Template:Vital article

	Circumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 3, 2013 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed March 14, 2022 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Men's Issues C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Translation C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance). Body Modification C‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Human rights C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

Archive guide Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

There is nothing that prohibits making an edit that touches multiple sections of the article - the mere fact that an edit was done that way isn't a good reason to revert improvements to the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie You're ignoring the crux of my argument. He was making substantial changes to the article without justifying his change. Also you unreverted a revert, which is edit warring. Please follow bold revert and discuss by discussing reverted edits and not unreverting them.Stix1776 (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need to "justify his change" in advance. WP:BRD is an essay and not a way to lock in your preferred version of the article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want go on record saying that he doesn't need to justify his edits and that WP:BRD doesn't matter, then you're not making a great case for yourself if this ever gets escalated. Stix1776 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly moved by threats of escalation, especially based on misrepresentations of my comments. - MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie is engaging in edit warring by unreverting bold edits. User:KlayCax made massive changes over many sections of the article without a proper explanation, which pretty clearly goes against WP:Reckless. Wikipedia policy expects editors to properly explain their edits in the summary and be cautious about major changes to controversial subjects.

In [1], KlayCax deletes huge chunks of the article over multiple sections and the explanation is "1.) Trimmed reductant/excessive language in the lead. 2.) Minor other changes" (my emphasis). In [2], he reordered an entire section and didn't explain his reasoning. In [3] he KlayCax removed text from the header, saying it was in the body when it wasn't.

I'm the future, we need to explain our edits and justify them with other editors. Doing an edit that isn't explained in the edit summary is borderline disruptive editing. Stix1776 (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not say what you seem to think it says. 'Unreverting' once, is not edit warring. Making well sourced changes, even multiple ones is not reckless. By no stretch of the imagination are KlayCax's edits disruptive, but reverting them for misunderstood procedural reasons very well could be. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Stix1776! I'd be happy to discuss the changes I made with you. What specific part of these edits do you object to? KlayCax (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've posted, articles with "controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions... should be done with extra care". Also "explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it". Lastly were told to "be cautious about making a major change to an article. prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page".

This edit [4] deleted multiple sections and added text that changed the meaning of sentences. Here [5] you again deleted large sections and reordered sections without explanation. Lastly here [6] you removed sourced content, saying it was covered in the body when it wasn't.

Possibly some of these edits would be acceptable if each edit was explained well and each change was a single edit. But please justify them and don't make massive changes. And please make your justifications more meaningful than "minor other changes" or "trimmed unnecessary detail". Like why is it unnecessary? Other editors can't read your mind. And to be honest "other minor change" should never be in an edit summary for a controversial topic.

Do report me if you think I'm in the wrong, but I'm the one here citing wikipolicy and discussing what's in the edits. The onus to defend and explain edits falls on the editor making the changes, not on the reviewing editors.Stix1776 (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted your claim that circumcision is "most common" in the US because it is incorrect; it contradicts the article's sources and what is already stated in the body paragraphs of the article. As seen in the World Health Organization graphic given in the article, there are many countries with a higher rate of incidence/prevalence.

• Voluntarily adult circumcision as a partial prophylaxis against HIV transmission in Sub-Saharan Africa is uncontroversial amongst mainstream sources. They're endorsed by the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and a large variety of other international medical association. The type you're referring to that is controversial is routine circumcision in developed countries, and bioethical, moral, and religious conversations over that are already discussed in extensive detail in the third paragraph of the lead, the "elective" section of the body, and the "culture" parts of the article. This is a general article about circumcision: not an article that specifically focuses on routine circumcision in developed countries.

• It's also problematic to tie the reasons for circumcision to specific areas. Readers could get the wrong impression that only one justification for the practice in a given area — and the fourth paragraph of the lead already explains it much better. It's verbose and reductant to have a semi-repeated, clunky statement of something that already exists in the first couple of paragraphs.

• You're confusing incidence (current rate) with prevalence (total amount in the population that is circumcised). You're right that the incidence of circumcision has fallen dramatically in Australia. But because these policy changes happened relatively recently, the prevalence of the procedure within the population won't "drastically fall" for awhile — a majority of men in Australia are still circumcised. It would be a overly detailed for the lead to go into detail about which way incidence is going in each specific country.

• The quote I specifically deleted was: "no medical organization recommends banning the procedure" because the next part of the sentence already said "there was a consensus across all major medical associations... that it be legal." It's reductant wording. I'd be open to discussing moving "Debates over prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, culture, consent, group rights, and religious freedom have been discussed over these cases" back to the lead. But that's simply because it's only supposed to give a quick summary of the body. I'd be perfectly okay if you added that sentence back.

• As MrOllie mentioned, a lot of the rules you're quoting don't specifically apply to this case. KlayCax (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that User:Alexbrn has already informed you here that WP:BOLD and WP:BRD are not justifications that may be enforced to obstruct progress, but here you are doing it again - in the same topic area, no less. They're certainly not a justification to remove edits when they are supported by multiple other editors. MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked closely in the past few weeks, but it seems since the start of the year there has been a deterioration in quality, with the introduction of several non-WP:MEDRS sources: I see e.g. at least a blog and the Cleveland Clinic being cited. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to removing the Cleveland Clinic and Council of Foreign Relations sources, if you'd like. They're not critical to the lead or body of the article. KlayCax (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no one is reading my quotations from WP:RECKLESS, WP:UNRESPONSIVE, and WP:CAUTIOUS. KlayCax keeps talking about factual questions that no one is arguing, yet ignoring the obvious and glaring procedural issues.

It seems almost a moot point, as MrOllie's rollback [7] was done as a content dispute and this inappropriately. See WP:ROLLBACKUSE.

I already made KlayCax aware of this problem in his talk page a month ago, so this isn't out of the blue. I'm sorry to point this out, but much of KlayCax's edits are massive, no summary changes to controversial topics. Most of them are regarding circumcision. We shouldn't feed into a problematic editor. OMG look at this edit [8]. He used the term "illibearl".Stix1776 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stix1776 (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a rollback. The important thing is to get the article good, and if that involves reverting then that's fine. Alexbrn (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I've never seen a multiple edit revert before. I didn't think it was possible.Stix1776 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To end this, @KlayCax: can you please just make the edits you want to make, but do them individually and explain them in the summaries per WP:FIES and the other policies I've cited. Can't you see that making huge edits with little or no explanation is a lot of work for other editors to parse out???Stix1776 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrn: Would you mind giving a summary of what you find troubling in this article, and I'll make an effort to fix it over the next few days. Thanks. Stix1776 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and I understand your objections about reckless, cautious, and so on, and I just disagree. Wikipedia policies and guidelines and essays sometimes contain advice rather than hard 'rules'. That someone failed to heed this advice in your opinion is not a reason for you to attempt to enforce it through edit warring. - MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: Ya but you're not giving any reasoning, and your explanations are overly vague.

"I see no good reason to blanket revert all these changes, which strike me as improvements to the article"

"restoring changes reverted due to nonsense 'procedural' issues"

"I have read and I understand your objections about reckless, cautious, and so on, and I just disagree"

Is there no alternative than reverting back and forth? Can we find a dispute resolution. May I do an RfC over this process? Or do you have another dispute method you prefer? Because I find this super tedious.Stix1776 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is: reverting because edits are too big or touch too many sections is nonsensical. You are not objecting to the content, you're just reverting because of 'procedure' - and your understanding of 'procedure' is fundamentally flawed. It is difficult to be more substantive than that because you are reverting without any substantive objection yourself. Take this to whatever noticeboard you like, or if you can come up with a neutral RFC question that makes sense, have at it. I look forward to finding out what your issues with the content actually are. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stix1776: An RfC seems like an unsuitable and heavyweight approach, and would need to be a tight & focussed question (not "are all these changes better?") I for one find it practically impossible to follow these huge composite edits. Perhaps an editor seeking a change could do one thing at a time and/or post focussed questions on a proposed change here, to facilitate consensus building. Alexbrn (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that smaller edits are better and easier to understand, but per WP:NOTBURO such minor flaws of procedure aren't grounds for reverts. - MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revision [9] found 2 unarguable WP:MEDRS failures and 1 failure of WP:RS/AC (thanks to @Alexbrn: for finding these issues which I didn't spot). I find it very unlikely that outside editors would agree to the revision that "I see no good reason to blanket revert all these changes". I think it's obvious why smaller edits are better, and it's not my job to parse over a very rough count of 38 edits (please don't hold me to this count). I already informed User:KlayCax about the problem on his talk page, so it's not like it's out of the blue. It's unfair to other editors to deal with these destructive edits, and the policies I kept repeating back me up.

A dispute resolution is required, as reverting and reverting isn't solving anything. I'm happy to write an RfC in my sandbox and not post it until others agree. Otherwise I'm open to suggestions, but they aren't forthcoming. The last option would be to post to a dispute noticeboard and request that an uninvolved editor suggest a way forward.

