Open main menu
Circumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Page name

Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male genital mutilation or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same.


Contents

Risk - boy dies following circumcisionEdit

Not that uncommon - shouldn't it be mentioned?...

The article currently states: "Severe to catastrophic complications, including death, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports."

However, in the following news article significantly different information is cited from "so rare". "A two-year-old boy has died from blood loss following a failed circumcision at a migrant centre in Italy." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46671457

"The main risks of the surgery are bleeding and infection.

In the UK, the chance of these occurring is between one in 10 and one in 50, according to the NHS website, although that is a figure for older boys and men, not newborns."

CDC [1]: "Severe complications are rare in all age groups and occur in 0.23% of all circumcised males overall." That's significantly less than 1 in 50. In fact, it's closer to 1 in 500. In fact, for infants, it is 1 in 500. Perhaps that isn't a great statistic, but that does mean it occurs far less than sexual assault. I would also like to point out that a "migrant center" could/does have a lower standard of care than a traditional hospital does. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Death from circumcision is very, very, very rare. When it is performed in a medical setting. You are confusing two things: Bleeding is not uncommon after a circumcision, but is almost always a minor problem. It is easily treated. It seems you are concluding that because bleeding sometimes occurs after circumcumcision, that the death rate must be higher, too. Well, that is not the case because generally the bleeding is easily controlled. Does this mean things never can go wrong? No, of course not, things can go wrong, but driving a car, a bike - these things are MUCH more dangerous than getting circumcised by doctors. The tragic deaths you are talking about took place during a home circumcision in suspicous circumstances. Yuri7474 (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I submit for your consideration the following publication:
Earp, Brian; Allareddy, Veerajalandhar; Allareddy, Veerasathpurush; Rotta, Alexandre (October 2018). "Factors associated with early deaths following neonatal male circumcision in the United States, 2001-2010". Clinical Pediatrics. 57 (13): 1532–1540. doi:10.1177/0009922818790060. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The publication of this journal renders the article as written, ie/ "they are reported only as individual case reports", explicitly false - a correction is necessary.
This is also not the only research that has investigated a connection between circumcision and death. The following publication has shown evidence of a connection between circumcision and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome:
Elhaik, Eran (2019). "Neonatal circumcision and prematurity are associated with sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)". Journal of clinical and translational research. 4 (2): 136–151. doi:10.18053/jctres.04.201802.005. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Please work with us to update the language on this page regarding deaths as relevant new developments have occurred since this wording was originally written in 2012.KhazWolf (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDASSESS, are either of those papers a systematic review or meta-analysis? Jayjg (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDASSESS, is Complications of Circumcision, one of the existing citations on that line, a systematic review or meta-analysis?
Regardless of whether the citations I have posted are appropriate for direct citation on wikipedia the fact remains that they have been published, and therefore the statement "Severe to catastrophic complications, including death, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports" is now explicitly false. While this statement may have been true at the time the AAP's 2012 Technical Report (from which it was paraphrased) was published, it clearly is no longer. The Technical Report itself gleefully admits that it has now "expired", per the footnotes I quote:
"The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. [...] All technical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time."
Unless you have a source explicitly stating that the AAP has "reaffirmed or revised" this technical report during or before 2017, I Modestly Propose that it be struck from this article entirely.
Or we could compromise and just not quote it on obviously obsolete information.KhazWolf (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
If a poor-quality source makes a claim that contradicts what a high-quality source says, then we only care what the high-quality source says. The key is in using the highest quality sources available, which are typically recent systemic reviews or meta-analyses. If you think the quality of the citations you have brought exceed the ones currently used in the article (per WP:MEDASSESS) then you should make that case to the editors of this article, explaining what text you want to change, what you want to change it to, based on which sources. Jayjg (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?Edit

"Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants.[1][17]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: That's why the first paragraph states: The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on babies and children, for religious or cultural reasons. The article already states that it's elective, which is a position that is supported by the CDC AUA and AAFP. Inclusion of this second sentence is redundant, and worse, this sentence passes a moral judgement on "routine circumcision". If you changed it to something like "John smith does not consider this to be justification for x", then it would at least abide by WP:NPOV. However, its placement would still violate WP:DUEWEIGHT and the rules of English grammar/style. While it's true that my sources don't state that "it should be a routine neonatal procedure" they also list major advantages to the procedure, and don't state that "it shouldn't be a routine procedure". 3 > 1. In fact, 5 > 1; there are 5 sources that favor infant circumcision (with or without calling for it to be routine), you include WHO and UNAIDS recommendations, which are listed in this very article: Circumcision. To this end, I have an idea of moving it conceptually to the preceding paragraph on ethical concerns. Something along the lines of "some/x believe that the benefits of the procedure do not justify it being routine"? Perhaps? Thoughts? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: WP:SYNTH. Source 17 [2] neither supports nor states that it is "not a justification for routine circumcision". In fact, source 17 mildly supports the claim that there is evidence of circumcision preventing cancer (the sentence prior to this). Source 11 does not appear to support the claim that there is a "lack of justification" either. Furthermore, the sentence is out of place with with respect to the sentences surrounding it. In that sentence the tone of the entire article is flipped (from neutrality to condemnation) but then the tone reverts following the sentence. When doing a read through of the article (top to bottom) this particular sentence stands out as being jarringly out of place. Perhaps if the statement were properly quoted and attributed to an individual, and the article stated something to the effect of some people such as Jax Doe believe that "this does not provide a justification for routine circumcision", then it might be acceptable where it is (as it no longer breaks WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SYNTH), but even then it would still be better suited for the ethics sections. Moreover, the statement that the "prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants" is directly contradicted by the WHO and UNAIDS reports and recommendations, given they recommend it be routine (in areas with a high prevalence of HIV) due to those very reasons. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The other source says "Although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision."
Trimmed the cancer.org source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Ok, but if that's the only source for that sentence then it is redundant to the better sourced paragraph on ethical concerns that precedes it. In fact, it should be moved entirely to the ethical concerns section, else we risk creating redundancies within the article (stating it the same in both the leading section and the ethical concerns section). On a more fundamental level, there is also the matter of maintaining a Neutral Point of View.
Per WP:NPOV we are to:
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
In this case the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, make assertions that conflict with it. Given that the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, are generally considered to be reliable sources, that would mean that claiming that the listed medical benefits to circumcision are not justification for it being routine, is, in fact, an opinion.
  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Stating that "these medical reasons are not justification for ..." is does exactly the same thing as stating that "genocide is an evil action". Even if most people believed that routine male circumcision was a moral wrong, or unjustified, we still could not claim that "those reasons do not justify routine circumcision". At its core, the problem is that, as it stands, the sentence is still presenting as fact that which is actually an opinion. One that the CDC (one of, if not the, largest national health organization in the Western World) disagrees with (per [3]).
Are there ethical concerns about routine male circumcision? Yes. Is the second paragraph, and an entire subsection of the article, dedicated to those very concerns? Also yes. Since we already dedicated a paragraph to ethical concerns, before the paragraph on health benefits, and we have an entire section dedicated to them elsewhere in the article, there is no neutral reason to include this "counter claim" as fact. Furthermore, seeing as it (the sentence) uses the voice of Wikipedia to pass a moral judgement, it violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, the official policy guideline for WP:5P2 states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Even if I wanted to, whether I like it or not, I'm not allowed to violate this guideline. Furthermore, WP:IAR does not apply to this policy because it's "non-negotiable". It's what Wikipedia is, and we all have a duty to uphold it. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide the ref that supports this "In this case the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, make assertions that conflict with it."? Ie can you provide a ref that says routine male circumcision is supported for medical reasons in the Western world?
Scientific American quoting Reuters quoting supposedly a US Federal Draft guideline is NOT the CDC. We do not base Wikipedia on drafts. When the final document comes out we can definitely consider it. I agree the CDC is an excellent source but we would use them directly.
@Doc James: Reuters is considered a reliable source via WP:RSP, that is why I stopped when I got to the Scientific American article.
You have not provided any evidence that this breaches NPOV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I did, but you deleted it in this revision and I don't know why. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn and Doc James: In any case, here are a few more as well: The American Academy of Family Physicians [4], the actual CDC [5] (77% reduction in penile cancer rates), and even the American Urological Association [6] (re-affirmed in 2018, I'd say that's recent). ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The first ref by AAFP says "The decision whether to circumcise a newborn male is affected by parents’ values and beliefs and should be made by parents after a discussion of the benefits and harms." It does not say that we should be recommending routine circumcision based on potential health benefits.
