
Also appropriate position
File:Egypt circ.jpgColored drawing of Ankh-Mahor tomb carving (2400–2300 BCE) depicting the circumcision of an adult male (left), Saqqara, Egypt
As before
Circumcision knife from the Congo; wood, iron; late 19th/early 20th century
Complements text, so O.K. But the Turkmenistan pic is dated a little earlier.
Köçeks dancing at the circumcision celebration of Sultan Ahmed III's sons (1720); miniature from the Surname-i Vehbi, Topkapı Palace, Istanbul
As before
Preparing for a Jewish ritual circumcision with a Mogen shield (on the table, next to the scalpel)
Complements text, so O.K. (But why not Islam first, then Judaism?)
A circumcision performed in central Asia, possibly Turkmenistan c. 1865–1872
Right place chronologically
Children in Turkey wearing traditional circumcision costumes
See above
Circumcision knife from the Congo; wood, iron; late 19th/early 20th century
As before
A protest against infant circumcision
Appropriate here (complements text)
Children in Turkey wearing traditional circumcision costumes
Islam before Judaism (?)
Preparing for a Jewish ritual circumcision with a Mogen shield (on the table, next to the scalpel)
See above
A protest against infant circumcision
See above
And those are my proposed changes. I see three difficulties:
(1) Which are the most widely used circumcision devices worldwide?
(2) Which is the most widely performed circumcision procedure worldwide?
(3) How to obtain "time-lapse" photographs of this procedure (and fit them all in a single picture frame). Could they be extracted from an educational video? I do not have the technical means to do that. And would it be o.k. to do so or would it present a copyright problem?89.204.130.197 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
89.204.130.197, that's a thoughtful review. If we were to change infobox image to be something purely clinical, I'd agree with your suggestion. But, as was discussed before, the current image is a WP:FI and also references the history and culture of the procedure; a purely clinical image doesn't. It's not unreasonable to use an Islam-specific image as most circumcisions are performed for the requirements of that religion. Others might agree with you, though... let's see where the discussion goes. I agree that if we change the infobox image to the before/after photo we should move the Turkmenistan image down to history.
Regarding lots of text without images, that's fine, there's no requirement to have images, and per WP:MOS images should not be used just to "decorate" the article.
Regarding the ordering, Why not Islam first?, in history of the procedure the chronological was Judaism first and then Islam, and that makes the article prose easier because what Islam does is described as something relative to what Judaism had been doing: In Cultures and religions, Judaism's practice is based on Genesis 17, and so is Islam; in the proposed content above, Judaism often uses the Mogen, and so does Islam, but then they also may do something else. This is order the WHO does it in their Global Trends document, for the same reasons, see page 19.
Regarding your other suggestions, as always it comes down to finding excellent-quality sources and using what they say. I have good sources to say that the three devices are most often used in the USA but I don't think I have a global one. I have tried several different sources to get images of the devices but haven't gotten them yet. We have written the WHO several times to get permission to use their images but haven't gotten a successful response yet, and I have personally written Stanford Medical School several times to get permission to use their images but they have always declined. Getting permission to use stills from their excellent videos would be great but as you guessed it would absolutely be a copyright problem to do that without permission. I have also written the authors of some of the review articles to use their images and haven't gotten permission yet, but will keep working on it. Zad6804:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
I think we should wait another day or two for more comments before adding to the article, but we're off to a good start.
.jpg)