I agree with Alexbrn that there are some serious problems with this article, and I'm happy to work on fixing them. Keeping bad edits is not the solution.Stix1776 (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources had already been removed before your most recent revert, so clearly that isn't your actual issue. What is? - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to ask you to suggest a dispute resolution, as this clearly isn't going forward. Stix1776 (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to outline your content-based objections in the form of an RFC, that'd be fine, so long as you outline them somewhere. MrOllie (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

@Stix1776: Before doing that, could you propose some changes as single atomic items, so it's actually possible to see what the issues are?. I don't believe this has been properly discussed here yet, so WP:DR is likely to be a bad move. Alexbrn (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that I do agree with Alexbrn about the problems in article and I do pledge to work to fix any problems you guys see. Stix1776 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent literal hours going over these three KlayCax edits, and I found multiple issues of him removing sourced content, removing good sources, and him stating what's not in the source. When I have a free moment, I'll put them all down. These are objectively bad edits. Stix1776 (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Problems with KlayCax's Edits Explained

Very bad

- As mentioned by Alexbrn, the addition of the Council of Foreign Relations fails WP:MEDRS [10]

- "has described the procedure as being 'stunningly successful'" [11], this is quoting a source that fails WP:MEDRS

- Addition as Cleveland Clinic as a source [12], as Alexburn pointed out, fails WP:MEDRS

- Health.com [13] fails WP:MEDRS

- "The scientific consensus and highest quality evidence" [14] fails WP:RS/AC

- "American, and some other Anglospheric medical organizations" [15], the addition of "American and some other Anglospheric" is unsupported by any source, and in fact is directly contradicted by Jacobs et al, which is the 3rd source for that sentence.

Pretty Bad

- The removal of a high quality sourced material (Canadian Urological Association guideline) on the Sexual Effects heading [16].

- In this diff [17], he removes the word "controversial" and the text "while formerly common in many English speaking nations during the first half of the 20th century, rates have declined significantly in the UK and Australia". This is supported by Calcagno and the WHO document titled Male circumcision: Global trends.

- "Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk" [18], the addition of "significantly" with "reducing risk" is not supported in any of the 4 sources listed.

- "Discussions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up over these cases" [19] despite 3 sources, I can't find this in either source. This just strikes me as original research. It's not like he explained his edit, so I have nothing to go on.

Not ideal and looking quite POV pushing

- Removal of "Circumcision does not appear to impact sexual function" [20], which is the AAP language. Although granted this way my original edit.

- "The procedure is usually an elective surgery performed as a prophylactic health intervention, religious rite, or cultural practice" [21]. He didn't explain why he choose to change the order, but this is contrary to the order that his source, Calcagno, uses.

- "circumcision is a treatment option for problematic cases of phimosis" [22]. It seems odd to remove this as so many sources here state that other treatments for phimosis should be sought before circumcision, such as [23].

- "European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk" [24], it just seems odd to swap the order when Jacobs et al has it the other way around. What's the reasoning? It's not like this was explained.

- The reordering around the Elective section [25]. I don't know his reasoning, and it's just overly confusing.

@KlayCax:, after I have read through your edits in detail, this is pretty bad behaviour that will get you a block on Wikipedia if you're not careful. @Alexbrn:, I honestly used to admire you as an editor, and your defense of some questionable edits isn't a good look. @MrOllie:, do you finally see a good reason to revert these edits? I ask everyone for the last time, is there a way you're willing to hold a dispute resolution? Because holding on to these edits is just tendentious editing. Stix1776 (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking objections in order:

• The Council of Foreign Relations is redundant with other sources, and easily removed without affecting content. I have just done so. I left in where it mentions Fauci's attributed viewpoint.
• 'has described the procedure as being 'stunningly successful' This is a viewpoint attributed to Anthony Fauci a well-known (to put it mildly) public health official. I see no problem with including his attributed view.
• Cleveland clinic has already been removed from the article, so I'm not sure why this is being brought up again.
• Health.com is another source for Fauci's views and doesn't need to pass WP:MEDRS.
• This article doesn't currently contain the phrase 'scientific consensus', so I'm not sure why this is being brought up. There is a statement about consensus of major medical organizations, which is a fair summary of the Bolnick source.
• I don't have access to all the sources attached to this statement. 'American' seems well sourced, but I don't know where 'some other Anglospheric' is supported. KlayCax, can you specify where you got that from?
• The Canadian Urological Association guideline stuff was moved and rephrased, not removed. It remains in the current version of the article.
• The 'controversial' and rate stuff removal is a matter of editorial judgment, I don't personally have a problem with it.
• 'significantly reduces the risk' - this is a paraphrased summary of the statistics presented in the WHO source.
• 'Discussions surrounding...' seems well supported by the sources cited. We don't need to mirror wording exactly.
• 'Circumcision does not appear to impact sexual function' there's still sexual function language in the article body. I don't mind something being in the lead, so I copied the opening sentence of the sexual effects section up there.
• Changing the order of text - I don't see what the problem is at all. We don't have to mirror sources exactly.
• 'seems odd' - the sentence is accurate either way.
• more order swapping - again, we don't have to mirror sources exactly
• yet more reordering - see above.

These strike me as (as most) minor problems or differences of style preference, and I continue to think there was no good reason to blanket revert these edits. - MrOllie (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie:, just an FYI, "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors" is in WP:TENDENTIOUS. And I keep asking you how we can dispute this without edit warring, and you keep refusing to answer. Also isn't breaking WP:MEDRS 3 times and WP:RS/AC at least once is not a "minor problems or differences of style preference"? Shall we have an RfC if "edits that break WP:MEDRS and WP:RS/AC are just minor problems or style differences"? Can we solve this without reverting back and forth?

I'll make a numbered list to make it easier

1. But an edit with 3 sources failing WP:MEDRS is clearly problematic and worth reverting, no?
2. 'stunningly successful', I can't believe that you're considering keeping text in a medical article that fails WP:MEDRS. @Alexbrn:, you really have nothing to say about keeping text from an article that fails WP:MEDRS
3. Cleveland clinic - because it shows that these edits are heavily problematic and that a revert was just and reasonable.
4. "Health.com is another source for Fauci's views and doesn't need to pass [[WP::MEDRS]]". Um, yes it does need to pass WP:MEDRS, per WP:MEDPOP.
5. The original edit did. Therefore my revert was reasonable.
6. "American, and some other Anglospheric medical organizations" - I literally demonstrated the source that contradicted it.
7. "The Canadian Urological Association guideline stuff was moved and rephrased" - no it's not there. The text "sexual satisfaction is controversial" is not there. Also the study was changed to an older study, which is bad. Because WP:AGEMATTERS
8. "The 'controversial' and rate stuff removal is a matter of editorial judgment, I don't personally have a problem with it." But it's sourced content. It doesn't matter how you feel. This is why we need to have a dispute resolution over this.
9. "'significantly reduces the risk' - this is a paraphrased summary of the statistics presented in the WHO source." - You need to show me the page, because I've read that document up and down and it's not there.
10. "'Discussions surrounding...' seems well supported by the sources cited. We don't need to mirror wording exactly." - Well you need to find the quote then, because I'm not seeing it in the source.
11. 'Circumcision does not appear to impact sexual function' Ya but there's newer and better articles, per WP:MEDASSESS. We shouldn't be removing the language for older articles.
12. Ya but this wasn't defended, it's different to the source, and it's striking on POV pushing
13. See above
14. See above

I'm also seeing your name pop up in the 3RR noticeboard frequently. So edit warring seems to be your thing.Stix1776 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly there are multiple texts statements that you're unable to find the quotes in the source. Per WP:Burden, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", ie you.Stix1776 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This still seems like a big shopping list of complaints without any concrete proposals. In the one thing I was pinged about, the "stunningly successful" wording, that's no longer in the page. Where it did occur in previous versions the markup was broken but the source did indeed support that Fauci said this. Whether or not to include it, is a matter for debate (we don't need MEDRS for relaying Fauci's words), but Fauci is kind of a big deal when it comes to health policy. I wouldn't say this was some kind of huge obvious PROBLEM which merits edit-warring. Alexbrn (talk) 12:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question a few times already. Since you are so concerned about forms of tendentious editing, you might be interested in reading WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked that edits with "big shopping list of complaints" wouldn't be a prime candidate for revert and redo. I find out glaringly obvious that I'm only the one quoting wikipolicy, like where's the exception to WP:MEDRS? Stix1776 (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fauci's view is Fauci's view, and the fact he expressed it is a matter of record. It cannot be asserted as WP:BMI but may be relevant in the context of what the WP:BMI is (which would need WP:MEDRS sourcing). Whether or not to include it, is a matter for debate. Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fauci's views have been written about in basically every major news outlet: NBC News, Reuters, NY Times, CBS, LA Times (I could go on), as well as the Health Magazine and Council of Foreign Relations that were used in the article. The wording of the quotes used differs, but it is a very notable view that we really should represent in our article. MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply, I was busy with work. You are aware that including CBS, NYTimes, Reuters etc is goes against Wp:MEDRS, as this is a medical article, right? WP:MEDPOP pretty clearly says "no" to adding text from the popular press to a medical article.Stix1776 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cultural and public health article as well, not everything in it needs a WP:MEDRS. A public health official's attributed view of a public health intervention doesn't need a WP:MEDRS, any more than we need MEDRS to discuss vaccine mandates - it is a political issue. - MrOllie (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A public health official's attributed view of a public health intervention doesn't need a WP:MEDRS - I'm not certain this is true. In the past editors have argued that beliefs about medical claims should be subject to MEDRS and that not doing this would completely undermine MEDRS. See for example [26]. Sizeofint (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether circumcision is also cultural issue, the effectiveness of of the procedure for preventing HIV is definitely a medical issue and should require MEDRS. Anyhow, this seems to be a settled issue as 3 other editors are coming against it.Stix1776 (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Tag (old)

I do appreciate the removal of WP:MEDRS failing sources. However I have some specific issues that I've talked to death over, for which I've asked for the source and I'm not getting it. If any editor can show me with source text or wiki policy that contradicts my reasoning, I'll be happy to remove these concerns.

