Talk:Ethics of circumcision: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:08, 12 June 2019 editMichael Glass (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,667 edits →Australasia/Australia and New Zealand: A summary should be accurate. The title should also be accurate← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:59, 17 July 2024 edit undo31.217.42.136 (talk) →Significant issues with systemic bias issues: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
(39 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/California_State_University_East_Bay/HSC_355_Bioethics_(Spring_2019) \| assignments = ] \| reviewers = ], ] \| start_date = 2019-01-21 \| end_date = 2019-05-16 }}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	{{talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=Low\|reproductive=yes\|reproductive-imp=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|importance=low\|ethics=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Men's Issues \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Body Modification \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=low}}
			}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 70K		\|maxarchivesize = 70K
	\|counter = 2		\|counter = 3
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(21d)		\|algo = old(21d)
Line 10:		Line 18:
	}}		}}
	{{archives\|auto=long\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=21}}		{{archives\|auto=long\|search=yes\|bot=MiszaBot I\|age=21}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject Medicine\|class=C\|importance=Low\|reproductive=yes\|reproductive-imp=Low}}
	{{WikiProject Philosophy\|class=stub\|importance=low\|ethics=yes}}
	{{WikiProject Men's Issues\|class=\|importance=}}
	{{WikiProject Sexuality\|class=\|importance=}}
	{{WikiProject Body Modification\|class=\|importance=}}
	{{WikiProject Human rights\|class=\|importance=}}
	{{WikiProject Religion\|class=\|importance=}}
	}}

			==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
	==Journal of Medical Ethics, July 2013==
			] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-21">21 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-05-16">16 May 2019</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ], ].

			{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	The entire issue of the July 2013 Journal of Medical Ethics is devoted to the question of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children. This page won't be complete until the contents of this very important issue of the JME is discussed.
			== Australasia/Australia and New Zealand ==

			The article used the Australian flag, which is inappropriate, because the policy document refers to both Australia and New Zealand. I have no objection to using both flags, but using the Australian flag alone is not appropriate. As for the text, a direct quotation "generally considered an ethical procedure" is more accurate than a summary which stated that infant circumcision "is ethical."
	] (]) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
	::It would need a secondary source too ] (]) 19:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

			I think that quoting from the policy is helpful in avoiding or minimising POV problems.] (]) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
	== "Medical body's views" and the "ethics of circumcision" ==
			:We are meant to summarize in our own words, not cut and paste huge slabs of content. On the web, people can always read the original if that is what they want. ] (]) 05:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
			::There's a difference between, "generally considered an ethical procedure" and "is ethical." A summary should be accurate. The title should also be accurate. Australasia includes New Zealand and Australia. The word is not a synonym of Australia. ] (]) 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
			:::I agree a summary should be accurate. ]. ] (]) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

			==Merge with "Views on circumcision"==
	It is odd to give such weight to the view of medical bodies on the ethics of circumcision. What kind of ''ethical'' expertise are we to suppose ''medical'' bodies have? ] (]) 01:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

			I propose merging this article into ] per ]. The first is essentially a subset topic of the second.
	::Usually both practitioners as well as biomedical researchers are required to at least take some coursework in ethics and basic research methodology. Additionally I would be surprised if all the research done on effects of circumcision were not put through an IRB. If you could, can you please clarify what you mean by "''ethical'' expertise?" --] (]) 03:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

			Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. ] (]) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
	==Issues==
			:How is this article redundant..? One talks about cultural and religious views, and the other talks about ethics. ] (]) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
	This edit has a lot of issues.
			::They're both subsets of the ''same general subject''. (e.g. Perspectives on circumcision) All three can easily be merged into a singular article. There's no need to fork the articles: just merge the contents. ] (]) 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::I agree with {{u\|Prcc27}}. There's no need to cram one article with content that can easily be split into ]s such as these. This isn't forking, this is offloading. ‑‑] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 23:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
			::::What do you mean by offloading? ] (]) 23:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
			:::::See ]. ‑‑] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
			:You created that article last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork. ] (]) 03:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
			::That's rather revealing. I didn't realise they did that. ‑‑] (] <b>·</b> ] <b>·</b> ]) 18:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

			==Lead and religion==
	It is full of medical claims that are poorly referenced. ] (] · ] · ]) 20:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
			{{anchor\|Prcc27}}