The AUA also does not recommend routine circumcision. "When circumcision is being discussed with parents and informed consent obtained, medical benefits and risks, and ethnic, cultural, religious and individual preferences should be considered." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: that's a far cry from "prevention of these... is not a justification". This isn't a mathematical proof, one cannot just claim that "x isn't justified" here. Furthermore, at least one of my sources stated that it should be covered by insruance
A recommendation that something be covered by insurance does not mean that it is recommended for potential health benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn and Doc James: First off, Doc James inexplicably removed the link I had provided to a source that refutes the disputed sentence in this revision to the talk page. Perhaps he could explain how this action was justified, and not an attempt to remove content that contradicts his source? Secondly, to me, the fact that the contested sentence uses Wikipedia's voice (rather than the author's voice) to assert a moral stance, it clearly violates the NPOV guidelines. For this reason, I ask if either of you prove that the contested sentence doesn't violate WP:NPOV? ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Link to scientific america was removed in error. You still have not provided any source that says routine neonatal circumcision is recommended in the Western world for medical reasons.
@Doc James: Hence why I put (mistake?) in my responsorial edit summary. Secondly, did you read the CDC source? It makes it quite clear that it is a recommended/beneficial practice, and that it is best done on neonates rather than later on in life. What part of "The potential health benefits from circumcision justify it being a covered medical service by third-party payers" doesn't conflict with stating "the reasons don't justify it"? With all due respect, we are giving undue weight to the notion that it isn't beneficial, given that there are dozens of listed benefits, and its only drawback is a small risk of a surgical complication. To boldly make the claim, in Wikipedia's Voice no less, that "it's not justified in the Western World", is as misleading as it is factually incorrect. The cancer data includes stuff from the United States, and a 77% drop in cancer risk is, well, extremely statistically significant, given the massive sample size. If that book you cited had claimed that "cleft pallet correction surgery is not justified in the western world" (it has a similar ratio of benefits to drawbacks) I think we would all agree that it isn't a reliable source, and should not be included at all, let alone keeping a psuedo-quote of it passing judgment on the procedure. Frankly, the sentence reads as an attempt to pacify "Intactivists" that visit this article. In fact, they probably point to that sentence and say "see, it's right here on Wikipedia, even they have passed judgement on your mistaken judgement to have your child circumcised". The key problem being: judgment. We. Aren't. Allowed. To. Judge. If we can't even judge genocide how on God's green Earth are we supposed to judge circumcision. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
You could try a RfC if you like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What we have seems in line with the source quoted ("Although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision"). I see no problem WP:ASSERTing this. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: "the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited" is patently false. At least, per the American Academy of Family Physicians [7], the CDC [8] (77% reduction in penile cancer rates, in America), and the American Urological Association [9]. While it is true to assert that "no national or international medical association currently advocates mandatory neonatal circumcision" (emphasis mine), it is not true that they assert that "routine circumcision isn't justified" or to assert "the arguments... have been discredited". All of the American sources indicate that circumcision is to be viewed as elective and routine. Routine, because they are a standard/common medical practice with low risks, elective, because the pros and cons should be evaluated before making the decision. Moreover, it makes more sense to move the sentence in conflict to the "Ethical concerns" paragraph that precedes it, rather than leave it in the middle of the "medical benefits" paragraph. It doesn't fit the paragraph that it is in, but it would complement the ethical concerns section and summary paragraph. The way it's laid out currently, it synthesizes the analysis of the CDC, WHO, and others, and draws a conclusion as to whether it is justified as being a routine procedure. It's also hard to say that it's not a "routine procedure", given that colonoscopies and wart removal are both "routine procedures". The data I have linked to does, in fact, establish that it is best to get circumcision done within the first 9 months after birth (lowest risk of complication, greatest amount of benefit). If it's not a "routine medical procedure", then what exactly is it? An invasive medical procedure? An emergency medical procedure? An intensive medical procedure? It's categorically routine, especially in the Western Hemisphere. In closing, I have changed my mind on completely deleting the sentenced, but I think it should be moved to the "ethical concerns" paragraph (of the lead), rather than remain in the "benefits/drawbacks" paragraph (of the lead). I also disagree with reclassifying it as something other than routine. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, we go by what reliable sources say, not by what some random editor (i.e. you) asserts is "patently" so. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: So, the CDC, AUA, and AAFP aren't reliable? [10] [11] [12]. To quote Flonase, "and three is greater than one". ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
BOLD
After discovering that we have an entire article dedicated to "circumcision controversies", and one dedicated to "circumcision ethics" the original wording became extremely redundant. I added more sources and re-wrote the affected section to reflect the information we have. ElectroChip123 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A New Way ForwardEdit