1. "American, and some other Anglospheric medical organizations " in this diff [27]. I'm not seeing this "some other Anglospheric" anywhere in any source. Jacobs (2012), the third source for that sentence, states " Canadian health organizations have largely opposed routine NC over the last 30 years", " In 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians published an updated policy reaffirming their position against routine infant circumcision", and "In England, the consensus of medical bodies has been similar to that in Canada. Both the British Medical Association (BMA) and the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons (BAPS) have expressed that there is “rarely a clinical indication for circumcision”". (this seems solved)
2. "There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice". I'm not seeing this in the source, which again is Jacobs et al (2012), or Bolnick (the textbook author). Feel free to correct me with the quote.
3. Sexual effect in this diff [28]. the Removal of newer clinical practice guidelines (from the Canadian Urological Association) with an text from an older, 2013, study that states "the highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision has no impact on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure". WP:MEDDATE is pretty clear that research from over 5 years ago shouldn't be considered over newer research. As I've stated previously WP:AGE MATTERS. There is newer and more nuanced research here [29], [30] as well as a plethora of older policy statements with more nuance.
4. The removal of the word "controversial" here [31], even though it's listed in multiple high quality sources, including Calcagno (2007), World Health Organization (2007), the BMA advice to doctors [32], and likely other sources.
5. "Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection" (this diff [33]). Someone needs to find the text that supports this, as I'm not seeing it. I'll be happy to remove this when someone shows me the source. Edit: I forgot the mention that "significantly" came with the MEDRS failing Council of Foreign Relations source.
6. "In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure" is just a hodgepodge of WP:SYNTHESIS with different articles combined to create a novel conclusion not written in any source. It's clear intent was to block wording of "informed consent" and "rights of the child" that are well sourced. SN Social Sciences is not medline indexed, or even a medical journal, and really shouldn't be in a medical article per WP:MEDRS. @KlayCax:, have some standards for this article.Stix1776 (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. (amendment, I missed one) - "while formerly common in many English speaking nations during the first half of the 20th century, rates have declined significantly in the UK and Australia" [34] removing well sourced material, without explanation, because the editor doesn't like it clearly goes against WP-NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. Editors can't just remove sourced content that they don't like.
8. "Public health advocates of circumcision consider it to have a net benefit". Morris is the only author of this source, and he didn't state there's more than one person advocating. I tried to fix this, but it was returned in this revert [35]. Also there's multiple medical bodies and researchers that disagree [36] [37] [38], yet these get removed while only keeping the pro infant circumcision mentions. (see this dif [39]) Stix1776 (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add the unexplained rewording of whole sections, because they're not really something I'd succeed in an RfC with.Stix1776 (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Let us give KlayCax a chance to respond, but removing 'some other Anglospheric' isn't a big deal.
2. Bolnick writes "all policy statements reviewed, regardless of its position on circumcision, have made allowances for parental choice in support of their cultural or religious preference.'
3. As I mentioned above, the Canadian Urological Association's 2018 guidelines are still cited. You can find it on the second sentence of the sexual effects section.
4. 'Controversial' is, again, a matter of editorial preference.
5. The WHO source specifies a 59% reduction of risk of HIV infection. 'Significant' is underselling it a bit but is an accurate summary.
6. It is those sources. It is the topic of those three citations. Did you read them? MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Dutch Medical Association, a major medical organization, doesn’t support “parental choice”, and seems to think arguments for a ban are meritorious (although they worry about unintended consequences of a ban). We should not be pretending that there is a consensus across “all” major medical organizations on parental choice and legality of circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely debatable that they're a major medical organization, but after consulting the talk page archives it seems that you know this. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What does the source define “major medical organization” as (I wouldn’t know because I can’t access the full article)? The source does cite the Royal Dutch Medical Association, so if KNMG is included among organizations that are “major” according to that source, that article misrepresented KNMG’s viewpoint. Prcc27 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The HIV infection reduction as a percentage can't be well interpreted without knowing the prior rate in the population. For instance, a medication that reduces the incidence of a disease from two in a million to one in a million technically reduces the risk by 50%, but few would probably call that significant. The number needed to treat is probably more informative. The WHO source says 23 million VMMCs have probably prevented 250,000 HIV infections so by their estimates 100 VMMCs prevents one HIV infection. Sizeofint (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reduction of risk, not a reduction of incidence. Number needed to treat is just the inverse, if you know one you know the other. If reduction of risk is 50% number needed to treat is 1/0.50 = 2.MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we, as Wikipedia editors, are getting in debates about medical research data. We should be writing what's in the source. Adding our own interpretation, which isn't supported by the source, is clearly original research. I also neglected to mention that the word "significantly" was added with a MEDRS failed source (the Council of Foreign Relations). It seems especially tedious to force other editors to debate this, since it was clearly a bad edit.Stix1776 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply

1. I'm not insisting that @KlayCax: answers soon, but it's telling that he's not bothering to respond to sourcing problems with his edits. I've checked a few of his edits recently, and he adds and changes the text quite contrary to what the source is saying.
2. The text that MrOllie is quoting doesn't state anything about legality. And of course stating "consensus" without an actual source saying "consensus" is very directly against WP:RS/AC.
3. The issue is that the article is citing a 9 year-old study, when much newer research and clinical guidelines have come out. Again, WP:MEDDATE is very clear about this.
4. Removing the sourced text "controversial" without reason is not up to editor preference. WP-NPOV and WP:PRESERVE are clear that sourced text shouldn't be removed just because an editor doesn't like it.
5. As mentioned, the word "significantly" was added with a failed MEDRS source. Also editor interpretations of source material as "significantly" is clearly original research. It seems that 2 other editors are against the addition.
6. I literally did read them. I noticed what KlayCax did between a few edits. Originally [40] the text read "Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and human rights have been raised over routine circumcision" and this was changed to "discussions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up over these cases". KlayCax clearly didn't read those sources, as "group rights", "prophylactics", and "religious freedom" weren't mentioned. "Informed consent" and "human rights" were central to the text in the source. Also I've requested the source text for this change 3 times and I haven't gotten an answer.
7. As I amended above, we can't removed sourced text that we don't like, per WP-NPOV and WP:PRESERVE.Stix1776 (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Number 2: If nobody has a rebuttal or suggestion for how to reword the sentence, I will remove it. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some version of this is fairly long standing (it used to be phrased "No major medical organization recommends circumcising all males, and no major medical organization recommends banning the procedure."), reflects the sources used, and should not be removed. Policy statements that say parents should have a choice obviously indicate that it should be legal. MrOllie (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where do the sources say “no major medical organization”? I agree with Stix1776 that WP:RS/AC applies. I’d be open to saying something like “many medical organizations” instead. Especially since the source cites the Royal Dutch Medical Association, which is not “pro-parent choice”. Prcc27 (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, they're a professional association, not a major medical organization, and even they don't support banning it outright because they don't want to send religious parents to non-medical practitioners. MrOllie (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, what does the *source* define as “major medical organization”? What does the source specifically say about *legality*? Seems like Wikipedia editor(s) have been doing their own original research. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very in favor of deleting until a good sentence can be reached, but I'm also in favor of Prcc27's alternative. But putting the source next to MrOllie, his interpretation makes no sense. The source says "all policy statements reviewed, regardless of its position on circumcision, have made allowances for parental choice in support of their cultural or religious preference" yet he summarizes this as "no major medical organization recommends circumcising all males, and no major medical organization recommends banning the procedure". Those are not the same things. An honest, WP:WIKIVOICE summary of the source would read something like "one literature review found that all the medical bodies it reviewed agreed to be flexible for the decision of parents". Perhaps the best thing is the remove the sentence until we find consensus on this.Stix1776 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, I didn't write it, that was @Zad68: around 10 years ago: diff. I'm surprised you have a problem with this, 'no major medical organization recommends...' was wording you were recently repeatedly putting back in the article, for example here. Since there is some confusion about interpretation of this source, I'll ask for input at WT:MED unless there are any objections? - MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to consult other editors, and please ask them how they would phrase it.Stix1776 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @MrOllie:, I'm a bit shocked that you're reverting without bothering to explain how WP:RS/AC doesn't apply here. It's a pretty cut and dry case, and frankly you holding onto the word "consensus" isn't great for your reputation. Also there's a 2-1 editor count. It just seems like you're holding onto edits and avoiding clear Wikipedia policy. @Alexbrn:, don't feel compelled to join as I know you find this article stressful. But if you care to look, you must see that this sentence fails WP:RS/AC.Stix1776 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a bit shocked that you didn't read the discussion above where such concerns were addressed. It is not a statement about 'academic consensus' of 'scientists or scholars' as discussed by WP:RS/AC, but a statement about public policy by medical orgs. In any case, I could -maybe- support going back to the most recent wording, but this 'most' stuff based on a misunderstanding of the KNMGs position is not going to fly. MrOllie (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to again advise @KlayCax: to get involved with the discussion on his edits. Much of your edits seems to be contrary to what the actual source is stating. If you're going to revert, please explain to us your reasoning.Stix1776 (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax: is reverting sourced edits against multiple editors, and is not discussing his edits in the talk page. I'm not seeing anyone supporting his removal of the word "controversial". I'll bring this to an RfC if I need to. I can't see the community siding against the inclusion of "controversial" with so many high quality sources stating explicitly that it is controversial.Stix1776 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing that RIC in developed countries is controversial; the third paragraph of the lead and the "elective" section already extensively discuss that fact. The problem is that you are trying to change the article to make it state that "prophylactic circumcision" is universally controversial. I've already explained why I reverted a similar edit to the one you just made here two weeks ago.

