Talk:History of circumcision

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

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

message: This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rho bite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (TC)
*Nonsense. There can be a link on the circumcision article for those who are interested. It needs to be remembered that the junk in this article needs to be seriously cleaned up. - Robert Brooke's 21:20, 31 Aug 2004 (TC)
**Please point out the "junk" in this article, or merge it back with circumcision. Rho bite 22:26, Aug 31, 2004 (TC)
The study of the history of a subject is a legitimate separate study to the subject itself as illustrated throughout Wikipedia.
The use of the term 'junk' is wilfully offensive which merely reinforces prejudice. By failing for over 2 years to point out 'the junk', Robert seems to be admitting that he cannot and by default admitting that the content is legitimate. If so, the courtesy would be to remove the claim.Just2Jack 04:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be merged 

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

message: This article needs to go back into Circumcision, there is no reason to put this section in its own article, except to hide it. Rhobite 23:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
*Nonsense. There can be a link on the circumcision article for those who are interested. It needs to be remembered that the junk in this article needs to be seriously cleaned up. - Robert Brookes 21:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be merged 

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

message: On the Circumstitions website there is a map of the United States which shows those states that do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. I provided a link to this map because it gives a clear picture of which states do and don't fund infant circumcisions under Medicaid. Jake Waskett removed the link as a 'propaganda link'.
While I can understand that Jake might take that view of the web page, I see things differently. The website, of course, is against circumcision, but the map is very clear and informative, getting the information across in a particularly striking and attractive way. I think that the readers of Wikipedia are quite grown up enough to take what they want from this website, and to discard the rest. They don't need a nanny edit. 
Perhaps the following wording will suffice to warn the poor unsuspecting reader that they might be exposed to blush propaganda!
See the map on this anti-circumcision website . Michael Glass 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an alternative, why not just give a link to the map itself? I don't object to the map, just the crackpot propagandist conspiracy theories. - Jakew 14:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Incorrect use of Language? Yes, there certainly is! I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.--MrEguy 10:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed at Talk:Penis#"Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised".—Chidom talk  19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"

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

message: I'm moving/copying information here from Circumcision#History of circumcision.
Repetition:  In this article, a similar sentence about a decline in circumcision Greece due to not liking it appears in two places -- should probably be edited down.  (I changed the wording to match Circumcision but it was already repetitive.)  --Coppertwig 00:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious place for the prevalence table is prevalence of circumcision, but I think it would be inappropriate to include it in its present form (I'll gladly discuss at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision if anyone wishes to do so). I suggest deleting the table, and linking to prevalence of... instead. Jakew 10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the table is OK with me. --Coppertwig 23:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of moving content here 

message: Re this edit:  I think this information, if verifiable, should definitely be included in one of these articles;  probably here, or perhaps at Circumcision and law or Prevalence of circumcision, except that possibly the info re Canadian health insurance can be abbreviated now that it's all the provinces -- it can be stated much more briefly, except that the info re a major hospital not permitting the operation is significant in itself and I think that sentence should be kept.  It's definitely relevant information about circumcision.  However, re one of the edit summaries, I think it's inaccurate to refer to circumcision as "outmoded". --Coppertwig 16:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it may be relevant to other articles, but including information about individual hospitals is simply absurd (think about it: how many hospitals are in the world?). Frankly, I'm not at all sure where to include health insurance coverage, if indeed anywhere. Jakew 16:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information about each individual hospital is not to be included, but in this case information about one particular hospital is interesting -- in the same way Manitoba was interesting when it was the only province providing coverage, but probably no longer needs to be specifically mentioned.  It's interesting whether "all hospitals allow the procedure" or "there exists a hospital which does not". --Coppertwig 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source cited gives no indication that the hospital is special in this regard. It is simply a single fact about one hospital in isolation. Jakew 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Well, we could still say "at least one hospital no longer performs circumcisions" or something like that.  Or even just leave the sentence about the one hospital. --Coppertwig 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is so important about this one fact about this single hospital that we need to discuss it in the context of the history of male circumcision? If another hospital closes their neurosurgery department then does that require explicit mention in the history of neurosurgery? Jakew 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see your point.  It's not as if babies born in that hospital are not allowed to get circumcised -- they just have to have it done elsewhere.  Maybe you're right. --Coppertwig 20:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not on all fours with closing a neurosurgery department. A hospital would close its neurosurgery department if it couldn't attract a neurosurgeon or couldn't afford to maintain the facilities and that would be unimportant to the history of neurosurgery, but it wouldn't decide that neurosurgery was against its principles. Circumcision is a fairly generic kind of surgery (which I have no doubt St Boniface's will continue to do where there is medical need), and the hospital's reason for cession has a bearing on the history of the operation, just as it is important to the history of circumcision in New Zealand that National Women's Hospital was the first to stop doing them, which closed the floodgates, as it were, and now none will.--Hugh7 02:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info re hospitals and health insurance 

message: If the foreskin is infected sometimes they have to surgically remove it, but I have a feeling there are many different reasons for it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.114.102 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right.  It is called therapeutic circumcision as opposed to non-therapeutic circumcision (done without medical need) that is done on babies.  You are right there should be a section on this on the main circumcision page.  I have brought it up but the editors there are literally non-responsive most of the time if it doesn't chime with what they want for the article.  In other words they think they own it. I am not sure the history of circumcision page needs a section on therapeutic circumcision though.  It can be dealt with within the article when it needs to be. Tremello22 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical reasons? 