			Hi, {{ping\|Prcc27}}. What part of the edit are you specifically objecting to?
	== Applicability of African Trials ==
	There are a lot of issues in using these Africa trials as a basis for claiming circumcision will lower HIV infections:

			* Circumcision has become controversial in the Western world among Protestant-majority nations. (Obvious.)
	- Broader demographics show that circumcised men in several African countries had a higher rate of infection than intact men:
			* Judaism and Islam see circumcision as an ethical obligation or virtuous practice. (Obvious.)
	Reference:
			* Mandaeism, Sikhism, and certain schools of Hinduism see circumcision negatively. (Obvious.)
	Mishra V, Medley A, Hong R, Yuan Gu Y, Robey B. Levels and spread of HIV seroprevalence and associated factors: evidence from national household surveys. DHS Comparative Reports No. 22. Calverton (MD): Macro International Inc; 2009.
			* Western - particularly Protestant nations - have framed the issue as a matter of body autonomy. (Obvious.)
			* Circumcision has been treated as ethically different from FGM (and to a lesser extent) IGM/intersex genital cutting by major medical and human rights organizations. (Obvious.)

			I get that the lead shouldn't entirely be religious in nature. Yet it seems somewhat of an artificial divide to separate "religion" from "ethics" in general. Religions make ethical claims. Seeing as how a majority of the world's population follows religions that either see it as obligatory, recommended, or condemned, it seems inevitable that at least some mention is ] for the lead. No? ] (]) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	- Since the World Health Organization's programs to circumcise millions of men in sub-Saharan Africa began in Uganda and Kenya, the incidence of new cases of HIV in both countries has increased.
	Reference:
	Ministry of Health, ICF International, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Agency for International Development, WHO Uganda. Uganda AIDS Indicator Survey 2011. Kampala (Uganda): Ministry of Health; 2012.
	National AIDS Control Council, National AIDS and STD Control Programme. The Kenya AIDS epidemic: update 2011. Nairobi (Kenya): National AIDS Control Council; 2012.
	Orido G. Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections. Standard (Kenya) website. 2013 Sep 11. Available at: www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000093293/push-for-male-circumcision-in-nyanza-fails-to-reduce-infections

			:We already have an article which deals with religious views on circumcision (]). Let’s not turn this article into a coatrack. ] (]) 07:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	- It doesn't take into account 'risk compensation' which researchers fear could actually increase risk:
			::My original proposal was to merge the two articles together and create a singular "views on circumcision" page to prevent this.
	The failure of circumcision programs to lower HIV in Africa could be due to risk compensation, alterations in behavior in response to a lowering of their perceived risk. There is a trend in those communities that circumcised men believe they cannot be infected by HIV. Women prefer circumcised men believing them to be safe and HIV-free, increasing the tendency to not use a condom during sexual intercourse.
			::That being said, at least ''some'' mention of religion seems obligatory to include in the lead, as the vast majority make certain ethical claims about the procedure. ] (]) 07:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	Reference:
			:::This sentence is also heavily problematic. Is there a {{tqi\|general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action}}? What is this sourced to? What is this based on? Is this referring to the Western World? Globally?
	Orido G. Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections. Standard (Kenya) website. 2013 Sep 11. Available at: www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000093293/push-for-male-circumcision-in-nyanza-fails-to-reduce-infections
			:::Several cultures believe that ''even'' consensual circumcision is wrong. Beyond this, there is certainly not a "general consensus" that circumcision is " in developed countries". ] (]) 07:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::Maybe a few sentences in the ''body'' would be okay, as long as we could add a few sentences about ethics in the ] page. Or, even a hatnote explaining that this page is not about religion would suffice. ] (]) 07:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::Of course. I'm not sure if you're still opposed of the idea - but I think this article should be completely merged in with ] + ].
			::::All three are basically the same article artificially ]'ed. ] (]) 08:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::* Presently, the predominant ethical claims about circumcision come from religion. (Which are ''themselves ''])
			:::::* ] simply showcases the ethical viewpoints of religions. (Which are ''themselves ''])
			:::::* Ethics are ].
			:::::Readers shouldn't have to view three articles to get a comprehensive viewpoint on the subject. ] (]) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::No thanks. We already decided not to do that. {{tqi\| “You created (]) last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork.”}} ] (]) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
			:::::::What is the sentence {{tqi\|There is substantial disagreement amongst ], ], ]s, and ] over the practice of circumcision, with little in the way of a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a ] and ] intervention in ], and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action."}} based on?
			:::::::None of those things are mentioned in the statement you reverted. It also dramatically overrepresents the views of Protestant-secular cultures. ] (]) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
			::::::::I do not have access to the full article, so not sure. From what I do have access to, the source does talk about bioethicists and religious ethicists’ ethical views on circumcision. ] (]) 05:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