Prophylactic circumcision simply refers to any form of circumcision done for reasons of prophylaxis. (i.e. Prevention of disease transmission) In other words, it's a form of the procedure whose context, application, and background varies widely. The citations that you quoted refer exclusively to routine circumcisions in developed countries such as the United States. But "prophylactic circumcision" can also refer to the widespread practice (in the tens of millions) of voluntary adult circumcision by organizations such as UNAIDS as a preventative against HIV transmission in Sub-Saharan Africa. That is something much less controversial, receiving widespread support from European medical organizations as well. Or, as Chikutsa and Maharaj (2015) state: "it is now generally accepted in public health spheres that medical male circumcision is efficacious in the prevention of HIV infection [within the context of sub-Saharan Africa]". KlayCax (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming what you're saying is true, why would you not edit the text to make it more correct? Why would you remove it? I keep quoting WP-NPOV. If you disagree with sourced text, you should fix it and not remove it. That you choose to remove it shows that you're POV pushing. Also are we to specify on HIV reduction quote that it's for adult men, as the WHO specifies.

You could easy argue that the adult HIV circumcision in Africa is controversial, as there have been critical discussions about it [41] [42] [43] [44]. But then again, you aren't talking about this on the talk page. I wish you would discuss edits instead of removing the edits or multiple editors.Stix1776 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also please answer where "we've already reached a consensus over that exact wording in the talk page" is located. There's heaps of questions that we're asking you on this talk page.Stix1776 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with making edits on Wikipedia. I would like to make you aware of some bad actors that are brigading this page. Please refer to this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivism/comments/si9z1k/need_help_with_wikipedia_circumcision_talk_page/Cblackbu1 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's too bad. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I think it's fair to say, we should start to be skeptical of new editors coming to this page for a while. In the meantime, I have a reddit account, so I'll report the post. Stix1776 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the edits to this page are by drive-by POV warriors (usually the "intactivist" ones). One of the purposes of getting it to WP:GA some years ago was to try to guard against this. Alexbrn (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organized brigading campaign and meatpuppetry (et al.)

I just wanted to give everyone a notice that User:Cblackbu1 posted a statement showing that this article and talk page has been undergoing an organized editing brigade by meatpuppets to push a POV. After clicking the link, and searching through the discussion boards involved, it seems abundantly clear that this page has been intentionally brigaded for a period of at least nine months.

It is being organized on anti-circumcision forums such as /r/Intactivism and /r/Intactivists. Posts (particularly by a user with the name of /u/Jews_v_Circumcision) track which circumcision-related articles are being edited; others routinely congratulate active "intactivists" [e.g. anti-circumcision advocates] who "put up a good fight" to modify articles in a way that "helps to advance the cause". Yesterday, a post was published on /r/intactivism by a user known as /u/The_Uncut_Truth stated that "our people" are "presently in an editing dispute" and that they "need help" in making sure that the article is "modified to make clear that circumcision has NO medical benefits and is (religious mental illness and coping delusions aside) de facto genital mutilation that is no different from FGM."

Here is the full text. Comments or explanations by me personally are marked like [this].

(Note: DO NOT MENTION that you came from here.) Hey, everyone. Our people are presently in an editing dispute with other Wikipedia editors on the talk page. And we need help in making sure the article accurately reflects the fact that circumcision has NO medical benefits and is (religious mental illness and coping delusions aside) de facto genital mutilation that is no different from FGM. Recently, editors called User:MrOllie and User:KlayCax have attempted to modify the article to represent mainstream American medical opinions. (Which of course reflect the mainstream medical community in GM'ing [e.g. I'm not entirely sure what this is suppose to mean. But I'm pretty sure it's supposed to mean "genital mutilation".] cultures such as the United States... But are also inaccurate, wrong, and bias; Wikipedia somewhat reflexively reflects an pro-American bias by default.) Some of our guys are helping push the article in the ethically correct direction. But Brian freaking' Morris is considered a reliable source in the article. 

Wikipedia works through editorial consensus. So a display of support amongst [a majority of] users should push the article to be more in line with what we want. Make sure to not just say that circumcision is mutilation and damages and diminishes the penis  — although, to anyone with knowledge, it obviously does — but rather the fact that these edits don't belong on Wikipedia, are contradicted by high quality studies showing that the foreskin is the BEST PART of the penis, and that the edits break the rules. Don't state the truth about it directly. You have to be smart. 

Keep challenging the article under NPOV and bias. I know a lot of people want to be "neutral" and "non-biased" - but it's important we use every trick in the book to make sure this forum of religious abuse and medical fraud is called out. Additionally, make sure to include sources criticizing the religious and "WHO in Africa" aspects of MGM as well. Prcc27 and User:Stix1776 are pro-intactivism and on our side. While User:Alexbrn is an administrator who seems somewhat inbetween. (Although leaning against the intactivist cause somewhat.)

It's important because Wikipedia has a role in molding people's opinions. Parents don't read forums like this. [e.g. I'm assuming he means Reddit; /r/intactivism, specifically.] What they do read are things like Wikipedia, major medical organizations, major academic papers, et al. So if we could get the article to reflect and predominately promote/display intactivist opinions we could indirectly benefit our movement as well. This might be unpopular. But bs [e.g. bullshit] as well along the way. Say the entire article is biased in order to slow down anti-intactivist edits, et al. If pro-circers can play with numbers, stats, studies, and rules, there's no reason we can't either.

Thanks.

The post appears to have stayed up for around a day without any significant modification or change. (Archive of the post here. Original post here.) However, this immediately changed when User:Cblackbu1 posted a link to the above post on the talk page. Shortly after, a moderator on /r/intactivists went through and blanketly deleted any recent link (see here and here) by /u/Jews_v_Circumcision going back to September 26, 2021. The original post by /u/The_Uncut_Truth was similarly deleted by a /r/intactivism moderator immediately after.

Similar posts to those made above additionally exist. But I've felt that this is presently too long as is.

I made an archive of all of these posts in case anything is further deleted. KlayCax (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all links below are very unsafe for work

Since accusations are already being tossed around, may I point out that (Redacted). The account is only two months old, isn't very active, and started as KlayCax's arguments with circumcision started to heat up.

Obviously it's very far from certain that KlayCax made this account just to start this. But then again, this should be decided by the Sockpuppet investigations, not normal users like you and me.

Note: I already mentioned that I reported the comments on Reddit. Stix1776 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What accusations am I "tossing around"? That users on there were brigading? I don't think you are a sock or meatpuppet. I'm talking about how the page has undergone brigading in general for months. Of course editors who care about the ethics of circumcision are disproportionately more likely to comment on the "ridged band" (a part of the foreskin) and politics. That seems kind of an obvious sequitur. No? Additionally, I also posted below about suitable wording for the lead. Can you check it out and see if it's acceptable to you? KlayCax (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note again: all links below are super NSFW

Additional evidence that KlayCax owns that reddit account. That user posted (Redacted). Again, 11 days apart.

@KlayCax:, regardless you shouldn't be reverting because of a sockpuppetry or brigading issue. What users do you think are brigading? We all have old accounts and we've been editing circumcision related pages for months or years.Stix1776 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this weren't so silly I might be inclined to report this post for attempted WP:OUTING. - MrOllie (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I could believe there have been organizing attempts to edit this page, but equally a lot of this kind of drama has been happening lately which is nothing more than attempts by LTAs to stir up trouble off-wiki. After all, for a secret coordinated campaign to edit a page, making a public reddit post would be a pretty stupid thing to do. Alexbrn (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you really have nothing to say about using this event to remove sourced content from this page??Stix1776 (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am suspicious about what's going on. Rather than try to second guess it, I say stick to decent sources faithfully summarized -- it's the only sane way through. I'm not an administrator BTW. Alexbrn (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:Stix1776. I modified the lead paragraph from...

