Talk:Prevalence of circumcision/Archive 2

Worldwide prevalence
I've removed reference to worldwide rates being one sixth from this page and the main Circumcision page on the grounds that 1) it's patently false (Muslims are over 1/5 of the world's population and effectively all Muslim men are circumcised) and 2) the link points to a CIRP propaganda page with "deaths from circumcision" highlighted. BeIsKr (talk) 06:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I share your concerns, to some extent, I don't think they're valid reasons for removing sourced content. Regarding point (1), I point you towards WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  Regarding point (2), the CIRP URL is just a convenience link; it is not the actual cited source.  I have, however, removed the URL as a temporary measure &mdash; I wonder if you'd mind expanding on your concerns about it. Jakew (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on point (1). For point (2), when I clicked the original link, the things that immediately jumped out at me were the fact that the phrases "deaths are reported" and "Although haemorrhage and sepsis are the main causes of morbidity, the variety of complications is enormous. The literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision" were highlighted.  That leads me to believe that the person who put the link in did so not for informational purposes but for propaganda purposes.
 * Also, I'll add point (3), that the source is from 1993. If the article were being cited as a reference to public health, that would be one thing, but using a population estimate from 1993 strikes me as being very out of date.
 * And whatever we decide here, we should make the same change on the main Circumcision page, since the same article is cited there for the same statistic. BeIsKr (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, re point (2), I think you've made a reasonable case for excluding CIRP's URL on an indefinite basis. The highlighting certainly skews the presentation of the original paper.  Regarding point (3), I've mixed views.  On the other hand I do agree that it is older than would be ideal.  On the other hand it seems doubtful to me that global circumcision rates would change so quickly that a 1993 estimate would be substantially inaccurate on the sole basis of its age.  Here's a possible solution: can a more recent, peer-reviewed estimate be found that represents the lower end of the range? Jakew (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

