Talk:Circumcision controversies

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"Pro-circumcision movement"?

There is a large and comprehensive section on the "anti-circumcision" movement which includes a statement that seems to be written from one the point of view of the organisation linked to.

I would be interested to know if there are any organisations currently advocating circumcision on medical grounds as opposed to purely religious ones. Given that in the US and Africa, which do not have universal health services, circumcision has historically been promoted for its claimed health benefits.

If any organisations advancing the above position (from a non religious perspective) do exist, they should be added to the article. 86.185.84.71 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@86.185.84.71 I guess you have a point. There is a "Circumcision Academy of Australia" which is exactly what you describe. UNAIDS makes extensive efforts to circumcise men in Africa to combat HIV/AIDS. Other than that, I'm not sure of a large enough movement that deserves a mention, save for UNAIDS Man-Man122 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FALSEBALANCE. We wouldn't add organisations advancing female circumcision for the same reason. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal with "Views on Circumcision"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge; difference in scope between the two articles; some WP:OWNership claims. Klbrain (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging circumcision controversies into views on circumcision per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The first is essentially a subset topic of the second.

Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. KlayCax (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history of the merge attempt and though you claimed you were merging, you merely deleted the article outright. None of the material was transferred to views on circumcision article by you. This is the wrong way to approach merging requests. Plus this article was here since 2004 and the views on circumcision was barely created by you last year. You cannot call this a redundant article since this one was an original article here. If anything the article you made last year article is the one that is actually redundant.

I think that this article has a different scope than the views on circumcision article. In fact this article focuses controversies and pro and anti movements. The historical/regional stuff can included in the "views on circumcision" but the controversial stuff retained in this article.47.179.9.162 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur with IP. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Historians of the project might be interested in comparing this discussion with that at Talk:Circumcision and law#Article should be merged per WP: REDUNDANTFORK. Klbrain (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edits

I attempted to add context to the section discussing the controversy surrounding the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 policy statement by stating that the AAP had allowed its policy to automatically expire. I cited the policy page hosted by the AAP, which explicitly states that the policy "automatically expired" and further explains at the end of the document that all AAP policies automatically expire after five years if not revised or reaffirmed.

After my first edit was reverted, with the explanation that my edit violated Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, I attempted to correct my original edit to state only what was explicitly written by the AAP, itself. However, a second user reverted that edit with no further explanation.

If someone could explain how I can include the fact that the 2012 policy statement expired (again, something the AAP itself has explicitly stated on its own policy page and is not a disputed fact) without having my edit reverted, it would be most appreciated. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need a decent WP:SECONDARY source offering some knowledge on this topic. Including the factoid (especially in the spun way you did) is apt to create more questions than it answers. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In what way was my second edit "spun?" My second edit only stated the AAP had allowed the policy to expire, something it explicitly states on its own website. Also, referring to my edit as a "factoid" implies that it is either a trivial piece of information (it is actually relevant to the discussion) or that it is an invented or assumed statement (it is neither). However, if a secondary source will satisfy you, Cedars-Sinai states in a February 2023 blog post on their official website that the AAP policy expired in 2017. I will repost my last edit with both the primary and secondary source cited. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A decent secondary source, not a WP:BLOGPOST. If this is truly significant it'd have been picked up; otherwise it seems meaningless (so yes, a factoid). Maybe the science is now so settled AAP don't bother with policies on this topic? Who knows? Presenting is as meaning the policy was purely and simply neither reaffirmed nor revised is a POV upon POV interpretation. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the science is now so settled AAP don't bother with policies on this topic? This wouldn't make sense for any other medical intervention unless the science was settled against it, so I presume that's what you mean here? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; most health orgs have aligned on a similar view in line with the scientific and ethical consensus: it's not necessary, does have minor health benefits, should be elective, has a population-wide rationale in HIV-dense populations, if it happens is NBD. Bon courage (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"has a population-wide rationale in HIV-dense populations" - Per the New York Times, it seems to quite a bit more complicated then that.
"Circumcision has been shown reduce the risk of some sexually transmitted infections, including herpes, syphilis and H.I.V. However, the H.I.V. studies were done in Africa, where overall H.I.V. rates are much higher, and where, unlike in the United States, heterosexual sex is the main mode of transmission. (Studies investigating whether circumcision helps protect against H.I.V. in men who have sex with men have been inconclusive.) Researchers don’t yet fully understand the mechanism by which circumcision reduces H.I.V. transmission; [...]
Circumcising to prevent H.I.V. in the United States doesn’t make sense from a cost and risk standpoint, said Dr. Timothy Johnson, M.D., a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital. Dr. Laurie Schulwolf, M.D., a pediatrician at Tribeca Pediatrics in New York City, put it even more bluntly. 'For H.I.V. and S.T.D.s,' Dr. Schulwolf said, 'a condom goes so much further than a circumcision.'" (Note: Added a line break at the removed speculation.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AAP is still unusual in its belief that RIC should be a parental choice. Most orgs still believe it shouldn't be. Gastropod Gaming (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intactivist websites like to make hay out of this and mislead based on this 'automatic expiry', but scholarly sources (for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8654051/) continue to treat it as a current policy. It is misleading (and very much WP:OR) to act as though the AAP hasn't offered guidance on this. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing misleading about stating the fact that it's expired policy. The AAP do not treat it as a current policy nor has it offered new guidance since. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DOI:10.1542/9781610023733-27 looks like it has some commentary on the AAP position, but I don't have access. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no idea what the circumcision chapter of that textbook contains beyond the first few preview sentences (the last of which cuts off mid-sentence). Since you've been dismissive of my sourcing, I see no reason to accept a chapter you admit you've never read and that I can't access without paying over $100 as supportive of your claim. If you'd like to buy the textbook or see if your local library keeps a copy and incorporate relevant quotations into the article, no one's stopping you. That might actually help readers of the article parse what the AAP's current positions might be (if the chapter offers any such insight).
    Further, you appear to be fixating on the wording of my first attempted edit (which wasn't even the one you reverted). My second edit merely stated an easily verifiable fact - the AAP allowed its official policy on non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision to expire. To claim that citing that fact with no commentary, opinion or conjecture is somehow injecting bias into the article and that it's too trivial to even mention is more than a stretch.
    By the way, here's an AAP URL (that isn't paywalled) that gives a detailed description of how the AAP formulates, approves and releases official policy statements, if you'd like to learn more, although it doesn't say anything about allowing a policy to expire without updating or reaffirming it being a tacit acknowledgment that the "science has been settled."
    https://www.aap.org/en/policy/policy-statement-development-process/
    As another user pointed out, medical science is not a static base of knowledge. Doctors' and researchers' understanding of even thoroughly and exhaustively studied parts of the human anatomy is always improving and changing. That's the entire point behind the automatic five-year expiration. It encourages the AAP to continually reevaluate its positions and ensures that, for a policy to remain in place, it must be reviewed at least once every five years. These are time-limited documents that expire if the AAP, for whatever reason, takes no action. They are not union contracts that remain in force indefinitely if a new one isn't agreed to. It is not misleading to point this out, but it is misleading to represent an expired AAP policy statement as representative of the organization's official contemporary positions. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no idea what the circumcision chapter of that textbook contains ← Well, I have some idea because the extract tantalisingly says "In the past 20 years, even the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has changed its official position on the medical...". A reputably-published academic textbook is a quality source, and suitable for use on Wikipedia. Maybe a trip to the library is in order!? Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision_controversies"