Discussions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up over these cases.

to become:

In these situations [e.g. routine circumcision in developed countries], questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure.

Is this acceptable to you? KlayCax (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. The sources don't mention group rights, religious freedoms, or prophylactics. I've been asking for your quotes from the source to back this up, and I'm not getting it. Stix1776 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earp et al., 2021 (full link) is an example of a source that mentions all of these things. (e.g.: "these organizations have at times appealed to potential health benefits") In addition, Brian Earp, could be considered a good source for several anti-routine circumcision arguments in developed countries. KlayCax (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote:

The American College of Nurse-Midwives, American Society for Pain Management Nursing, American Academy of Pediatrics, and other largely US-based medical organizations have argued that at least some forms of non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including routine penile circumcision, are ethically permissible even when performed on non-consenting minors. In support of this view, these organizations have at times appealed to potential health benefits that may follow from removing sexually sensitive, non-diseased tissue from the genitals of such minors. We argue that these appeals to “health benefits” as a way of justifying medically unnecessary child genital cutting practices may have unintended consequences.

This study is clearly advocating for informed consent and the rights of the child, something which your edit removed. No, I'm not OK with your compromise. Bring an RfC if you need to.Stix1776 (talk)

Correct. I'm not disagreeing with you. But I'm not sure how my edit in anyway "removes" that or why Earp et al., 2021 is in anyway an invalid citation there. The edit states that there are "ethical discussions" surrounding the procedure, principally over the topics of prophylactic efficacy, religious and group rights, and consent. That's exactly what Earp et al. (2021) is talking about in the paper. What's an example of an alternative wording that is acceptable to you? KlayCax (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't talk about prophylactic efficacy at all, nor does it discuss religious and group rights. It does, however, discuss informed consent and the lack of health benefits of circumcision. Just because you aggressively revert everything, doesn't make you right. I'll take this to an RfC if I have to, and I'd certainly prevail because that's what the source states. Honestly I really wish we could do arbitration, because all this reverting of good sources and intentionally misinterpreting source text goes no where. I do really believe that KlayCax is destined for a block someday. Sorry to bother you both again @MrOllie: and @Alexbrn:, would arbitration mediation interest you? Or would you all prefer a slow and arduous RfC process?Stix1776 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both (Earp, 2021) and (Cohen-Almagor, 2020) certainly discusses how questions of prophylactic efficacy, religious/group/ethnic rights, et al. directly relate to ethical questions surrounding RIC in developed countries. I don't think Wikipedia covering that is problematic. That's certainly what the disagreement amongst medical organizations is about. Isn't it? (e.g. Whether the (alleged and real) health benefits are worthwhile and outweigh risks, where is the line drawn between the community and individual, et al.) KlayCax (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration is for behavioral problems - it is a venue people use to try to get people blocked or topic banned. They don't issue rulings on content disputes. I don't see anything worthy of that here. You've been asked to write some alternative wording, why not do that? That is how disputes are normally resolved. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, I meant mediation. I've never actually done either.Stix1776 (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My alternative wording: "Ethical and legal questions regarding informed consent and human rights have been raised over the circumcision of babies and children for non-medical reasons; for these reasons, the procedure is controversial".Stix1776 (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics see those instances as an example of medical reasons, because they claim that RIC-type circumcision reduces the risk of STD transmission — particularly HIV and HPV — and reduces the risk of penile cancer and urinary tract infections. Since there is no consensus over the matter amongst major medical organizations, Wikipedia can't take a stance on the matter, but rather has to showcase the differing perspectives. KlayCax (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Since there is no consensus over the matter amongst major medical organizations, Wikipedia can't take a stance on the matter". Yes! And we shouldn't be deleting sources text saying that circumcision is controversial, like the BMA statement [45]. We should be stating all viewpoints. Regarding the AAP statement and Cohen-Almagor (2020), Wikipedia policy is very clear that you can't "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". You should be summarizing them all differently. You can't use one article about a proposed law in Denmark to delete regular mentions about informed consent and the rights of the child. The funny thing is that Cohen-Almagor even mentions "male circumcision is a controversial practice" and "rights of the child" is mentioned 11 times. But, you know, I can quote Wiki policy and discuss sources all day, and it won't change your opinion because you're not here to build an encyclopedia. At some point, you'll be blocked from Wikipedia for these behaviors.Stix1776 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. "There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice". I'm not seeing this in the source, which again is Jacobs et al (2012), or Bolnick (the textbook author). Feel free to correct me with the quote. Also this clearly fails WP:RS/AC as "consensus" is never mentioned.
2. Sexual effect in this diff [46]. The removal of newer clinical practice guidelines (from the Canadian Urological Association) with an text from an older, 2013, study that states "the highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision has no impact on sexual function, sensation, or pleasure". WP:MEDDATE is pretty clear that research from over 5 years ago shouldn't be considered over newer research. As I've stated previously WP:AGE MATTERS. There is newer and more nuanced research here [47], [48] as well as a plethora of older policy statements with more nuance.
3. The removal of the word "controversial" here [49], even though it's listed in multiple high quality sources, including Calcagno (2007), World Health Organization (2007), the BMA advice to doctors [50], and likely other sources.
4. "Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV infection" (this diff [51]). Someone needs to find the text that supports this, as I'm not seeing it. I'll be happy to remove this when someone shows me the source. Also "significantly" came with the MEDRS failing Council of Foreign Relations source.
5. "In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure" is just a hodgepodge of WP:SYNTHESIS with different articles combined to create a novel conclusion not written in any source. I've requested the source text quote multiple times and I've never gotten it. It's clear intent was to block wording of "informed consent" and "rights of the child" that are well sourced. SN Social Sciences is not medline indexed, or even a medical journal, and really shouldn't be in a medical article per WP:MEDRS.
6. "while formerly common in many English speaking nations during the first half of the 20th century, rates have declined significantly in the UK and Australia" [52] removing well sourced material, without explanation, because the editor doesn't like it clearly goes against WP-NPOV and WP:PRESERVE. Editors can't just remove sourced content that they don't like.
7. "Public health advocates of circumcision consider it to have a net benefit". Morris is the only author of this source, and he didn't state there's more than one person advocating. How is this plural? I tried to fix this, but it was returned in this revert [53]. Also there's multiple medical bodies and researchers that disagree [54] [55] [56], yet these get removed while only keeping the pro infant circumcision mentions. (see this dif [57])
8. "Outside of these areas with high HIV/AIDS prevalence, the positions of the world's major medical organizations differ on the routine circumcision of minors; the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that it carries moderate prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks". I can see how the AAP said this, but I read the WHO source [58] up and down and I'm not seeing this. Reverted here [59]. The source statement does not say that WHO or UNAIDS promotion circumcision "carries moderate prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks". The wording is dishonest OR.Stix1776 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. @Alexbrn: regarding this edit [60], how does Nursing Ethics, A Medline Indexed journal, fail MEDRS?Stix1776 (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Also Alexbrn, regarding this edit [61], you changed the meaning. Would you prefer each medical organization listed out? "Both the British Medical Association (BMA) and the British Association of Pediatric Surgeons (BAPS) have expressed that there is “rarely a clinical indication for circumcision”", "Canadian health organizations have largely opposed routine NC over the last 30 years. In 1989, the Canadian Pediatric Society commented that the evidence pertaining to STDs and UTI was not “sufficiently compelling to justify a change in policy” and revisited in 1996 [ 5 ] . This policy has discouraged neonatal circumcision since the 1970s. This position is also supported by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) position, released in 2009, which definitively states that the routine circumcision of neonates “is not recommended” and may even have human rights implications". Is listing it better?
11. “No major medical organization recommends circumcising all males, and no major medical organization recommends banning the procedure“, is not written in the source, and other editors have spotted this. @MrOllie:, can you quote what's in the source to back this up? Stix1776 (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrOllie:, I hope you don't mind that I made the dispute tag it's own heading. I wanted other editors to see it easily. I didn't feel right to copy over your comments, so please feel free to copy yours down here. I'm also OK with adding your comments under my concerns, like:

1. concern
2. concern
   1. reply
3. concern

ThanksStix1776 (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at the latest version of the article I am becoming extremely concerned about WP:V issues and apparent WP:SYNTHESIS. Statements should generally be backed by one, maybe two citations. More than that is often a tell of synthesis. Regarding "European medical organizations generally hold the belief ..." the first citation (of 5!) was to a 2010 "Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia" by the WHO. How does this source WP:VERIFY the claim about the 44 Nations of Europe and the "beliefs" of their medical organizations? This article is a WP:GA which means editing should be careful and diligent. Alexbrn (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that listing the actual sourced position of each medical body with quotes and citations is fine. I'll get on this when I have a moment. But I've listed multiple OR concerns above and you have nothing to say about it?Stix1776 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am most concerned with what I see as the most serious problems, like the use of unreliable sources. With regard to PMID:33719736, it is not a review as WP:MEDRS wants but a novel philosophical/theoretical paper. Alexbrn (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in MEDRS that says you can't use theoretical papers. If there's nothing in MEDRS that supports your understanding of the policy, can you at least ask WT:MED. I'm happy to go with the opinion of outside editors. Wouldn't [62] or [63] or [64] be acceptable?Stix1776 (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDASSESS. The Earp source is a primary source - essentially just an opinion piece. We want better. the three sources you list are clinical guidance, a position statement and a review - so much better. You really don't need to go to WT:MED for obvious matter likes this. Alexbrn (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not pointing out the part where it says that theoretical papers can't be used. And you ignored my direct question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stix1776 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS says what ARE reliable sources, and that primary sources should be avoided. There is a near infinity of types of source that are unsuitable obviously, so an exhaustive list is not possible. When we have reams of top-quality sources on circumcision I am at a loss as to why editors want to scrape up poor ones. I directly answered your question. Alexbrn (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ignored question was "Wouldn't [65] or [66] or [67] be acceptable?"