clarification of 'prevalence'
Could somebody please clarify in the article that prevalence relates to a population as a whole, not prevalence of the procedure on new borns. For example, "Brazil 7%" might lead somebody to wonder whether it means 7% of newborns have it done, or whether 7% of the entire population have had it done. There is nothing throughout the article to clarify this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Interpretation of marked variance of prevalence  in MC
Should this article include analysis and interpretation of these variations in carrying out foreskin removals- where for instance some areas of the world are near zero and some near 100% and mention of any analysis of likely future trends ? --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 19:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean by "foreskin removals"? Jayjg (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Prevalence map
Please see Talk:Circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the info box in this map have 80% first at the top then it goes down to 20%? That is the least of the problems I have with it though.  The colours are awful.  And most of all why should we use these particular figures - the WHO haven't exactly been forthcoming on where they got their figures from.  I question the reliability of the figures. Tremello22 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The data appears to be fine. Green was chosen for uncircumcised because green = natural state. If any country has the wrong color, it easy to fix. What colors would you think better to use? I adusted for better red green color blindness contrast, and fixed the order of the legends, making 80 at the bottom and 20 at the top, and added one country with no data. RasterB (talk) 03:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it fine, it's just from a single source, and thus needs attribution to that source, and it needs to be changed to read "male circumcision" so that it's not ambiguous. The title should be similarly renamed.  Blackworm (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What for? This article is only about "male" circumcision. Most of the people who have had part of their genitals cut off are male. Genital mutilation refers more specifically to female genital cutting, circumcision more commonly means cutting off the foreskin of the penis. Added reference to image. RasterB (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm already answered "what for": in order that it not be ambiguous. Wikipedia aims to give precise information.  The word "curcumcision" is also often used to refer to "female circumcision". Adding the word "male" does no harm.  I believe the WHO document from which the data is taken – or at any rate, one of the WHO documents cited at Circumcision – very frequently uses the phrse "male circumcision". Adding the word to the map is an improvement in my opinion, for clarity. The word "male" might not be repeated many times in the text, but I think things like maps are often looked at by people who are skimming quickly and not reading the whole article, so the information there needs to be a little more self-contained. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people in the world haven't even heard of female genital mutilation - and calling it female circumcision is a ridiculous attempt to be polite about a barbaric parctice that the United Nations is attempting to eradicate. Obviously you are free to edit the caption as you please, but I see no need to add something that is clearly obvious. What part of the world do you live in where circumcision is "often" used to refer to "female" circumcision? It certainly isn't used that way often in any English speaking country that I know of, as female genital mutilation is complely unheard of there. RasterB (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your question in the most relevant way, I live in a part of the world from which it's possible to do web searches. Even if most people haven't heard of a term, it could still be ambiguous to those who have.  Don't worry: I wouldn't delete the map if all that I think is needed is to edit the caption: I'd edit the caption perhaps.  Thanks for contributing your work on the map.  Note that I listed some concerns at Talk:Circumcision about a version of the map by Emilfaro; perhaps some of those concerns are relevant here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll do a web search for circumcision and see what comes up. First one: "This article is about male circumcision." Second one: "Before you make a circumcision decision, it's important to" Third one: "The Circumcision Resource Center" Fourth: "Information about circumcision" Fifth: "Need another reason to skip routine circumcision?" Sixth: "CIRP is an Internet resource" Seventh: "MAC enables parents to make fully informed decisions" Eighth: "El-Omda said that two of his daughters were already circumcised" - wow, one out of twenty. Not what I would call "often". By the way, female genital mutilation is used twice as often as female circumcision. RasterB (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There, you see? The first result of your search used the term "male circumcision". We can do that here, too. I see no reason not to. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first result of my search did not use the terrm mmaleee cccirrcumcision in the titttle of the article, but the first result was the Wwikipekkkkkkeedia circumcision article... RasterB (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm: What colours would you suggest? Is maroon too much like red? What should be the wording of the figure caption? How about "Estimates of male circumcision prevalence; yellow less than 20%, green 20 to 80%, blue greater than 80% " (or the colours could be the other way around, but I like the colour of the midrange to be a colour that is intermediate between the other two colours. Green comes between blue and yellow, for example.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said before I can make the colors anything anyone wants, but unttil you come to an agreement on what colors to use, I'll keep the loggical ones - maroon for the color of the expoosed penis glans, green for the natural, uncircumcised state - and I see no reason to not keep these colors. For someone to delete the map because they don't like the caption is plane stupid - use whatever durn caption you wish, but don't delete the map, because the article hinges on the maap. I found one country that was the wrong color, are there more? By the way, blue is a horrible choice for one of the colors. RasterB (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Expelliarmus! Blackworm had concerns not only about the caption but also about the colours.  I don't feel strongly about what the colours are. I suppose I'll accept pretty well any colours, though I have some preferences.  There was a discussion about the colours of the map earlier at Talk:Circumcision ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do people think of this version? Image:Circumcision by Country-2008-28-07.png I'm working off an incomplete knowledge of the discussion, but I have no particular attachment to my version of the image and I'd be happy to do up another one if changes are suggested. Pythian Habenero (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not enough color, plus the no data areas should be grayed out, plus there is no need to create so many different file names. Just pick some colors from the List of colors article and discuss them here. RasterB (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? "Not enough colour" is insufficient information for me to fix the problem. As to creating file names, I'm not familiar with the Wikipedian system but I would be astonished if it were impossible to delete an unnecessary file once discussion has concluded, and I predict that it will be useful to have example maps up for each proposed colour scheme so that the convenience of telling different shades apart can be judged on its own merits. Working under your system, however: how do you feel about #dbd0c7 for the "no data" areas? Too close to the proper map colours? Too light? Too dark? How about #7f7974? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythian Habenero (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)  (addendum: I'm sorry, it's early in the morning and I forgot to sign my message. Pythian Habenero (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
 * The second one is way too dark. Another group of colors to choose from is at Web-Safe Colors, and above them in the same article, the HTML and X11 color names. Yes files can be deleted, just add the template See Deletion guidelines. It's just unnecessary workload for the admins, since users can't delete files themselves. RasterB (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well, that's slightly backwards. In future I'll upload proposed versions to a free image hosting service and link them here instead. As for the colours themselves: you've told me you dislike the second, but given no opinion on the first. That makes it difficult for me to test out proposed changes. Pythian Habenero (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thank you very much for recolouring the map, Pyth, and especially for being willing to recolour it again. I edited the image description file of the version you uploaded, to mention Emilfaro as a contributor of an earlier version, and to fix the URL of the WHO document, which had gotten truncated somehow.
 * I'm guessing that by "not enough color", RasterB means "too drab". ☺ The "no data" part should be coloured so as to make it fade from the viewer's attention: very drab.  The other parts should ideally be bright, attractive colours that contrast with each other but which have no connotations whatsoever. ☺  As I said, however, personally I'm willing to accept almost any colour scheme.
 * Colour sample of #dbd0c7: (almost white; you can hardly see it): Colour sample of #dbd0c7
 * Colour sample of #7f7974: (almost white; you can hardly see it) (13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)) : Colour sample of #7f7974
 * Colour sample of #00aaff: (a random colour just to show that this display works): Colour sample of #00aaff
 * Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops-- I think you meant to say this: Colour sample of #7f7974 for that second colour sample. You're very welcome! It's no trouble for me to create sample images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythian Habenero (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. I've edited my colour samples above to add a border and put the colour I meant to put. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On noting that the CSS borders don't appear to deal well with line wraps, I've omitted them here, but what do people think of this proposed colour scheme? C9F ( #cc99ff ), C99 ( #cc9999 ), and C96 ( #cc9966 ) from the web-safe colours appear to me as both relatively neutral and easy to tell apart. My grey from above ( #dbd0c7 ) can serve as a no-data shade, unless there are objections. Thoughts? (Addendum: Goodness, I've gone and mucked up the coding. My apologies.) Pythian Habenero (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) (ec) Now, let's see. We can't use shades of red because they signify danger. We can't use shades of green because they signify nature. We can't use blue because RasterB says it's a horrible choice (why?). We can't use black because it could be seen as racist. We can't use drab colours because they're not colourful enough. What's left? White, light yellow and dark yellow? Sorry, Pyth, but I find C9F and C99 difficult to tell apart, and C99 and C96 somewhat easier to tell apart but not extremely easy. Remember that displays on different computers will vary. By the way, is it possible to make the legend bigger? I find it hard to read unless I make the map so big I can't seen the whole world. Sorry if that's too much work. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very possible to make the legend bigger! I'd be happy to do so, perhaps simultaneously including any wording changes on which multiple editors in this discussion agree. Also, how about these: CCF ( #ccccff ), C9C ( #cc99cc ), C69 ( #cc6699 )? Pythian Habenero (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to hear from Blackworm, as they are the only one complaining about the Image:Circumcision by Country.png colors. Honestly did you look at the blue map? Or the gray scale one? They were terrible. Here are the original WHO colors: basically shades of red-orange ranging from almost red for circumcised to orange for 20 to 80% and yellow for not circumcised. RasterB (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did not look at either. As I said in my first comment here, my knowledge of the discussion is limited; I'm just providing a flyby alternative image, with an option on further editing if anyone suggests any changes. Pythian Habenero (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks!! (for being willing to make the legend larger).
 * Re those colours: what would you use for "no data", then?
 * How about these? no data: 99C ( #9999cc ); < 20%: C90 ( #cc9900 ); 20-80: 660 ( #666600 ); >80%:  609 ( #660099 )
 * Is that the right way to transform 3-digit colours into 6-digit colours: just double the digits? It works, anyway: it maps black to black and white to white.
 * For the legend: I suggest "Male circumcision by country", using lowercase "country" as in Wikipedian page naming conventions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Male is redundant, just like "Male penis", but Country should be lower case. It would be best to wait to hear from Blackworm, and whoever got blocked if they are back, about the colors. Since it is non-controversial, I'll increase the size of the legend box. Oh and yes, just double up each digit to get the actual RGB code. RasterB (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To circumcise is: to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the clitoris of (a female). Thus we need to state "male circumcision" since that is what the map shows.  Note also that the map's source also disambiguates by using "male circumcision."  Blackworm (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For one thing, female circumcision is no longer referred to as circumcision, but as genital mutilation. It is, after all grossly different to cut off the end of your penis, as is done to females, vs. cut off the skin covering the end. For another thing this particular article is only about males, and it says so in the first sentence. There is no need to repeat that in every paragraph. And third, you can edit image captions as well as anyone else, and are free to change it to "Male penis circumcision" for all I care. Now please suggest some colors you like or I will have no reason to not keep them as is. And trust me there is a zero chance that anyone will by mistake use this map in the female genital mutilation article because it is titled "Circumcision by Country" instead of "Male Circumcision by Country". As I demonstrated, the term circumcision is applied to males at least twenty times as often as to females. RasterB (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your claims re: female circumcision are in error. Please tell me why you believe the UN source consistently says "male circumcision" rather than simply "circumcision."  I have no issues with the neutral colours Coppertwig presents above.  Blackworm (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now we are finally getting somewhere. Feel free to use whatever caption you like. I see no reason to repeat male whatsoever. I have changed the colors to the above suggestion, except that I had to change the no data to gray to give it more contrast and the lettering to black for the same reason (when circumcision was the darker color it had been used for the lettering). I would hardly call these "neutral" colors though. RasterB (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I knew how to change the legend inside the image to read "male circumcision," I would, but until that happens I can't agree to its inclusion. Blackworm (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You can't even read that unless you click on the image, and if you do it clearly says, "Description: Map showing percentage of males circumcised by country." As you can see there isn't room for all that on the map. Are you using this image just to promote changing the circumcision article to male circumcision? That's a dead horse. Quit beating it. RasterB (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if someone would change the legend to "Prevalence of male circumcision by country" to mean percentage of all males as opposed to neonatal rate. Ah, Blackworm, now I understand: you're concerned about the heading of the legend inside the image, not only the image caption, which can easily be edited.
 * "Google news" shows 48 items with "female circumcision"; at least some of which are quite recent.
 * Readers might not read the information in the image description file. I think it would be OK if the legend heading said little or nothing, with more information in the figure caption; however, if it does say "circumcision" then I prefer having words "male" and "prevalence" added to clarify it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion about the copyright status of the map at commons:Commons talk:Licensing, just to make sure. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Colours of prevalence map
Do we have consensus on these colours? no data: 99C ( #9999cc ); < 20%: C90 ( #cc9900 ); 20-80: 660 ( #666600 ); >80%: 609 ( #660099 ) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So why isn't the prevalence map using these colors? The current prevalence map looks like it was designed by someone strongly biased against circumcision. BeIsKr (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Legend heading of prevalence map
I suggest having no heading at all to the legend inside the image. That is, I suggest deleting "Circumcision by Country" from the legend, and having the legend just say "< 20%", "20% - 80%", etc. I also suggest (if it's not difficult) moving the "no data" part of the legend to the bottom of the legend; since it's a less interesting part of the map it should be moved to where it attracts less attention. A more correct and complete legend might be "Estimates of prevalence of male circumcision by country" but that's too many words and it would be better to have these words in the figure caption only so that they can be easily edited. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Circumcision_by_Country-2008-06-08.jpg How's this look? Pythian Habenero (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Pyth! Sorry for the delay in responding. As far as I know, that version meets all the serious objections.  If it's not too much trouble, you could do another one with the legend larger, and possibly with the "no data" part of the legend moved to the bottom of the legend.  But I think this one is good enough to put into the article.  I'm putting it in now.  I edited the image description file to say "Original version was by Emilfaro, was on English Wikipedia, and was based on  http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/JC1320_MaleCircumcision_Final_UNAIDS.pdf". All the best, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No heading in the legend is confusing. I see nothing wrong with just saying circumcision by country. You can't read it unless you know what it says or have clicked on it, but it is a helpful reminder of what you are looking at, especially if you are looking at the blown up version (click on image twice). RasterB (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't keep adding the map that doesn't have consensus simply because you see nothing wrong with it. The concerns are laid out in detail, including the no data areas around Kashmir (India/Pakistan), the lack of direct attribution to a source, and the map legend needing to say "male circumcision."  One map here appears to have consensus; I suggest you use it instead if you cannot address the concerns raised here.  Blackworm (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are not countries, so no reason to change them, but since Greenland also is not a country I'll draw them in. The word circumcision, for thousands of years, has referred only to the whacking off of the male foreskin. It was briefly used to describe female genital mutilation, but that practice is now known simply as genital mutilation. The description already says male. There is no need for any change to the legend. RasterB (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please give me feedback on edits
Please email me at jpolzeng2400@gmail.com about edits. I believe that this map best represents data, and that intro statement should not say that it is near universal in Muslim World [instead say Middle East.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No emailing for feedback. All discussion should take place here so that there's a complete record in full view of anyone who needs to see it. BeIsKr (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Muslim world" has too many possible interpretations, while Middle East implies a much smaller region than is actually intended here. Since we're talking specifically about the geopolitical use of the term, I'd be inclined to use "Muslim-majority countries" like they do in the Muslim world article when referring to the geopolitical version of the term. – RobinHood70 talk 19:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of countries in lede
Hi, Belskr I disagree. I believe that the map should compare them even more specifically in ranges of 20 percents. 20 - 80 is much too broad. If this is an encyclopedia our goal should be to be accurate. People visiting the page should know as close to as possible the amount present in each country