To whom it may concern, particularly @Doc James, Flyer22 Reborn, and Alexbrn: I have a new idea! ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal

  • Move "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[1]" to the preceding paragraph about ethical concerns.
  • And rewrite it as: "Some believe that the modest benefits are not justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[1]". "Some" could be swapped for "Others", and I am open to other suggestions.

Reasoning

  • The first paragraph states: "The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on babies and children, for religious or cultural reasons." That is to say, the article already notes that it is elective, and not mandatory, particularly in the Western World.
  • Multiple RSs ([13] [14] [15]) support it being an elective, and benign, procedure.
  • It's more of an ethical concern, than a true assertion, given that any net benefit would technically be sufficient justification for doing something.
  • Moving it, and rewriting it so that it's not stated as "the dominant medical view" eliminates the WP:NPOV concerns (which led me to this article in the first place).
  • Rewriting as such would clear up the WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns.
  • Moving it would correct the interruption of flow in the third paragraph. As it sits now, I could easily see an uninvolved editor boldly doing this as an attempt to improve the readability of the article.
  • This proposal wouldn't eliminate a source, and it wouldn't remove a dissenting opinion.
  • This proposal prevents the deletion of an ethical view from the lead.

Thoughts?

  • Not an improvement, and deviates from the source with editorial weasel-wording ("some believe"). I'm not seeing anyone agree there's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: I came here from WikiProject Neutrality, so yes, there are at least some people who do agree that it's a problem (and yes, I know it's considered "defunct", but I wanted to see what the result was). Furthermore, the (single) "source" deviates from established fact because there is at least one international organization that calls for it to be routine. Stating "prevention of these things [(HIV)] is not justification for routine circumcision" goes against every source that says it should be elective (which it is, in all Western countries, thus making the "not routine" part a moot point). You also seem to be missing the point that we don't have to quote that source. Just because we did, and I made a change that annoyed (offended?) someone, doesn't mean that a sentence (which should have been in quotes, if included at all) has to remain in an article unchanged. All three of y'all have failed, for over a week, to support your assertion that the original sentence didn't violate WP:NPOV, and that asserting it as being "unjustified genital mutilation" was totally in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SummaryEdit

User:ElectroChip123 you do not have consensus to remove "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world." In fact three of us have opposed you removing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Based on the diffs and revision history, the three of you are also the ones who most closely watch and frequently edit this page. You may be right about a consensus, but for that I would like to see an RfC involving editors other than those who frequently edit this page. It's great that there are people looking out for this page, but that can lead to the "everything is fine the way it is; no touching" philosophy displayed. Over time, I gradually compromised on a course of action, rather than removing the sentence, I can move it to a better paragraph, and with more sources, I can frame it in the context of the debate over circumcision in the West, thereby giving the sentence more relevance. Meanwhile, the three of you haven't even agreed that "maybe it could be phrased better", and you haven't even conceded that it's actually a direct quote, rather than an assertion, and you haven't even considered how the sentence is redundant in the context of the other paragraphs and sentences, especially The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks, to its having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks.[7] No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure.[7] Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for justification as to keeping it unchanged and where it is. Why is a position in the section that is clearly labeled as "benefits and side effects"? Can any of you give me even 1 reason? or is it just "we think it should be, and we are the Supreme Cabal of Wikipedia"?.
This is a WP:GA and your proposed changes would worsen it by taking us away from decent sourcing. With your cabal references you have gone over the line into stupidity. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
This whole debacle crossed that line a while ago, when none of you could justify the inclusion of that sentence with anything other than "my 1 RS said so" (I have three+ for my edits) and "the others are ok with it, why aren't you" (that's not how it works here). Furthermore, how does "Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure.[5][10][11]", which has WP:THREE sources, not improve the article? How do the changes make it less readable? How do they make it any less of a Good Article? Moreover, I didn't even remove your source, I merely put it into its proper context. It relates to the positions of national and international organizations, so I moved it to the paragraph on the positions of national and international organizations. Since the CDC clearly promotes it as a beneficial, but elective, procedure, stating/WP:Asserting that "it isn't justified as a routine procedure" is actually very contestable. I would like to see more sources before we go about asserting "not justification" in the "Evidence and Side Effects" paragraph. If we fix stuff like this, we could probably bring this article up to "featured" status. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You want to replace:

"Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world."