			==Significant issues with systemic bias issues==
	- In the trials themselves:
	- Researcher expectation bias − Many of the investigators had written papers advocating for male circumcision to prevent HIV infection prior to undertaking these RCTs. Siegfried et al. note, on the topic of research on circumcision to prevent HIV, that “researchers’ personal biases and the dominant circumcision practices of their respective countries may influence their interpretation of findings.”

			Tagging the involved editors {{ping\|Prcc27}}, {{ping\|Piccco}}, and {{ping\|Bon courage}} for this.
	- Participant expectation bias − The majority of participants were convinced that circumcision would reduce their risk of HIV infection.

			As mentioned a few months ago, the article has significant issues with neutrality/systematic bias, and nothing has changed.
	- Lead time bias − Men randomized to the intervention arm of the trials (the group that was circumcised) were considered to be at risk for becoming infected from the time of the surgery, even though they were told to avoid sexual activity during the period of wound healing. Men in the control arm (the ones who were not circumcised) were able to be sexually active from the beginning of the study.

			* '''The article states in Wikivoice that circumcision is "sexual reduction surgery" and reduces pleasure. (Seriously?)''' This has been repeatedly rejected by medical organizations.
	- Selection bias − Only men who were interested in a free circumcision were eligible to participate, and therefore may not have been representative of the general population.
			* Many of the claims in the article lack citations and make remarkably bold claims. Is there ''substantial'' mainstream controversy about the ethics of circumcision on the level of ] and other topics? Reliable sources are clear: Nope.
			* The article completely disentangles "religion" and "ethics" from one another. This is a view of the world only predominantly shared by individualist-driven, white, secular Westerners in Northern or Eastern Europe.
			* The ] for this article is completely undue and not representative of global opinion. 2,145-2,500 words in the article can be characterized as "anti-circumcision". 612 words can be characterized as "pro-circumcision". '''Meaning that the article overrepresents this opinion by 4-5x.''' The opinion (and ethical paradigm) of Westerners is near-exclusively represented. 0 words in the article are the opinions of individuals from Arabic/Islamic, Jewish, and other cultures. This is obviously not neutral.

			The article dramatically overrepresents the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner living in Northern or Eastern Europe, and is clearly written to persuade the reader. ] (]) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
	- Attrition bias − For every man who became infected with HIV during the trials, 3.5−7.4 men were lost to follow-up. This is a serious methodological problem that could alter the statistical significance of the findings.

			:I answer in good faith to clarify the confusion; this is exactly what the article was created for and is meant to present: the modern discourse around the procedure, specifically in relation to the branch of ]. This is a niche subject.
	- Early termination bias − Studies that are terminated early are more likely to overestimate any treatment effect.
			:The article is not meant to present again circumcison through the lens of religion or as a cultural practice, as this is already covered extensively in multiple articles throughout wikipedia, including in several sections of the ] article itself. You yourself have created a high-quality article (]) that is meant to present ''exactly'' that; cultural, religious, and social views on the procedure; and it does so pretty effectively; so well-done for creating this. There is also the article of: ], ], ], ], etc. or the more specific ones: ], ], and ]. Evidently, the viewpoints and attitudes of various cultures are ''far'' from being underrepresented in wikipedia. In fact, they all have their very own articles. Yet, we don't complaint that these articles do not equally present the viewpoint of ''white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner...'' As such, repeating information from these articles here, especially in the lead, is WP:COATRACK, WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:LEADBOMB.

			:The article encompasses views of medical organizations from many countries around the world. If there are medical bodies from other countries that expressly discuss ethics in their policies, then it seems acceptable to add their views among the rest.
	- Duration bias − Because men who were not initially circumcised were circumcised at the end of the study, long-term comparison of the effects cannot be accurately extrapolated, as some modelers have proposed.
			:The article didn't claim that there is "mainstream controversy", but simply that there is substantial disagreement around the ethics of the procedure within certain circles, which seems true. I was under the impression that this wording was added by you.