WP:MEDDEF defines a prime source as follows:" A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or supervised those who did. Many papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made". Earp is clearly summarizing other sources so this is secondary. Can't you either 1) ask uninvolved editors, 2) find a similar case, or 3) find text in Wikipolicy that supports you? I keep requesting that we bring this to mediation or ask outside editors, and those calls are ignored.

Finally you're splitting hairs over edge cases, while there are clear failures of WP:MEDRS that you're not looking at. If you're genuinely not POV pushing against the sources and wikipolicy, why not look at those clear mistakes that I have posted? Stix1776 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per this diff [68], @Alexbrn:, I've asked your repeatedly. In what fashion are editors allowed to add non American medical bodies to this article?? Stix1776 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In good ways. Cramming novel material into the lede is not a good way. See WP:LEDE. If you want to improve the article, work on the body: the lede can then summarize it. Alexbrn (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To absolutely disconnect this from your original edit and the unanswered questions. How can we add non American perspectives to the lead when your removed them? Stix1776 (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Pedantic" instead of "Paediatric" by the way. Graham Beards (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is suppose to summarize, not list individual bodies. I support mentioning the WHO on HIV, but we shouldn't be going org by org for others. I have returned the very long standing summary statement to the lead (see my comments further up the talk page). MrOllie (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption on this article has grown to the point where I wonder if a WP:GAR is necessary. Stix1776 you seem to be going at it like a bull in china shop. This push to alter the lede without paying any attention to the body is not good. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stix1776, please stop going back and adding material to earlier posts, it makes this discussion nearly impossible to follow. If you have a question for me ask it at the end of the section and I will respond there. - MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very supportive of WP:GAR. Alexbrn, please stop with the personal attacks, though. Stix1776 (talk) 00:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence below should point out that the WHO only recommends circumcision for adolescents and adult males and does not make a recommendation for infants.

Change: "Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV; the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[12][14]"

To: "Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision for adolescents and men, but not infants; as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV; the effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[12][14]"

Infants should not be included by generality when the WHO did not include them in the report recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E1E9:9A0A:FFCD:74AA (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also support WP:GAR. Anyone want to do the honors? Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would of course be much better to make efforts to repair the article. I also think it would be sad indictment if an article was de-listed because of unchecked disruptive editing (which is largely what has happened). For that reason, I think there would also need to be a review of editor conduct. I am unsure whether circumcision falls under DS via the indirect route of Gamergate, but if not I think this is a topic area which needs discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem incongruous to have a dispute tag on a GA article. I agree that repairing the article is ideal, but the discussion has been so contentious^[1] I do not see consensus in sight. An RfC is an option, but that would not change the reality, viz., the article has slipped below Good Article standards. I note the following from good article reassessment under Community reassessment, When to use this process:

Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate. Wait until the article stabilizes and then consider reassessment. If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.

Since instability has persisted for more than a couple of weeks, requesting a good article community reassessment seems warranted. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the effort that Mark D Worthen PsyD put into reassessment. Frankly, I agree 100% with his summary. I wasn't aware that the lead was too long, but I do agree that it's something that needs to be trimmed. I do also agree with Alexbrn that this article needs a an addition of discretionary sanctions. I'm actually surprised that it doesn't have this already. I do also support a review of editor conduct that Alexbrn suggests, although I don't know how to request this in Wikipedia.

Lastly I wanted to ask editors here if they're interested in having a good article or just getting their point of view across? I continuously ask for mediation or another dispute process, and this is repeatedly ignored.Stix1776 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV"

I don't think this communicates the WHO's position effectively, because it could easily be understood to mean circumcision of babies/children without their consent. As the link given there shows, the WHO only recommends "voluntary medical male circumcision" and I think this should be reflected in the article's introduction. I suggest simply adding the word "voluntary":

"Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of voluntary circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV"

But because this is a sensitive article, I will leave the edit to seasoned editors.

By the way, regarding the recommended age of consent, in the presentation "24 August 2020 Session 2", slide 22 says "Usually, adolescents ages 15 years and older are able to give informed consent, while younger adolescents’ ability to consent should be assessed case-by-case", and elsewhere "younger adolescents" are indicated to be aged 10 to 14. I'm not sure that can be easily worked into the sentence above, but I found it interesting enough to note here.

182.19.163.2 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me a reasonable suggestion on how to better represent the WHO recommendation, I agree that without it the reader may believe the WHO is recommending universal or infantile circumcision. I have made the change, happy to discuss if any other views on this. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  13:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision

The table below represents my individual assessment of the article against the Good article criteria. However, I requested a community reassessment given the lack of consensus and high level of disagreement on the article's talk page. Thus, the assessment below represents only one person's opinion; it is neither the complete nor the final good article reassessment. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: delisted, has active cleanup banner (t · c) buidhe 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Recent contentious editing has degraded the quality of the prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is too long, containing text better suited for the article body.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Whether or not a reference constitutes a reliable source per WP:MEDRS has been hotly debated. In my estimation, some of the references do not comply with both standard and medical reliable sources criteria, e.g., theoretical articles and primary source citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There appears to be instances of WP:SYNTH.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a major problem but excess detail occurs in some places.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some agendas are being pushed, IMHO of course.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Frequent back-and-forth edits with tendentious arguments common on the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Regrettably, the article no longer meets GA criteria.

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit, which was an attempt to trim down and summarize the current run-on state of the leading paragraphs, been reverted by Stix1776 for unexplained "reasons of consensus".

Do we really need to say it has "no impact on sensation/function" in the lead? It's not a major aspect of the article in any respect. Do we really need to give an entire paragraph to what the WHO, AAP, CDC, European, UNAIDS, medical organizations et al. all say in the lead when it's already covered sufficiently in the body? It doesn't seem objectionable to simply state what WHO says (like we do on HIV/AIDS transmission already) and then briefly state that smaller national organizations such as AAP, CDC, UNAIDS, DMA, et al. disagreeing with themselves on the matter. It's simplier, more precise, and less verbose, which seems to me an improvement in every way. The other changes were simply related to grammar. The changes that have been made have been entirely in line with the talk page consensus. It's clear that the previous lead was verbose, excessively detailed, and needed revised. The leading paragraphs are only meant to summarize the topic. To state that they "go against or lack consensus" (?) is perplexing. Since there doesn't even seem to be anything that could be possibly objectionable. OntologicalTree (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the lead needs to be trimmed, but it is common practice to not restore your BOLD edit when reverted. Let’s try to achieve a Consensus on how to proceed with the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm open to discussing. Is there anything specific that you'd suggest that could be improved? Or anything that seems problematic? OntologicalTree (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While BRD is important, it’s not a valid revert if you don’t articulate specific objections. As you’ve linked, bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, engaging in communication is required as a matter of policy, and reverting good faith edits without providing specific objections, or reverting a change simply because it is a large change is a form of disruptive editing. I definitely think Styx has created the edit war here and he should not be reverting without articulating specific objections, period. As long as this is the case, no blame can be placed on OT. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that communication in the edit summary is important, but the talk page, not the edit summary, is where most of the discussion should take place. You’re absolutely wrong about putting the blame 100% on Stix1776. OntologicalTree was 1 edit away from a 3RR violation, and lack of edit summary explanation is not an exemption for edit warring. You are the one being disruptive. Instead of discussing what to do with the lead, you are pointing fingers at someone and taking sides. My comment above tried to 1) end the edit war and 2) redirect the dispute to the consensus building process; not point fingers or take sides.

That being said.. I do not necessarily oppose OntologicalTree’s edit, but I really wanted to hear from other users to see if anyone had any other ideas for how we could make the lead more concise. Given we all seem to agree that the lead should be trimmed, it is a matter of what stays and what goes. Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly dispute that my revert was "unexplained". I clearly wrote in my edit summary that the Royal Dutch Medical Association was not a "small Danish organization" as your wrote in your last edit, and that Morris passes WP:MEDRS. I'll be more specific and say that he was removing sourced content from the article.