message: I removed this paragraph, which had multiple issues:
"Apart from the now obvious advantages of male circumcision as a prophylactic against AIDS, circumcision survives in protestant countries other than the United States, largely as a distiction between male members of protestant churches (circumcised) and male catholics (uncircumcised)."
1. There's no citation.
2. It's POV.  The prophylactic effect against AIDS is disputed, not "obvious."
3. What "protestant countries" is this referring to?  I believe today the USA is the only country in the world where the majority of Protestants circumcise.  It's certainly not common among the Protestants of Scandinavia, the Netherlands, or Germany.  I'm not sure about Northern Ireland, but it's my understanding that circumcision has become rather rare in the UK the past several decades.  -Helvetica (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit.  Regarding your points 2 and 3, though, a couple of notes.  First, the prophylactic effect is not a matter of serious dispute any more (at least not in reliable sources; random websites don't really count), and hasn't been for some time.  This can easily be verified by performing a few date-limited PubMed searches.  Second, "survives" is somewhat ambiguous (which is of course another problem with the paragraph): it might mean a >50% circumcision rate, but it could be taken to simply mean a non-zero circumcision rate, in which case several countries might qualify.  I have no information about correlations between circumcision and protestants vs catholics, so can't comment on that. Jakew (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the RCTs in Africa, there are serious issues with the methodology, some of which are discussed in the relevant article here on Wiki.  This scholarly article details some of those issues: http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193 -Helvetica (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember that article.  If you're interested, there's a well-written rebuttal in the September issue.  Regardless, an obscure opinion piece in a fairly obscure journal is hardly a serious controversy; it's possible, after all, to find an opinion piece claiming that HIV is unrelated to AIDS, but it would be misleading to say that this is a matter of serious dispute.  Anyway, this seems rather off-topic, and it is not clear to me that further discussion would be productive in terms of improving the article. Jakew (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakew, it's clear to me that you have a strong pro-circumcision POV, and therefor see a consensus where others don't.  You're entitled to your opinion, just as the authors of the article I cited and the many other scientists who disagree with you are entitled to theirs.  Like you said though, this discussion isn't particularly relevant to this article at this time, so it's probably best just to agree to disagree. -Helvetica (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly agree to disagree, Helvetica, but for future reference, please remember to discuss content, not the contributor. Jakew (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakew, please don't try to insinuate that I was making a personal attack, when clearly I was not.  Your point of view is relevant to assessing your judgment on this matter.  Someone with a pro-circ POV will have a different subjective perspective than someone with an anti-circ POV (or someone with a more neutral POV, to the extent that exists...) and will judge differently what evidence and analysis they find more or less compelling.  You're entitled to your opinion just like they're entitled to theirs.  Obviously you find the evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection to be compelling, but many others, including many scientists in the relevant fields disagree. -Helvetica (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I happen to find it rather offensive to be labelled as "pro-circumcision", partly because I consider it a misrepresentation of my views, and partly because it is fundamentally a form of argumentum ad hominem.  The easiest way to avoid causing such offence is to avoid making comments about an editor rather than the subject.  Since this is exactly what WP:NPA advises, it seems obvious to follow it, whether or not a personal attack is actually intended.  Note that this is also consistent with WP:Wikiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages, which states "Do not label or personally attack people or their edits" (emph. mine). Jakew (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813204310/http://www.misericordia.edu:80/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm to http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817122201/http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html to http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.misericordia.edu/users/davies/thomas/Trans.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817122201/http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html to http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of male circumcision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071103121616/http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/in-ai/2005/11-01_e.asp to http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/hr-rh/in-ai/2005/11-01_e.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/strongs.pl?strongs=2699
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817122201/http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html to http://www.circs.org/library/laumann/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: All circumcision is male. There is no other kind. 
Female genital mutilation is not circumcision, and it would be helpful to stop perpetuating that mistaken term. Calling it that is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The term means "cut around" and since it's used to refer to the amputation of the male prepuce, the analagous equivalent (amputating the clitoral hood) in females is probably an appropriate use of it. The central problem is that people not understanding the meaning of the "circum" prefix (not sure why, we use it in circumference, clearly refers to 'around' for anyone who does basic geometry...) will misuse it to refer to other more extreme forms of FGM like amputation of the external glans of the clitoris itself, which is definitely something we should avoid perpetuating. I believe that emphasizing it's appropriateness for hoodectomies would aid in quelling that though, as clearly there is some desire to use the term, the best way to quell misunderstanding is to have the term used appropriately rather than to censor ALL uses. WakandaQT (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision, full stop 

message: There should be something here in the last section about WHO recommending, based on studies, circumcision, for HIV prevention especially in Africa.  Also, most of the comments on this talk page appear unaddressed a decade plus later. 
Page reads as lacking a neutral POV as anti-c. Histories are explored (especially Greek) much more than what the page is supposed to be about.  Came her to find out why so many American adult men have undergone this.  Didn’t learn much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F90:6950:2C69:EFFF:A501:CEA6 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO and HIV recommendations & talk page unaddressed. 

message: The "revival" section here which uses this source compared the 9th edition from 1876 (by Baynes) to a 1910 publication.
Encyclopædia_Britannica#Edition_summary indicates this would be the 11th edition, either overseen by Chisholm (NY) or Hooper (London) Confusing: were there different versions of the 11th tailored to UK and US with two different editors? A pattern also seen for the 12th
Do we have any indication as to what was in the 10th edition (1902-1903) between these two cites?
Chisholm/Hooper worked on that too but had helpers: Wallace helped Chisholm on the NY edition and Hadley hepled Hooper on the UK one.
I notice it lists "supplement to 9th" so maybe it wasn't a full printing and got skipped for that reason? WakandaQT (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Brittanica gap

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

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

message: I recently deleted false/fringe information that was in the article. (The vast majority of which was unsourced and/or from activist websites.) 
If anyone objects to the deletions: feel free to ping me on talk and we can discuss. Thanks, KlayCax (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: False/fringe information deleted from the article