			:Perhaps a hatnote that links to the article of religious and cultural views could be added in order to direct the reader there, if this is what are looking for. ] (]) 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
	- Source of infection unknown − If the studies were designed to determine whether circumcision reduced the risk of heterosexually-transmitted HIV, the investigators should have confirmed that the infections were indeed transmitted through heterosexual sexual contact. They did not. Using the data reported, it is estimated that about half of the infections of the men in these studies were not sexually transmitted.
			::What needs to happen in that case, is that the article needs to rest on sources which take an overview of the ethical debate. Wha seems to have happened instead is that editors have decided which ethical takes to include (primary statements). A huge trim is needed. ] (]) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

			:::{{ping\|Bon courage}}. According ], this page has been overwhelmingly edited by ], an editor known for {{tqi\|"inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles"}}. ] (]) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
	- The cumulative treatment effect in these trials – which claimed a 38-66% relative risk reduction – was an absolute risk reduction of 1.3%. This is a very small effect, which could easily have resulted from the various forms of bias, rather than being a true treatment effect. The findings are not robust, given that all of the trials had nearly identical methodologies and nearly identical results.
			::::{{tqi\|All of these accounts are SPA/near-SPA for Australian psychologist Gregory John Boyle and related topics. What has called my attention to this set of socks is anti-circumcision advocacy; Boyle is an anti-circumcision advocate and very concerned with child abuse per Gregory_John_Boyle#Children.27s_rights. Also per this section of the Boyle article, an avid bag-piper, which explains some of the sock activity. These accounts also have the odd habit of creating a blank userpage (MFC728 (diff); DanceFreeRun diff); Beatrix12 (diff); CorrectReferences (diff); WritingRescue diff)) or some variation of "just here to help" (Piobair123 (diff); PetaFixer (diff))}}

			:::: It was additionally noted that {{tqi\|If you look at some of the socked articles, you can see that they have had a massive effect; this is true of most articles they have worked on (yikes). }}. ] (]) 18:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
	As with other STIs, there is no evidence that circumcision has had any impact on lowering the incidence of HIV infection in the United States. Of the eight HIV studies in North American heterosexual men, only one has found a significant association between circumcision and HIV infection risk: it actually found that circumcised men were at greater risk of HIV infection. Furthermore, the HIV epidemic in the United States is concentrated among men who have sex with men (MSM) and injecting drug users. A meta-analysis of the studies published on this topic by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the risk for HIV infection in MSM is the same in intact and circumcised men. A subsequent study yielded similar results.
			:::: ], ], and other articles surrounding circumcision also appear to be strongly/overwhelmingly written by the sockpuppets. ] (]) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

			:::::Accidentally saved my edit tweaking the bias tag before I could finalize the edit summary. But we should not put our own POV in the tag reasoning, save that for the talk. ] (]) 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
	RCTs carried out among adults in Africa are not relevant to children anywhere, since children are not sexually active and are therefore not at risk of HIV infection by sexual transmission. For adults, condoms are an effective means of preventing sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Other preventative interventions, such as “treatment as prevention” and pre-exposure prophylaxis, are more effective, less expensive, and less injurious than circumcision.
			::::::I have removed the POV template as this discussion seems to have gone stale. ] (]) 05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