It would seem that OntologicalTree has rereverted edits elsewhere, as he's done so here [69]. This isn't a good habit for editors.

Your edit removed sourced material from outside the lead, such as the Royal Dutch Medical Association and sexual function. I see some positive additions, which I will attempt to keep. I do see a concerted effort from some editors to remove any mention of a national medical body that isn't American, as they generally recommend against infant circumcision. "Electively administered" makes more sense than just "elective" by itself. Please keep discussion in the talk page instead of re-reverting.Stix1776 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from Morris et al. or the Dutch Medical Organization was removed in the edit. So I'm unsure what you're talking about. Are you referring to how the Dutch Medical Association's words were moved up into the previous paragraph? Everything they stated was preserved in the edit. The only thing that was removed in relation to "sexual function"' was lower-quality evidence. If you want to keep the main gist of the edit, and just revert that part, would you be okay with a reversion for now? As for the lower-quality evidence thing: almost any published subject in academia (even things such as tobacco use and health problems, climate change, et al.) has contradictory information published about them. The World Health Organization, other major medical organizations, and multiple gold-tier metanalysises and studies have near-universally stated it has no impact on sexual sensation, function, or pleasure. This includes the Danish Medical Journal's Düring, Shabanzadeh, and Frimodt-Møller (2016) in the article. OntologicalTree (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what's your specific objection to simply stating elective? Rather than electively administered? OntologicalTree (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did remove Morris. You removed "lower quality evidence has found conflicting results".

Fair enough (edit: and I'm sorry) about the comment on the Royal Dutch Medical Association. I'll try to return your edit. In regards to "elective", it's a small matter, but "elective" in this sense is typically an adjective, which requires a noun after it. In regards to to sexual effects, see [70] part #2. There's newer medical guidance with that points to some nuance on the sexual effects debate, so it is literally citable controversy from gold-standard medical bodies. This is why I'm hesitant to remove "lower quality evidence has found conflicting results". Also why did you remove the link to "ethics of circumcision"?Stix1776 (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologize for anything. Would it be alright if I revert back and preserve rest of the edit: while we can discuss the "lower quality evidence" dispute on talk in a separate section here? Since it wasn't a main focus of the edit, and I believe we both agree that the vast majority of the changes are an improvement upon the predecessor.

The "ethics of circumcision" link wasn't removed. I just removed the part that repeated itself: "prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up over these cases, leading to discussions over the procedure's ethics" was changed to "In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to bioethical discussions surrounding the procedure". The discussion surrounding bioethics in those cases has not been effected at all; it simply improved reductant wording. Would it be alright for me to start a "lower-quality evidence discussion" in another talk page section so others here can discuss it: while the main contents of the revision could be preserved? Thanks. OntologicalTree (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do a revert again as there's a lot I'm uncomfortable with. It completely erases non-US medical body disapproval from the lead, as well as to any mention of controversy. Also the text "the WHO holds the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks" is absolutely not supported by the source, although that's not your fault. In terms of reducing the lead, could we not cut out much of the religious stuff, as well as condense much of the medical benefits. They take much much more of the space in the lead. Feel free to mention specific issues, but let's not edit war again,

The bioethics part was completely moved from the lead. Again, there's been a concerted effort to remove any well sourced critical content from this article. It looks like you're a new editor. Why are you focused solely on the lead and only on circumcision for some reason?

Please do start another section. To be honest, this was something I was planning on doing a RfC (see dispute tag issue #2 again). Would you like to collaborate on this?Stix1776 (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revised lead also completely excludes the UNAIDS, American, (generally favoring the notion that it benefits health) et al. as well. Both pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision viewpoints have simply been moved into the body. It's not an instance of bias. It still maintains the main point - with it saying that major medical organizations disagree upon the matter - and then expounds upon what that means in more detail in the body. Why is that objectionable?

The Canadian Paediatric Society policy statement explicitly backs up the current phrasing in the article: saying that "| medical studies do not support circumcision as having a negative impact on sexual function or satisfaction in males or their partners". Similar statements have been made by the World Health Organization, the Danish Medical Journal, et al. I'm not sure how anything they published contradicts the present wording of the article.

I wasn't planning on cutting down the cultural, religious, or ethnic justifications part of the lead, at least to any great extent. So I don't disagree with you there. OntologicalTree (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the dispute tag above, UNAIDS isn't part of that statement anyways, so removing UNAIDS just brings the article closer to accuracy. I tried to remove it, but it was kept after an aggressive edit war. I'll ask again, why are the remaining critical comments moved to the body when the bulk of the lead discusses benefits, despite UTIs and penile cancer being quite treatable or rare? If we genuinely want to cut the lead, we'd start with topics that are taking up most of the lead.

The Canadian Pediatric Society is more nuanced that the current text, so I'd be supportive of that. It probably is worth adding newer publications like | there is debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors or | there is ongoing controversy regarding the impact of circumcision on penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction. I think the only way to solve this issue to to have an RfC. Doing so would make the result mostly permanent, so editors wouldn't be needing to argue this point again and again. Again, I invite you to do this with me. Clearly this article is not going to say "circumcision definitely makes sex bad" but ideally it would make a mention of the actual controversy that is explicitly stated by newer medical body guidance. Stix1776 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the question of sexual function/sensation wasn't the main point of the edit. If you want to keep the "lower quality evidence" sentence in the sexual effects section while we work this out: it's perfectly fine by me. This shouldn't cause the vast majority of the edit to be blanketly reverted.

What newer medical body guidance has been stated? Both of the papers you linked explicitly back up what is present in the article. (Dave et al., 2018) explicitly concludes that "is lack of any convincing evidence that neonatal circumcision will impact sexual function or cause a perceptible change in penile sensation in adulthood". The Canadian Pediatric Society similarly states that "studies do not support circumcision as having a negative impact on sexual function or satisfaction in males or their partners". I'm failing to see how either of these add a layer of nuance. (The Canadian Urological Association is additionally a different organization than the Canadian Pediatric Society) Within context, they appear to be talking about the popular conception that circumcision heightens (most commonly believed in Africa, et al.) or lowers (Most commonly believed in North America, Europe, et al.) a man's sexual pleasure. Then, both the Canadian Pediatric Society and Canadian Urologist Association come out against that viewpoint, in line with the World Health Organization and other major world medical organizations.

The World Health Organization does say that in WHO, 2007. But (in reference to various hypothesises related to the foreskin) they immediately go to state that: "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision [because of this]... there is little evidence for this". As for BMA, 2010: I'm failing to see how they address the sexual function, sensation, or pleasure question at all the paper. It's talking about the ethics. Which, of course, is still preserved in the body, and I support keeping in the article.

As for a RFC, I'd be happy to start one - in relation to whether the "lower-quality evidence" sentence should be in the sexual effects section. OntologicalTree (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: | The Danish Medical Association probably doesn't say what you're insisting.Stix1776 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fluent in Danish. But nothing in that (through translate) appears to reference sexual function, sensation, or pleasure at all; it's criticizing the ethics of routine circumcision. Discussion surrounding the ethics of the procedure is still present in the article. OntologicalTree (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly logically consistent to hold that 1.) Routine circumcision is unethical and should not be performed 2.) High quality evidence has suggested it has an adverse negative effect on sexual sensation, function, or pleasure. #1 appears frequently in the academic literature and amongst mainstream medical organizations; #2 is much less supported. OntologicalTree (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OntologicalTree: please stop removing sourced material without consensus. I'm sorry that I was unable to write the RfC that second, but WP:THEREISNORUSH.

I'm going to come out and say it. You're editing and language style is too similar to KlayCax, and I'm officially reporting this as a sockpuppet account. Your editing history is incredible suspicious. You made 10 quick edits to non-protected pages in a short amount of time, just to edit a semi-protected page. And your edits are almost entirely around circumcision. Unlike KlayCax, I'm actually going to send this to Sockpuppet Investigations.

How would you like the RfC question to start? Stix1776 (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that much of the articles surrounding this subject are split and schism'ed for no apparent reason. Many haven't been edited for years, have almost no daily viewership, and simply repeat information from better-quality articles.

• Does Marilyn Milos, Genital Autonomy America, and Intact America need three seperate articles? Arguably, I'd say that it could be deleted all together under WP: Notability. Similarly, does Intaction meet WP: Notability?

• Why is there seperate articles for foreskin restoration and restoration device? Do we need them for articles at all? A brief mention at foreskin seems enough.

• Are people such as Leonard Glick important enough for their own articles?

I could keep going on and on with examples. But it seems absurd that there's literally 25+ articles related to circumcision on here. Almost all of them could be merged into the existing articles, made into a brief mention, or deleted all together. OntologicalTree (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I haven't noticed, but it is a thing that happens with many contentious topics like this. There is a method for deleting, although honestly I've never done it. You may want to propose merging some of those similar articles. Stix1776 (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a RS on the economic cost of paying for the millions of circumcision procedures in ths USA each year. The medical field has an economic interest in performing circumcision which should be called out with a RS.