With:

"Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure."

You have not developed consensus to do so. Those two sentences do not mean the same thing.

Do you have a source that recommends it as a "routine procedure" in the Western world? None of the 3 sources you mention do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Routine just means "commonplace" (at least that is how I learned its definition). To that end, the sources I provided do establish it as "routine" rather than "invasive, extraordinarily, intensive" or any other classification. The way it's phased is ok, if routine is taken to mean "mandatory", however I don't believe that routine means "mandatory", and I don't think that most people do either. You can opt out of "routine cancer care" because it's not mandatory. That said, it is still called "routine" because it is commonplace, well-established, and standardized. Regardless, do you agree that this sentence is referencing a position on circumcision? ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I want to replace

Circumcision is also associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[15][16] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[3] Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[5]

With:

Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure.[5][10][11]

...Circumcision is also associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[17][18] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[3]

@Doc James: I no longer desire to "remove" the sentence in its entirety. Through these discussions I have come to agree with the initial reversions you did (when I completely deleted the sentence). That said, I strongly believe that it works better in the paragraph on positions (which currently does not highlight the increased debate in the West), than in the paragraph on evidence and side effects. Currently, my problem is that it is in the wrong place, not that it exists. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes so you want to remove "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world." and add "Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure."
And a bunch of use have opposed that.
Do you have any source that says it is an essential procedure anywhere? Your new text appears to be trying to imply that. It is a recommended procedure but not an essential one is subSaharan Africa. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I wasn't sure if the opposition was to any change or to deletion. For the most part, it seemed that the three of you were still trying to convince me to not delete the sentence, however I had already moved on from that idea (I do see that it, or something like it, should be in the article/lead somewhere). Scrolling through the archives, it would seem that I'm not the only editor who had a problem with this sentence. Although, it would appear that I am the only editor that actually to the time to look into it and come up with something other than "delete it and its source". I would also like to note that I re-arranged some of the sentences on HIV, that is why I included more of the paragraphs in my comment. That said, they may have been a bit large for a single comment. I was trying to give a direct view of my idea, because it would seems that I kind of suck at describing things. I also don't know what you mean by "essential". The CDC doesn't class it as "essential" but the AUA or AAFP did imply it was "routine". Yes, the WHO recommends VMMC (voluntary medical male circumcision) in sub-Saharan Africa, but that I don't think that implies it is an "essential" procedure. Does routine = essential? I didn't think so, and I don't think that's the norm in the United States, but I could be mistaken as far as international perspectives go. Since the re-wording seems to be an/the issue, would it be ok to move the sentence, as is, to the paragraph on positions? I mean, it's certainly a position, and it would merit inclusion in that paragraph. Thoughts? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No I do not support moving it. We list a number of things that circumcision reduces slightly like cancer of the penis and UTIs. Than we say that prevention of these is not a reason for routine or population wise circumcision. As the sentence in question is in reference to the sentences immediately proceeding it moving it would not be an improvement.
The AUA or AAFP and do not recommend it as a routine or universal surgery. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, may I chime in? We now have this sentence: "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world." I think that is rather strongly worded because who decides what is "just"? If the benefits outweigh the risks, some people might see enough justification. Therefore I think the following wording, closer to the AAP statement would be preferable: "These benefits of circumcision are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns but are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for those choosing it." I purposely use "those" and not "families" as mentioned in the AAP statement to prevent the minors/adults discussion. By doing so, the stances of all Western medical bodies are covered: those who think "non-medical" circumcisions should not be performed on minors and those who think, like the AAP that it is justified if the parents choose so. What do you think? Yuri7474 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

IMO what we have is more to the point "Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world."
We need to reflect the sum of the literature not just one position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: I agree that "We need to reflect the sum of the literature not just one position". However, that means we need to re-write that sentence, because it is a direct quote from a single individual's paper on the subject. A highly knowledgeable individual, yes, but nonetheless, it's still only one position and not a summary of all positions in and of itself. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Text in questionEdit

Not sure why

" However, a 2014 literature review found that there are significant gaps in the current literature on male and female sexual health that need to be addressed for the literature to be applicable to North American populations.[1]"

Was replaced by

"Also in 2014, health economists and other experts from Johns Hopkins warned that a decline in neonate circumcision would lead to more disease and could lead to billions of extra health care costs.[2]"

Discussion now needed.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference bossio_2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Declining Rates of U.S. Infant Male Circumcision Could Add Billions to Health Care Costs, Experts Warn - 08/20/2012". www.hopkinsmedicine.org. Retrieved 2019-06-19.