Since a certain user insists that we should list countries where circumcision isn't prevalent first and that it's neutral to show a map where predominantly uncircumcised countries are blue and predominantly circumcised countries are red, I'd like to put out the following analogy: Suppose the article were titled "Prevalence of Christianity". (Note that Christians are roughly 25-30% of the world's population, slightly lower than the percentage of men globally who are circumcised.) Then suppose that the article started off by talking about how China and India are relatively Christian-free and included a map showing predominantly Christian countries in red and the rest of the world in blue. I would hold that such an article had anti-Christian bias and I imagine most others would feel the same way. So why is this even coming up for discussion in a prevalence of circumcision article? BeIsKr (talk) 13:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, whether we do most prevalent to least or least to most makes little difference, but if I had to choose, I'd go with most to least, just due to the fact that circumcision is the article topic. (Mind you, an article titled "Prevalence of uncircumcision/intactness" would just sound wrong, and I think would be inventing words, so the argument could be made that the title should not be taken into consideration.)


 * The colouring is a different matter, however. Blue is a neutral colour, but red is not. Regardless of whether we want to show 20/80 or 50/50, the colours chosen should not imply that circumcision is either good or bad, so red, yellow, green, black, and white should all be avoided for their traditional associations with danger/good/bad. Blue and orange would probably be good choices, though it might look a bit garish. – RobinHood70 talk 19:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Prevalence of foreskins"? ;) Anyway, the need to avoid any seemingly biased colors is why the consensus on this page was for the admittedly garish colors currently in use on the 20/80 map. Probably not the colors I would've chosen had it been up to me, but it had already been agreed to on here so I went ahead and implemented it. Any other maps should probably have a similar color scheme to use colors that there's already a consensus agreement about them being unbiased. That said, I will continue to revert any insertions of 50/50 maps unless there's a consensus here to the contrary because such a map doesn't add anything to the page and only serves to obfuscate. BeIsKr (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree on that note. 50/50 leaves too much room for interpretation. 20/80 seems like an odd choice to me, rather than even thirds, but that's obviously not up to us. I'm sure the WHO/UNAIDS had good reasons to choose those numbers. Even those leave a lot of room for interpretation, though, as here in Canada, the circumcision rate is probably less than half what it is in the US (though I acknowledge that reports vary widely in both countries), yet we're still in the same grouping. – RobinHood70 talk 21:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of the world isn't circumcised, so I think that we should list the areas where it is rarely practiced first. I saw your old statement that making this an intact prevalence would be bad. This is not what I'm trying to do. I am just trying to make the best comparison of areas that are prevalent with circumcision versus those that our not. In response to your statement, since most people cant choose if they're circumcised, this page should represent not just those that are circumcised but also those that are intact. Since the majority of the world has not had this done, I believe we should start by listing that its rare in Europe, Asia, and Latin America before talking about how prevalent it is in Muslim countries. This will best represent the data without bias because it will talk about what is common practice (in the world) before talking about what isn't.