A trade group advocating for more medical procedures which its member doctors profit from should be included. They would hardly push for less revenue. American Association of Pediatrics is a trade group lobbying for what benefits doctors and the medical industry. It should not be portrayed as an unbiased source.

For example https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-human-foreskin-is-a-hot-commodity-in-science has tens of ways circumcision is used to further medical research, commercial drug research anf for profit businesses.

Ask: - how much money does a circumcision cost in 2022 whether on a baby newborn boy or adult? - how much total money is paid to doctors and hospitals for the procedure per year? https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/health/23consumer.html New York Times 2011 has $300 per circumcision - is there a RS where the AAP trade group adresses the for profit conflict of interest in recommending circumcision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:7CBF:736C:AC12:95E6 (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very last subsection is "Economic considerations". Would you want to add it there. Stix1776 (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the lead is a bit too long. There does seem to be an intentional effort by POV editors (editors who edit circumcision almost exclusively) to remove sourced material from the lead that they don't like. I did a quick analysis with MS-Word, and this is how much each topic takes in the lead, per character:

• Definition – 7%
• How the medical procedure is performed – 2%
• Medical benefits – 25%
• Complications – 11%
• Disagreement on benefit and ethics – 4%
• Religion – 33%
• Other (contradiction, prophylactics, religious freedom, prevalence, word history) = 18%

With such a massive chunk taken by medical benefits and religion, does it really help the article to trim the 4% from disagreements and ethics?

I propose removing some of the rarer benefits to circumcision, like "balanitis, balanoposthitis, balanitis xerotica obliterans". They're not even recommended reasons for circumcision by the WHO. Also religion needs a bit hack. Complications doesn't seem to need to be that long. Stix1776 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax:: according to MOS:LEAD, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I disagree with your arguments that we can remove controversy text and put it into the body. Anyhow, please use the talking page and don't just revert.Stix1776 (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that covering controversies is necessary, the complications section is stating the obvious. Do we really need to spell out in detail that "an inexperienced operator" is more likely to (unwittingly) cause "complications" than a trained professional, or that a lack of sterile conditions increases the likelihood of infection? Dimadick (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sourced content was removed, either. It was just moved into the body. There was no need for him to blanketly revert the edit. Tagging @Alexbrn:, @MrOllie:, @OntologicalTree:, and @Jayjg: on this, as this has been essentially the same conversation that has been going on for last four months. (Look at the top of talk page for context.) KlayCax (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support including controversies in the lead, and removing “balanitis, balanoposthitis, balanitis xerotica obliterans” as well as the complications section Dimadick mentioned. If the religion section of the lead is WP:UNDUE, I support trimming some stuff from that also. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with including controversies in the lead. But something amongst the lines of: "Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness of circumcision in developed countries" is more fitting than "The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure. There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice." The vast majority of that clearly belongs in the body. KlayCax (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think pointing out that certain international and American organizations have one view while certain European organizations have another view is an important distinction to make in the lead. I do agree that we should trim this sentence from the lead: “There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.” The accuracy of this sentence is currently disputed, so it should not be included in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed by whom, on what grounds? Last time this was brought up it seems it was dropped after noting that even the Royal Dutch Medical Association (giving the benefit of the doubt that they are 'major', which is questionable) doesn't want it made illegal. MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stix1776 brought up WP:OR concerns irrespective of what KNMG said. Their concerns still have not been fully addressed, which is part of the reason why the dispute tag remains and should remain. Please re-read that section for further clarification. Also, KNMG never said that they do not want it made illegal: “There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case.” The sentence in question should not be in the lead, or at the very least, should have its own independent dispute tag attached to it. Prcc27 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus doesn't mean unanimity on Wikipedia. We're not going to maintain a dispute tag indefinitely because of one person, nor does one person have veto power over every sentence in the article. MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know what consensus is.. You should already know that sometimes there is no consensus one way or the other. I do not think the dispute was resolved on the talk page or the noticeboard. Stix1776 created a whole list of concerns, and while everything else on that list may have only 1 user expressing concerns (and thus a dispute tag may not be needed); this particular sentence has at least 2 users, not 1 user, with concerns. Unless of course, Stix1776 no longer has WP:OR concerns? If that’s the case, I would yield. Otherwise, I think an RfC might be needed.. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I did mean to do RfC's for my points in the dispute. I apologize for not doing it, as work keeps me busy. I'd really appreciate it if anyone were to do any for me, although I'm not insisting. Stix1776 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead wording on medical community's positions:

The present wording in the lead is as follows.

The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. In these situations, questions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up, leading to ethical discussions surrounding the procedure. There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.

I suggest that it should be replaced with:

Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness relating to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries. [The rest of the paragraph's wording being moved into the body with revised wording.]

The revised wording in body being:

Major medical organizations hold widely varying perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy, bioethics, and cost-effectiveness relating to the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries. The WHO, UNAIDS, and American medical organizations generally hold the belief that the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks, while European medical organizations generally hold the belief that its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk. Discussions and disputes over prophylactic efficacy, consent, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up in these cases. [The original accidentally and unnecessarily duplicates "[bio]ethics" two times.] There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice.

(The bold above being modified.)

Penile cancer in lead:

The present wording in the lead is as follows.

It also decreases the risk of rare cancer of the penis.

I suggest that it should be replaced with:

It also decreases the risk of penile cancer.

Having "cancer of the penis" rather than "penile cancer" seems simply loquacious. I have no strong feelings on whether "rare" should be included or not. It is an extremely rare form of cancer (even severe complications resulting from circumcision appear to be way more common than phimosis-induced penile cancer.) Whatever fits editoral discretion.

World Health Organization in "elective" body section:

The present wording in the "elective" section of the body is as follows.

According to the World Health Organization, "there are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy".

I suggest it should be replaced with:

According to the World Health Organization [blockquote if real]: "There are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy, and programmes that promote early infant male circumcision are likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes targeting adolescent boys and men." [end blockquote]

"Minor issues (that I have no strong opinions on)"

• Whether to put the fact that penile cancer is "rare" in the lead
• Whether to add that "the WHO holds the belief that it carries prophylactic health benefits that outweigh small risks" in the lead.

Editors opinions:

I see all of these changes as substantive improvements to the status quo. But because these edits have been challenged by Stix1776, let's get a consensus on the talk page from recent, active editors on here. MrOllie, Alexbrn, Prcc27, Stix1776, OntologicalTree, Dimadick, Jayjg, and Markworthen, Praxidicae, how do you feel about the changes? KlayCax (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all of these are improvements to the article. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do not think it is necessary to remove the nuances between American/certain international organizations vs. European organizations. I’m okay with “There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice” being removed from the lead, albeit I’m open to keeping it if we simply remove the word “all”.
2. I do not see why we need to remove “rare”.
3. I am concerned that expanding on this may be WP:UNDUE. Didn’t PEPFAR quit circumcising infants in Africa due to studies showing that there were higher complications rates for circumcising younger boys? I am against this wording unless we also touch on this in the article. Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that the suggested changes are largely improvements. Your wording on the WHO paragraph is a better replacement for the first two sentences, though I would agree with Prcc27 that keeping “There is a consensus across major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice” (with/without all) also seems pertinent to the lead.

For the sake of 1 word, "rare" prior to either penile cancer or cancer of the penis seems reasonable to keep as otherwise it might be interpreted as a stronger indication for routine circumcision than it it. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow how cool of you to place this in another section. Please note the previous section and how little space actually exists in the lead regarding ethics and medical policy disagreements. This is clearly has nothing to do with "trimming the lead" and everything to do with KlayCax's clear POV with circumcision. I've seen too many edits where KlayCax unabashedly lies and misrepresents the sources [71] [72] to portray circumcision positively to believe that they genuinely care about the quality of this article. Why insist on removing every small source fact critical or circumcision unless you have a serious POV problem?? If you really care about cutting down the lead, why not cut where most of the actual text takes place???

Regarding the word "rare", why not just remove the cancer reference as so many medical bodies don't recommend circumcision for penile cancer. The RCOF calls penile cancer "extremely rare" and doesn't recommend the procedure for medical reasons [73]. The European Urological Association specifically does not recommend circumcision for penile cancer [74]. The British Medical Association The WHO also calls it "extremely rare" [75].

Even the most positive source for circumcision to prevent penile cancer, the AAP, is very lukewarm:

It is difficult to establish how many male circumcisions it would take to prevent a case of penile cancer, and at what cost economically and physically. One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided. However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year.122 This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications. The clinical value of the modest risk reduction from circumcision for a rare cancer is difficult to measure against the potential for complications from the procedure. In addition, these findings are likely to decrease with increasing rates of HPV vaccination in the United States. [76]

If your interests genuinely have to do with trimming the lead, why not cut out the entire cancer reference?? Stix1776 (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]