	93. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, Deeks J, Egger M, Low N, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;3:CD003362.
	94. Wilson NL, Xiong W, Mattson CL. Is sex like driving? HIV prevention and risk compensation. J Dev Econ. 2014;106:78-91.
	95. Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, Sun X, Johnston BC, Busse JW, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ. 2012;344:e2809.
	96. Pocock S, White I. Trials stopped early: too good to be true? Lancet. 1999;353:943-4.
	97. Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, et al. Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2010;303:1180-7.
	98. Williams BG, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, Hankins C, Getz WM, Hargrove J, et al. The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e262.
	99. Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;2:CD003362.
	100. Mishra V, Medley A, Hong R, Yuan Gu Y, Robey B. Levels and spread of HIV seroprevalence and associated factors: evidence from national household surveys. DHS Comparative Reports No. 22. Calverton (MD): Macro International Inc; 2009.
	101. Garenne M. Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J AIDS Res. 2008;7:1-8.
	102. Ministry of Health, ICF International, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Agency for International Development, WHO Uganda. Uganda AIDS Indicator Survey 2011. Kampala (Uganda): Ministry of Health; 2012.
	103. National AIDS Control Council, National AIDS and STD Control Programme. The Kenya AIDS epidemic: update 2011. Nairobi (Kenya): National AIDS Control Council; 2012.
	104. Orido G. Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections. Standard (Kenya) website. 2013 Sep 11. Available at: www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000093293/push-for-male-circumcision-in-nyanza-fails-to-reduce-infections
	105. WHO/UNAIDS Technical Consultation. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: research implications for policy and programming. Conclusions and recommendations. 2007 March.
	106. Chiasson MA, Stoneburner RL, Hildebrandt DS, Ewing WE, Telzak EE, Jaffe HW. Heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 associated with the use of smokable freebase cocaine (crack). AIDS. 1991;5:1121-6.
	107. Telzak EE, Chiasson MA, Bevier PJ, Stoneburner RL, Castro KG, Jaffe HW. HIV-1 seroconversion in patients with and without genital ulcer disease. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119:1181-6.
	108. Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA. 1997;277:1052-7.
	109. Thomas AG, Bakhireva LN, Brodline SK Shaffer RA. Prevalence of circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a male US Navy population. San Diego (CA): Naval Health Research Center. Report No. 04-10; 2004.
	110. Mor Z, Kent CK, Kohn RP, Klausner JD. Declining rates in male circumcision amidst increasing evidence of its public health benefit. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(9):e861.
	111. Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman DR, Macaluso M, Sullivan PS, Erbelding EJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual African American men attending Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinics. J Infect Dis. 2009;199:59-65.
	112. Rodriguez-Diaz CE, Clatts MC, Jovet-Toledo GG, Vargas-Molina RL, Goldsamt LA, García H. More than foreskin: circumcision status, history of HIV/STI, and sexual risk in a clinic-based sample of men in Puerto Rico. J Sex Med. 2012;9:2933-7.
	113. Millett GA, Flores SA, Marks G, Reed JB, Herbst JH. Circumcision status and risk of HIV and sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men. JAMA. 2008;300:1674-84. Errata JAMA. 2009;301:1126-9.
	114. Crosby RA, Graham CA, Mena L, Yarber WL, Sanders SA, Milhausen RR, et al. Circumcision status is not associated with condom use and prevalence of sexually transmitted infections among young black MSM. AIDS Behav. 2015 Oct 7. Epub ahead of print.
	115. Szabo R, Short RV. How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? BMJ. 2000; 320(7249):1592-4.
	116. de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, Fluitsma D, de Jong MAWP, de Gruijl T, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med. 2007;3:367-71.
	117. de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(6):341-6.
	118. Lima V, Anema A, Wood R, Moore D, Harrigan R, Mills E, et al. The combined impact of male circumcision, condom use and HAART coverage on the HIV-1 epidemic in South Africa: a mathematical model. 5th IAS Conference on HIV Treatment, Pathogenesis and Prevention, Cape Town, abstract WECA105; 2009.
	119. Donnell D, Baeten JM, Kiarie J, Thomas KK, Stevens W, Cohen CR, et al. Heterosexual HIV-1 transmission after initiation of antiretroviral therapy: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet. 2010;375(9731):2092-8.

	] (]) 14:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
	:Or, more simply, reflect reliable sources. As we do. ] (]) 18:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

	Honestly I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying the entirety of all the sources above are not reliable? ] (]) 19:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
	:Many are not ]. Basically this just looks like a typical POV-push backed by a laughable ] that will be rightly ignored. Succinct proposals, based on ], for improving the article, would OTOH be welcome. ] (]) 19:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

	== Australasia/Australia and New Zealand ==

	The article used the Australian flag, which is inappropriate, because the policy document refers to both Australia and New Zealand. I have no objection to using both flags, but using the Australian flag alone is not appropriate. As for the text, a direct quotation "generally considered an ethical procedure" is more accurate than a summary which stated that infant circumcision "is ethical."