Err...I explained this in my revert. You should be able to read the reasons in edit history, but again, the reasons are that 1) I gave a source that is valid for Northern America/US (--->The Johns Hopkins Study). And more important: The removed/replaced source talks about sexuality and not about (health) economics. I really cannot see what is unclear about this and why you and Alex are frustrating my change without giving a valid reason. Talking about edit wars... Yuri7474 (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The source in question[16] refers to policy makers. Economic effects depend on benefits and risks. And the ref says "At present, however, the majority of the literature on circumcision is based on research that is not necessarily applicable to North American populations," Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Reading both options the status quo appears more balanced. The text above this sentence makes the economic case for circumcision, and the last statement is one of caution in interpreting the literature. You linked to a press release, not the article, and the literature review in the current text is dated after your Johns Hopkins paper was published. |→ Spaully ~talk~  20:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The last statement is based on a source that does not talk about gaps in the knowledge concerning the economics of circumcision. So it is not relevant in this subsection of the article that speaks about economics.

Doc James, you state: "The source in question[16] refers to policy makers. Economic effects depend on benefits and risks." 1)Because the source refers to policy makers, it doesn't mean the source talks about the economics of circumcision. 2) Your assertion that the economic benefits depend on benefits and risks is your own addition and has nothing to do with the source. The source does NOT talk about economical issues but merely about immaterial issues like sexual functioning, penile sensitivity, the effect of circumcision on men's sexual partners etc.

Yuri7474 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Text in question 2Edit

I changed text in the article as follows:

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that effective pain management should be used.[3] Inadequate pain relief may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns.[33] Newborns experiencing pain during circumcision have different responses to vaccines given afterwards, with higher pain scores observed.[74] For adult men who have been circumcised, there is a risk that the circumcision scar may be tender.

In the older text it was not clear that the cause of heightened pain relief is pain experienced during the procedure. This more precise wording was reverted without reason. I would like to ask @Doc James: and @Alexbrn: to refrain from childish games, read first and then revert someone's edit with a valid reason if you think it is still necessary. Yuri7474 (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

One does not need "The American Academy of Pediatrics states that". Lots of people say this so it can be stated as fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no issue with that change you made, James, but Alex COMPLETELY reverted my edit for no good reason, check for yourself. Can you please put back my change, of course with your edit? So that it reads:

"Effective pain management should be used.Inadequate pain relief may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns.[33] Newborns experiencing pain during circumcision have different responses to vaccines given afterwards, with higher pain scores observed." Yuri7474 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Press releases from Johns Hopkins or pieces in the Huffington Post are unreliable/undue. Any sourcing in the space needs to be of a much higher quality. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Please learn to put your comment under the right header. Here the topic is pain during circumcision and heightened pain response afterwards. I added precision:

"The American Academy of Pediatrics states that effective pain management should be used.[3] Inadequate pain relief may carry the risks of heightened pain response for newborns.[33] Newborns experiencing pain during circumcision have different responses to vaccines given afterwards, with higher pain scores observed.[74] For adult men who have been circumcised, there is a risk that the circumcision scar may be tender."

James just removed the AAP mention (but left the AAP as source) which is ok, but you, like a dictator, reverted my whole edit without any reason. And still you give no reason for reverting my whole edit (about pain and heightened pain response). Yuri7474 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Reverting problematic edits is part of collaborative editing, with WP:ONUS being on the one proposing the change and WP:CONSENSUS usually starting with the status quo (and evolving through these discussions). This is fine, because it is being discussed. Wikipedia has no set publishing deadline, its articles are always work in progress. You're doing the right thing by participating to this discussion, but please avoid deflecting it in relation to specific editors (WP:AGF, WP:FOC). —PaleoNeonate – 13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I would appreciate it, if you Paleo, came with a constructive contribution on the "issue" at hand instead of twisting things.
Reverting a "problematic" edit is not what happened here. What happened here is the reversion, for no valid reason whatsoever, of a more precise wording. There is no ground for assuming circumcision per se leads to a heightened pain response. Rather the problem is circumcision without (adequate) anesthesia. I would like to see that reflected in the article. Yuri7474 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Circumcision" page.