 * Since most people can't choose whether or not they are circumcised, this page should represent both the prevalence of intactness and the prevalence of circumcision. (Comment by )


 * You know you're showing your bias just by using the word "intact". Anyway, circumcision is a medical procedure. It happens to be the most prevalent surgery in the world and one of the few where a majority of the instances are performed for non-medical reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a medical procedure. Vaccination is also a medical procedure that most people can't choose whether it happens to them. If Wikipedia existed back when most children weren't getting vaccinated and there were an article on the prevalence of vaccinations, would you really argue that we should talk about countries with low vaccination rates first? And if we were just looking at circumcision prevalence in Canada, where just under half of men are circumcised, should we really list the provinces from least circumcised to most? If so, if the rate ticked up slightly in Canada so that just over half the men were circumcised, would we then have to reverse the whole list? BeIsKr (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In fairness, I used "intactness" first as part of my point about inventing words for coming at "circumcision rate" from the opposite side. – RobinHood70 talk 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Question about South Africa
I have a study called Prevalence and Acceptibility of Male Circumcision in South Africa from the the Human Sciences Research Council. Its data indicated that the rate of circumcision is still below 50 percent overall but that peoples views towards circumcision have grown more accepting. Is this data already uploaded to this page? Is it ok if I write about this study in the Africa section? JohnPRsrcher (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a primary research study. Have the results of this primary study been picked up by a secondary source?   21:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Should get rid of near universal
Just because circumcision is near universal in the Muslim culture does not mean it is near universal in muslim majority countries. Based on the data that we have; yes, it is likely to be over 90 percent, but we don't have data saying explicitly that it is near universal in muslim countries. This would mean that everyone universally was doing it, which isn't the case because some groups of people in those cultures are not doing it. I would opt to get rid of this term. JohnPRsrcher (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This problem was only created a few days ago with this edit by . The previous wording "Muslim world" was correct and indicated the cultural population among which prevalence is indeed near-universal.  I will put this back.   20:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the use of the words near universal is bias wording. This is implying that everyone in Islam cultures is seeking to be circumcised because it is "the right thing to do". The is not the case, however, because this is just Islamic tradition and most Islamic people practice it without knowledge of its medical implications. On a prevalence of circumcision page all that we should say is that it is highly prevalent with Islamic peoples.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see a bias in the wording "near universal", it is a simple statement of fact about prevalence, it does not imply anything about the reason why it was done or whether it was good or bad. "Near universal" is a more accessible word choice for the general reader than "highly prevalent".    21:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have an additional argument about the near universal term and would like to take the time to reexplain. Is it possible that we (other people maintaining the page) can debate this issue after December 15th? I will be at school for the next two weeks taking final exams.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Map too broad(20-80%??)
I think this map is too broad. Shouldn't be comparing 20-80 percent to less then 20 and more then 20. Should only show countries with known majority and minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This map should compare the majority. There is data in WHO report that indicates this. 20-80 percent is too broad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Majority/minority is not a useful comparison. If some country had 51% prevalence and another country had 49% prevalence, is that a worthwhile distinction to make? There is also no data in the cited sources to create a comprehensive majority/minority map for the globe (note that you were forced to leave Canada and Kazakhstan blank, for instance). Furthermore, your map color scheme was very intentionally biased against circumcision. There was a whole long discussion in the archived talk page to come up with an unbiased color scheme, which I implemented. BeIsKr (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I believe that we should be using a majority/ minority map as it provides the best comparison for people who are interested in the topic. 20 - 80 is much too broad. Additionally, I believe it should be even more specific. We should have data based on every 20 percent to show exactly the amount circumcision is prevalent in countries. Since this is an encyclopedia and is supposed to most accurately reflect the data, I believe that this should be our goal (Comment by )
 * Hi, Belskr I disagree. I believe that the map should compare them even more specifically in ranges of 20 percents. 20 - 80 is much too broad. If this is an encyclopedia our goal should be to be accurate. People visiting the page should know as close to as possible the amount present in each country (Comment by )
 * Hi, I believe that the present map is much too broad. If you go to the SHS website you can set up an account and download for free the prevalence of circumcision data that they have. I believe that 20 - 80 is much too broad, we should aim to make it as accurate as possible. In many countries in Africa and elsewhere, I believe it is important for people to get an accurate view of the amount of circumcision present. I think the map should be in bins of 20 %. (Comment by )