	I think that quoting from the policy is helpful in avoiding or minimising POV problems.] (]) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
	:We are meant to summarize in our own words, not cut and paste huge slabs of content. On the web, people can always read the original if that is what they want. ] (]) 05:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
	::There's a difference between, "generally considered an ethical procedure" and "is ethical." A summary should be accurate. The title should also be accurate. Australasia includes New Zealand and Australia. The word is not a synonym of Australia. ] (]) 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:59, 17 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ethics of circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance

	Medicine portal 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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics

Men's Issues Low‑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 Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Body Modification (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

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages'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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iadao. Peer reviewers: Leah611, Beedizzle21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Australasia/Australia and New Zealand

The article used the Australian flag, which is inappropriate, because the policy document refers to both Australia and New Zealand. I have no objection to using both flags, but using the Australian flag alone is not appropriate. As for the text, a direct quotation "generally considered an ethical procedure" is more accurate than a summary which stated that infant circumcision "is ethical."

I think that quoting from the policy is helpful in avoiding or minimising POV problems.Michael Glass (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

We are meant to summarize in our own words, not cut and paste huge slabs of content. On the web, people can always read the original if that is what they want. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between, "generally considered an ethical procedure" and "is ethical." A summary should be accurate. The title should also be accurate. Australasia includes New Zealand and Australia. The word is not a synonym of Australia. Michael Glass (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree a summary should be accurate. WP:SOFIXIT. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge with "Views on circumcision"

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

Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

How is this article redundant..? One talks about cultural and religious views, and the other talks about ethics. Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

They're both subsets of the same general subject. (e.g. Perspectives on circumcision) All three can easily be merged into a singular article. There's no need to fork the articles: just merge the contents. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc27. There's no need to cram one article with content that can easily be split into WP:SUBARTICLEs such as these. This isn't forking, this is offloading. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by offloading? KlayCax (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SIZESPLIT. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You created that article last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's rather revealing. I didn't realise they did that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and religion

Hi, @Prcc27:. What part of the edit are you specifically objecting to?

Circumcision has become controversial in the Western world among Protestant-majority nations. (Obvious.)
Judaism and Islam see circumcision as an ethical obligation or virtuous practice. (Obvious.)
Mandaeism, Sikhism, and certain schools of Hinduism see circumcision negatively. (Obvious.)
Western - particularly Protestant nations - have framed the issue as a matter of body autonomy. (Obvious.)
Circumcision has been treated as ethically different from FGM (and to a lesser extent) IGM/intersex genital cutting by major medical and human rights organizations. (Obvious.)

I get that the lead shouldn't entirely be religious in nature. Yet it seems somewhat of an artificial divide to separate "religion" from "ethics" in general. Religions make ethical claims. Seeing as how a majority of the world's population follows religions that either see it as obligatory, recommended, or condemned, it seems inevitable that at least some mention is WP: DUE for the lead. No? KlayCax (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We already have an article which deals with religious views on circumcision (Views on circumcision). Let’s not turn this article into a coatrack. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My original proposal was to merge the two articles together and create a singular "views on circumcision" page to prevent this.

That being said, at least some mention of religion seems obligatory to include in the lead, as the vast majority make certain ethical claims about the procedure. KlayCax (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This sentence is also heavily problematic. Is there a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action? What is this sourced to? What is this based on? Is this referring to the Western World? Globally?

Several cultures believe that even consensual circumcision is wrong. Beyond this, there is certainly not a "general consensus" that circumcision is " in developed countries". KlayCax (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a few sentences in the body would be okay, as long as we could add a few sentences about ethics in the views on circumcision page. Or, even a hatnote explaining that this page is not about religion would suffice. Prcc27 (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not sure if you're still opposed of the idea - but I think this article should be completely merged in with religion and circumcision + views on circumcision.

All three are basically the same article artificially WP: FORK'ed. KlayCax (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Presently, the predominant ethical claims about circumcision come from religion. (Which are themselves views on circumcision)
Religion and circumcision simply showcases the ethical viewpoints of religions. (Which are themselves views on circumcision)
Ethics are views on circumcision.

Readers shouldn't have to view three articles to get a comprehensive viewpoint on the subject. KlayCax (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. We already decided not to do that. “You created (views on circumcision) last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork.” Prcc27 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the sentence There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists, theologians, philosophers, and doctors over the practice of circumcision, with little in the way of a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action." based on?

None of those things are mentioned in the statement you reverted. It also dramatically overrepresents the views of Protestant-secular cultures. KlayCax (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not have access to the full article, so not sure. From what I do have access to, the source does talk about bioethicists and religious ethicists’ ethical views on circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Significant issues with systemic bias issues

Tagging the involved editors @Prcc27:, @Piccco:, and @Bon courage: for this.