 * First of all, you've been specifically requested on your talk page to sign your comments and given instructions on how to do so, yet you continue to leave your comments unsigned. Please reread your talk page and sign your comments. Secondly, you don't need to put effectively the same comment in 3 different sections. This is the section for discussion of how the map should be divided up; please don't discuss it in other sections. Thirdly, I wouldn't be opposed to having a map showing circumcision rate by quintile if you can find reliable data on it from an unbiased source that doesn't have gaping omissions, though there would have to be consensus on what would constitute reasonable colors for such a heat map. Absent such a source, though, I think a 20/80 map is reasonable because in common terms it translates to "almost all"/"some"/"almost none". Also note that of nearly 200 countries in the world, fewer than 20 (i.e., less than 10%) have circumcision rates between 20% and 80%, so it's questionable how much would be gained by subdividing that group further. BeIsKr (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will contact you if I can acquire this data. I think that for now the 20/80 is reasonable but not ideal. One idea: for those 20 countries, there must be statistics indicating an exact number. Maybe we could break it into quintiles of 20. I know that we do have data for the US, Australia, and Canada.

JohnPRsrcher (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Misleading number for Finland
I deleted a reference that wasn't existing anymore. In addition to that I removed a second reference that mentioned a circumcision rate of 7,1%. This reference didn't name a source for that number and was not referring to the actual number of people being circumcised. In addition to that, this number was refused by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health upon request. Finland's Ministry of Social Affairs and Health mentions a number of 500-1000 people being circumcised for medical reason every year, according to their official data. This number has recently been confirmed. This suggests a circumcision rate of 0,8 – 1,8%. There is an average of 60,000 people in every age group (Year by year. Age 1, Age 2, Age 3, Age 4, …). The number of Live Births is around 58.000 – 60.000 every year. And then we have the 500-1000 circumcisions for medical reasons every year. Mathematically, this makes a number much higher than 2% impossible. I'm fluent in Finnish language and on all researches of Finnish sources I have seen, I never stumbled upon a higher number than that mentioned 1-2%. Data by the Finnish Ministry of Health are the most reliable one. Macci555 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to make Maps of Neonatal Circumcision Rate for United States and Canada
Hi.

It looks like we have enough information here to make a map of neonatal circumcision rate by region for the US and Canada. Our current graphical data could be lacking as it only represents the prevalence of circumcision overall, but does not cover the prevalence of neonatal circumcision.

JohnP 22:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you get back to me on this? This has been up for weeks? JohnP (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Color Change for Map
Hi. The current map is quite ugly. It is hard to discern the differences between different colors just from looking at it. Proposal to change to a new color palette.

JohnP 22:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe blue and orange could work.

JohnP 22:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPRsrcher (talk • contribs)

Can someone get back to me on this? This has been up for weeks.

JohnP (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Australia - mismatch between map and text
The map pf "male circumcision prevalence" shows Australia shaded green, which is supposed to be at least 20% circumcision rate, whereas most of the figures throughout the article give a much lower circumcision rate for Australia. And only the Royal College estimate mentions 20% - as the high end of their estimate. These are all rates of circumcisions being performed whereas the map and article are supposed to be about the percentage/prevalence of circumcised males in the country. That information should appear somewhere in the article.

I have not looked at the other sections of the article to see if they give the national prevalence or if they also are only referencing curent circumcision rates. Australia caught my eye because the map's shading suggested it was in the same category as the US yet the numbers in the text looked much lower. In fact, the introductory section specifically states the WHO rate for Australia as 13%, although it's not clear from the context which data set that refers to since that number follows a sentence that states "The WHO states that there is generally little non-religious circumcision in" several countries. Ileanadu (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Our maps only do prevalence right now (meaning amount of people overall who are circumcised.) Australia's prevalence is still over 50 I believe. However, I would really (really) like it if we had some maps of the neonatal rate of circumcision up here (meaning the amount of infants who are circumcised.)

It really depends on if we have enough data to graph the neonatal circumcision rates

JohnP (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the new map
Thanks to whoever put up the new map. I like it

JohnP (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Need maps of the neonatal circumcision rate
Hey guys. We have enough data here to make maps for the neonatal circumcision rate. At least in Canada, the US, and Australia by region. Can someone help me make some maps on the neonatal circumcision rates? We really should have this data up here. When most people think prevalence they think about the amount of babies that are circumcised.

JohnP (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

American map
I find the key somewhat difficult to interpret, especially the lower percentage bands where the shades of blue do not seem well differentiated. 86.162.196.31 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

honestly you can change it if you want. Download inkscape if you want to fix it all the data's there. I can't right now I'm at school.

JohnP (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

My Fix to New Map
The data for the US, France, South Africa, and Canada is wrong.

Problem -

US= 79% France = 14% South Africa = 42.8% Canada = 20-80%

I fixed South Africa and Canada and tried to fix the US and South Africa. However, could not fix them due to the current coloring scheme. There is no color for 70-79% and 40-49%.

Please get these fixed, as of now the US and South Africa are presented wrong.

Also, please keep the key. It makes it much easier to edit the map.

JohnP (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Where are the sources for Slovenia being majority circumcised? I can find no mention of it yet someone felt the need to color it in such a way RESULTS: Overall, 4.5% (95% CI 3.2 to 6.5) of Slovenian male citizens reported being circumcised. Major variations in the prevalence of circumcision were observed across religious groups, with 92.4% (95% CI 59.8 to 99.0) of Muslims being circumcised, 1.7% (95% CI 0.9 to 3.1) of Roman Catholics, 0% of other religious affiliations (Evangelic, Serbian Orthodox, other), and 7.1% (95% CI 4.4 to 11.2) of those with no religious affiliation (p<0.001). The prevalence of circumcision did not vary across age groups. There were no significant differences in the proportion of circumcised and uncircumcised Slovenian men reporting ever being diagnosed with bacterial STI or viral STI.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17881413

I can tell you the information is false since I am Slovenia and circumcision is not common place here. Please rectify this misleading information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.166.206 (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Change to lead
The introduction has been changed to state that the global prevalence according to one source is one-third. I feel it was better before, showing the range of prevalence statistics from one-third to one-sixth. It is important to show this range as it is true that a number of different sources quote different percentages, and not give readers the misleading impression that the prevalence is one-third and that's that. --TBM10 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent material
Recent edits have tried to add material regarding the history, legality, ethics or past medical guidelines in Australia; material such as when the first circumcision was performed in Australia is not relevant to this page, which is about the prevalence of circumcision. Some material is not directly supported by the cited sources (such as the citation to the homepage of the Australian Paedatric Society), and needs to be better supported. Yobol (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The material is indeed relevant to the prevalence of circumcision in Australia, which is continually declining as the older circumcised generation dies off and is replaced younger, foreskinned males.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Australia has a unique history regarding the prevalence of circumcision that cannot be explained in a few words. The Australia nation went from being a nation where about 90 percent of newborn boys were circumcised to a nation where about 10 percent of newborn boys were circumcised in about 25 years. There is a huge diversity between young and old. The prevalence of circumcision declines constantly as old circumcised males die off and are replaced in the population by younger foreskinned males.

This needs to be told.
 * Material needs to be directly supported by the cited source, and the material needs to be appropriately sourced as well. Trying to "tell a story" through cobbling together random primary sources of questionable relevance is not appropriate (see WP:SYNTH). Yobol (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Prevalence of 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.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Canada
The only citation for Canada being between 20-80% circumcised is a WHO report from 1980, very inaccurate and needs to be updated.

In 2005 it was 9.2% according to Statistics Canada and it's almost definitely even lower now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.169.111 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Former Yuguslavia
Except in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia wehre there's a significant muslim minourity, I do not see why the circumlocution rates in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia would be any higher than other European states. Or is it ?! 2A02:120B:2C31:3C50:CFF:86BC:67DB:3256 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

WHO map
This reliably sourced map should stay in the article. Just because it's dated 2007 is not a reason to remove or replace it. After all, how many countries in the space of just ten years will have seen a shift in prevalence from one banding to the next? I bet none. --TBM10 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore if the caption states that the data is from 2007 then why remove it? --TBM10 (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

US Map
The original data is only on a region by region basis. Showing state lines is misleading and implies that there is state level data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tchen510 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Where did all these "new" results come from?
As far as I know after doing research on various cultures, the rates for some countries seem totally false. It seems the sources are from interviews from a small portion of patients. Circumcision is almost completely unknown in mexico and mexican porn almost always has uncircumcised actors, so I highly doubt the rate is "15%" as one source says. The stats for Colombia, UK and China also seem a bit high. The sources seem very biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.193.128.162 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong
His article contradicts the "28%" stats on this site. How would such a small portion be nearly 30% in just six years? Seems a bit quick to jump that high considering at this time only around 11% of adults had the surgery performed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23223650/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.193.128.162 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC) Apparently this is the source of the "28%", it's regarding men who have sex with prostitutes, not the whole population. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22080385/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B038:97D1:AC07:C5EF:3D5:F85B (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Rate? Not rate?
The image caption says "prevalence (not rate)". What does that mean? How is a prevalence not a rate?--2.247.246.196 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is. The attempted distinction is between population prevalence and annual rate. But, you're right, both are rates—descriptor removed. — Guarapiranga (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sudan
Can somebody post an explanation for what's going on with Sudan (it's a Muslim country after all)? I've searched high and low for an explanation but I haven't found anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.37.89 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Up to Date?
The map currently at the top of the article is based on a study from fifteen years ago. Do we have any more recent data? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do. — Guarapiranga ☎ 02:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Bolnick, Koyle & Yosha (2012)—not Assaf!—an RS for future projections?
Or is it more of a how-to manual, and the quote used in that section more wishful and speculative, given the use of the highlighted words below:I don't doubt the authors' conclusion, but solely bc of increased rates in Africa, as a consequence of the WHO's push to circumcise adult men for HIV prevention; the authors' own data suggests circumcision rates are waning in English-speaking countries, which are the only ones in the developed world that adopted circumcision to any significant degree.— Guarapiranga ☎ 06:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The author is referring to worldwide circumcision rates. I don't think anyone is disputing that rates are locally rising and lowering in various societies. What the English-speaking world adopts is almost inconsequential to global circumcision incidence: due to population stagnation/decline in (less circumcising) Asia and growth in (more circumcising) Africa.


 * Even if every English-speaking country instantly had circumcision rates that were 0% — including the United States, which is far greater in population than the rest of the Anglosphere — combined population growth from Africa and the Islamic world will ensure that it's a substantive minority (if not majority of men/AMAB) by 2100. The authors simply give those disclaimers because (like every projection) they're ultimately guessing: but that's the nature of all projections. KlayCax (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. As I said,.
 * Not only. This is precisely what seems speculative and unsupported by their own data: — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Data classification of the map
Currently the colors of the map are divided strangely unevenly: 20% - 60% - 20%. Since the data reflects prevalence as a percentage, should it be divided into equal sized proportions? Now it classifies 25% prevalence to the same category as 75% prevalence. 91.159.226.79 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Highly misleading
Overall and neonatal prevalence rates are very different things. Only the neonatal rate is relevant to the longer term. The figures ('estimates') cited for Oceania - Australia and New Zealand particularly - are absurd. Neonatal rates plummeted in the 1980s when the practice was generally recognised as objectively lacking any medical indication, or purpose, is arguably barbaric and mutilating, and is inarguably contrary to the rights of the child. Medical negligence insurers also dissuaded practitioners by way of their hip-pockets. Federal governments withdrew state funding. The practice has become increasingly rare since the 1980s, and is all but non-existent in present-day Australia and New Zealand. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This article is about the prevalence of circumcision. A large percentage of the men before 1980s are still alive. KlayCax (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Say No To Edit Warring!
I've full protected the page for two days. Discuss, don't revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Other STD's + World Health Organization
The World Health Organization bases its circumcision recommendations on other STD's as well.


 * . KlayCax (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Here as well, . . It's not exclusively limited to HIV/AIDS prevention. Although, of course, that's the biggest reason that they promote it in sub-Saharan Africa. KlayCax (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That recommendation is for adult voluntary medical male circumcision, not for the young. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * - Acceptability of Infant Male Circumcision as Part of HIV Prevention and Male Reproductive Health Efforts in Gaborone, Botswana, and Surrounding Areas (2009); published in AIDS and Behavior. KlayCax (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A majority of the primary sources/URL's related to the WHO's guidelines on circumcision have suffered link rot and are presently (nearly or entirely) unrecoverable - as the organization transferred to a new domain in 2020 and the previous URL's don't redirect to a new resource. (Secondary sources don't violate WP:MEDRS) We could leave it as "contradicted in reliable sources" for the time being - as one source did dispute that the WHO recommended it *internationally* (outside of high HIV incidence areas) in 2012. KlayCax (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * your statement that The World Health Organization bases its circumcision recommendations on other STD's as well. applies only to "some STIs", and refers only to VMMC, not RIC. The claims that and  are contested and, as these are not a WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, they should not be relied upon. The latter claim makes no reference to a universal recommendation.  The statement that  is not cited and should be removed if a source from the WHO itself cannot be found.  should be removed entirely on account of WP:SYNTHESIS. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Section on Belgium needs edited as it is not factual and is misleading
Circumcision of infants and adult men is also super rare and basically not done in Belgium. The section on Belgium mentions a phone or internet survey where less than 2,000 European men replied but who knows if they were really cut? Most Belgian adult men and infant boys who are Belgian and not Muslim are not cut. Most Jews in various regions of Europe do not get cut, unless they are super religious. The majority of adult Belgian men are not getting cut, Belgian teen boys are not getting cut, and Belgian infant boys do not get cut.100.34.234.175 (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Bullshit, see https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5/tables/1 Torbeshi (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Advert for male genital mutilation
If cutting off your toes prevented athlete's foot, would it be a good idea? 86.133.227.234 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)