As mentioned a few months ago, the article has significant issues with neutrality/systematic bias, and nothing has changed.

The article states in Wikivoice that circumcision is "sexual reduction surgery" and reduces pleasure. (Seriously?) This has been repeatedly rejected by medical organizations.
Many of the claims in the article lack citations and make remarkably bold claims. Is there substantial mainstream controversy about the ethics of circumcision on the level of abortion and other topics? Reliable sources are clear: Nope.
The article completely disentangles "religion" and "ethics" from one another. This is a view of the world only predominantly shared by individualist-driven, white, secular Westerners in Northern or Eastern Europe.
The WP: WEIGHT for this article is completely undue and not representative of global opinion. 2,145-2,500 words in the article can be characterized as "anti-circumcision". 612 words can be characterized as "pro-circumcision". Meaning that the article overrepresents this opinion by 4-5x. The opinion (and ethical paradigm) of Westerners is near-exclusively represented. 0 words in the article are the opinions of individuals from Arabic/Islamic, Jewish, and other cultures. This is obviously not neutral.

The article dramatically overrepresents the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner living in Northern or Eastern Europe, and is clearly written to persuade the reader. KlayCax (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I answer in good faith to clarify the confusion; this is exactly what the article was created for and is meant to present: the modern discourse around the procedure, specifically in relation to the branch of ethics. This is a niche subject.

The article is not meant to present again circumcison through the lens of religion or as a cultural practice, as this is already covered extensively in multiple articles throughout wikipedia, including in several sections of the circumcision article itself. You yourself have created a high-quality article (Views on circumcision) that is meant to present exactly that; cultural, religious, and social views on the procedure; and it does so pretty effectively; so well-done for creating this. There is also the article of: Circumcsion in Africa, Religion and cirumcision, Circumcision in early Christianity, Circumcision of Jesus, etc. or the more specific ones: Brit Milah, Khitan, and Tuli. Evidently, the viewpoints and attitudes of various cultures are far from being underrepresented in wikipedia. In fact, they all have their very own articles. Yet, we don't complaint that these articles do not equally present the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner... As such, repeating information from these articles here, especially in the lead, is WP:COATRACK, WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:LEADBOMB.

The article encompasses views of medical organizations from many countries around the world. If there are medical bodies from other countries that expressly discuss ethics in their policies, then it seems acceptable to add their views among the rest.

The article didn't claim that there is "mainstream controversy", but simply that there is substantial disagreement around the ethics of the procedure within certain circles, which seems true. I was under the impression that this wording was added by you.

Perhaps a hatnote that links to the article of religious and cultural views could be added in order to direct the reader there, if this is what are looking for. Piccco (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What needs to happen in that case, is that the article needs to rest on sources which take an overview of the ethical debate. Wha seems to have happened instead is that editors have decided which ethical takes to include (primary statements). A huge trim is needed. Bon courage (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage:. According to page statistics, this page has been overwhelmingly edited by sockpuppets of HRS395, an editor known for "inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles". KlayCax (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All of these accounts are SPA/near-SPA for Australian psychologist Gregory John Boyle and related topics. What has called my attention to this set of socks is anti-circumcision advocacy; Boyle is an anti-circumcision advocate and very concerned with child abuse per Gregory_John_Boyle#Children.27s_rights. Also per this section of the Boyle article, an avid bag-piper, which explains some of the sock activity. These accounts also have the odd habit of creating a blank userpage (MFC728 (diff); DanceFreeRun diff); Beatrix12 (diff); CorrectReferences (diff); WritingRescue diff)) or some variation of "just here to help" (Piobair123 (diff); PetaFixer (diff))

It was additionally noted that If you look at some of the socked articles, you can see that they have had a massive effect; this is true of most articles they have worked on (yikes).. KlayCax (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Foreskin restoration, circumcision controversies, and other articles surrounding circumcision also appear to be strongly/overwhelmingly written by the sockpuppets. KlayCax (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Accidentally saved my edit tweaking the bias tag before I could finalize the edit summary. But we should not put our own POV in the tag reasoning, save that for the talk. Prcc27 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the POV template as this discussion seems to have gone stale. 31.217.42.136 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: