Talk:Circumcision

Risk - boy dies following circumcision

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

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

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

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

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

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

N Someone please add the "Torture" category to this article

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

---

I am asking someone else to do it since the article is protected so that logged out users cannot edit it. I just learned that I was forcibly circumcision as a baby, and it has been responsible for various spurts of pain in my life for years at this points and still sometimes ongoing. This article really deserves the category. 71.179.173.156 (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If we're going off of personal anecdotes, then here's mine: after learning that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men who have sex with men, I was grateful my parents had it done years before I came out. None of the pain, but all of the benefits. Thus I propose this article be placed under the "medical miracles" category. Clearly, personal anecdotes and "I don't like it" aren't reasons to change an article's category. ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Text

Were does the ref support this

"Opponents cite the importance of the foreskin in various biological processes."

Doyle D (October 2005). "Ritual male circumcision: a brief history". The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. 35 (3): 279–285. PMID 16402509.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

____

Hi Doc_James (talk · contribs),

Thank you for uncovering this error. It would appear I had inadvertently used the citation twice. The other citation by Author Steve Scott is more informative. For example, the foreskin (also referred to as the prepuce) is said to serve all of, but not limited to the following functions: 1) This tissue serves to accommodate the corpora cavernosa (the sacs that fill with blood during erection), the veins facilitate the flow of blood into and out of the penis before, during and after an erection as well as offering a mechanical gliding motion which improves lubricity of the penis. I will add additional sources and revise my earlier changes.

I will also remark that the removal of the following paragraph: "Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa.[10][11] Consequently, the WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV such as sub-Saharan Africa.[12] There is also some evidence for circumcision reducing HIV infection risk for men who have sex with men.[13] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear.[14] Circumcision is associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[15][16] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[4] Prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants.[1][17] Studies of other sexually transmitted infections are suggestive that circumcision is protective. A 2010 review found circumcisions performed by medical providers to have a typical complication rate of 1.5% for babies and 6% for older children, with few cases of severe complications.[18] Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common complications cited.[18] Complication rates are higher when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or in older children.[18] Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.[19][20]"

Is merited not only due to its verbosity in the introduction, but also its redundancy.

The main points can be pilfered into the following:

1) HIV benefits discussion

- This point is redundant and discussed in detail in the effects section.

2) HPV

- Also redundant, discussed in effects.

3) UTIs

- Also redundant, discussed in effects.

4) General STD prevention

- Redundant, see effects.

5) STI

- Redundant, see effects.

6) Complications

- Redundant, see adverse effects.

7)Sexual Function

-See Sexual effects

Minimally, this entire paragraph needs re-writing, but it seems more efficient and informative for this information to be read with context, rather than be summarized. Therefore, I will again remove it. I expect no less than line by line refutation for any points of disagreement.

Hotpass105 (talk)

The question is what wording in what reference supports the text? Please quote the wording and provide a url to the source.

The other paragraph is perfectly fine as it is excellently supported by references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doc_James (talk · contribs),

You may have noticed I am quite new as far as edits go, so thank you for being patient with me. Rest assured, I am reviewing this source and will offer greater detail in the next hour or so. I'll also add a bit of my subjective thoughts here, so you better understand why these changes were made.

EDIT: I am still unsatisfied with the quality of my edits. I revise and rework the entire paragraph to better integrate with the entire article.

Best, Hotpass105 (talk)

@Hotpass105, please review WP:LEDE; material in an article's lede should summarize material in the article. Unique material should not be introduced into the lede. Also, please review WP:BRD: an editor here has objected to your edits, and removed the material and brought it to the talk page; therefore you should discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus, before attempting to reintroduce the material to the article. Please revert your edits, and develop a consensus here with other editors, before making any changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk · contribs),

I appreciate your concerns. I have reverted and am undergoing a MAJOR rework. Currently this page does not reflect the format or character of an article meant to represent a medical procedure. Please stand by as this may take some time.

I will be meticulous in observing WP:LEDE. I understand it is very important.

Thanks for your help,

Hotpass105 (talk)

Thanks User:Hotpass105, I'm sure that will make the discussions here go much more smoothly. Regarding a medical article like this, I strongly recommend reviewing WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS; it is unlikely, for example, that a source from 1999 (which I see you attempted to introduce), will meet those standards. Also, Wikipedia has conventions regarding Talk page formatting, which make it easy to understand and follow conversations; please review WP:THREAD. Wikipedia is a complicated place, so there's a lot of reading and learning required to get up to speed, but once you do that, I'm sure you'll find editing here rewarding. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Also note that this is a well developed article that has passed peer review. Changing will likely require discussion before you make them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

What is wrong with this?

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

@Doc James: That's why the first paragraph states: The procedure is most often an elective surgery performed on babies and children, for religious or cultural reasons. The article already states that it's elective, which is a position that is supported by the CDC AUA and AAFP. Inclusion of this second sentence is redundant, and worse, this sentence passes a moral judgement on "routine circumcision". If you changed it to something like "John smith does not consider this to be justification for x", then it would at least abide by WP:NPOV. However, its placement would still violate WP:DUEWEIGHT and the rules of English grammar/style. While it's true that my sources don't state that "it should be a routine neonatal procedure" they also list major advantages to the procedure, and don't state that "it shouldn't be a routine procedure". 3 > 1. In fact, 5 > 1; there are 5 sources that favor infant circumcision (with or without calling for it to be routine), you include WHO and UNAIDS recommendations, which are listed in this very article: Circumcision. To this end, I have an idea of moving it conceptually to the preceding paragraph on ethical concerns. Something along the lines of "some/x believe that the benefits of the procedure do not justify it being routine"? Perhaps? Thoughts? ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: WP:SYNTH. Source 17 [2] neither supports nor states that it is "not a justification for routine circumcision". In fact, source 17 mildly supports the claim that there is evidence of circumcision preventing cancer (the sentence prior to this). Source 11 does not appear to support the claim that there is a "lack of justification" either. Furthermore, the sentence is out of place with with respect to the sentences surrounding it. In that sentence the tone of the entire article is flipped (from neutrality to condemnation) but then the tone reverts following the sentence. When doing a read through of the article (top to bottom) this particular sentence stands out as being jarringly out of place. Perhaps if the statement were properly quoted and attributed to an individual, and the article stated something to the effect of some people such as Jax Doe believe that "this does not provide a justification for routine circumcision", then it might be acceptable where it is (as it no longer breaks WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SYNTH), but even then it would still be better suited for the ethics sections. Moreover, the statement that the "prevention of those conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants" is directly contradicted by the WHO and UNAIDS reports and recommendations, given they recommend it be routine (in areas with a high prevalence of HIV) due to those very reasons. ElectroChip123 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The other source says "Although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision."

Trimmed the cancer.org source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Ok, but if that's the only source for that sentence then it is redundant to the better sourced paragraph on ethical concerns that precedes it. In fact, it should be moved entirely to the ethical concerns section, else we risk creating redundancies within the article (stating it the same in both the leading section and the ethical concerns section). On a more fundamental level, there is also the matter of maintaining a Neutral Point of View.

Per WP:NPOV we are to:

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

In this case the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, make assertions that conflict with it. Given that the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, are generally considered to be reliable sources, that would mean that claiming that the listed medical benefits to circumcision are not justification for it being routine, is, in fact, an opinion.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Stating that "these medical reasons are not justification for ..." is does exactly the same thing as stating that "genocide is an evil action". Even if most people believed that routine male circumcision was a moral wrong, or unjustified, we still could not claim that "those reasons do not justify routine circumcision". At its core, the problem is that, as it stands, the sentence is still presenting as fact that which is actually an opinion. One that the CDC (one of, if not the, largest national health organization in the Western World) disagrees with (per [3]).

Are there ethical concerns about routine male circumcision? Yes. Is the second paragraph, and an entire subsection of the article, dedicated to those very concerns? Also yes. Since we already dedicated a paragraph to ethical concerns, before the paragraph on health benefits, and we have an entire section dedicated to them elsewhere in the article, there is no neutral reason to include this "counter claim" as fact. Furthermore, seeing as it (the sentence) uses the voice of Wikipedia to pass a moral judgement, it violates WP:NPOV. Moreover, the official policy guideline for WP:5P2 states: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Even if I wanted to, whether I like it or not, I'm not allowed to violate this guideline. Furthermore, WP:IAR does not apply to this policy because it's "non-negotiable". It's what Wikipedia is, and we all have a duty to uphold it. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide the ref that supports this "In this case the CDC, WHO, and UNAIDS, make assertions that conflict with it."? Ie can you provide a ref that says routine male circumcision is supported for medical reasons in the Western world?

Scientific American quoting Reuters quoting supposedly a US Federal Draft guideline is NOT the CDC. We do not base Wikipedia on drafts. When the final document comes out we can definitely consider it. I agree the CDC is an excellent source but we would use them directly.

@Doc James: Reuters is considered a reliable source via WP:RSP, that is why I stopped when I got to the Scientific American article.

You have not provided any evidence that this breaches NPOV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I did, but you deleted it in this revision and I don't know why. ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and Doc James: In any case, here are a few more as well: The American Academy of Family Physicians [4], the actual CDC [5] (77% reduction in penile cancer rates), and even the American Urological Association [6] (re-affirmed in 2018, I'd say that's recent). ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The first ref by AAFP says "The decision whether to circumcise a newborn male is affected by parents’ values and beliefs and should be made by parents after a discussion of the benefits and harms." It does not say that we should be recommending routine circumcision based on potential health benefits.

The AUA also does not recommend routine circumcision. "When circumcision is being discussed with parents and informed consent obtained, medical benefits and risks, and ethnic, cultural, religious and individual preferences should be considered." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: that's a far cry from "prevention of these... is not a justification". This isn't a mathematical proof, one cannot just claim that "x isn't justified" here. Furthermore, at least one of my sources stated that it should be covered by insruance

A recommendation that something be covered by insurance does not mean that it is recommended for potential health benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn and Doc James: First off, Doc James inexplicably removed the link I had provided to a source that refutes the disputed sentence in this revision to the talk page. Perhaps he could explain how this action was justified, and not an attempt to remove content that contradicts his source? Secondly, to me, the fact that the contested sentence uses Wikipedia's voice (rather than the author's voice) to assert a moral stance, it clearly violates the NPOV guidelines. For this reason, I ask if either of you prove that the contested sentence doesn't violate WP:NPOV? ElectroChip123 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Link to scientific america was removed in error. You still have not provided any source that says routine neonatal circumcision is recommended in the Western world for medical reasons.

@Doc James: Hence why I put (mistake?) in my responsorial edit summary. Secondly, did you read the CDC source? It makes it quite clear that it is a recommended/beneficial practice, and that it is best done on neonates rather than later on in life. What part of "The potential health benefits from circumcision justify it being a covered medical service by third-party payers" doesn't conflict with stating "the reasons don't justify it"? With all due respect, we are giving undue weight to the notion that it isn't beneficial, given that there are dozens of listed benefits, and its only drawback is a small risk of a surgical complication. To boldly make the claim, in Wikipedia's Voice no less, that "it's not justified in the Western World", is as misleading as it is factually incorrect. The cancer data includes stuff from the United States, and a 77% drop in cancer risk is, well, extremely statistically significant, given the massive sample size. If that book you cited had claimed that "cleft pallet correction surgery is not justified in the western world" (it has a similar ratio of benefits to drawbacks) I think we would all agree that it isn't a reliable source, and should not be included at all, let alone keeping a psuedo-quote of it passing judgment on the procedure. Frankly, the sentence reads as an attempt to pacify "Intactivists" that visit this article. In fact, they probably point to that sentence and say "see, it's right here on Wikipedia, even they have passed judgement on your mistaken judgement to have your child circumcised". The key problem being: judgment. We. Aren't. Allowed. To. Judge. If we can't even judge genocide how on God's green Earth are we supposed to judge circumcision. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You could try a RfC if you like. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• What we have seems in line with the source quoted ("Although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision"). I see no problem WP:ASSERTing this. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: "the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited" is patently false. At least, per the American Academy of Family Physicians [7], the CDC [8] (77% reduction in penile cancer rates, in America), and the American Urological Association [9]. While it is true to assert that "no national or international medical association currently advocates mandatory neonatal circumcision" (emphasis mine), it is not true that they assert that "routine circumcision isn't justified" or to assert "the arguments... have been discredited". All of the American sources indicate that circumcision is to be viewed as elective and routine. Routine, because they are a standard/common medical practice with low risks, elective, because the pros and cons should be evaluated before making the decision. Moreover, it makes more sense to move the sentence in conflict to the "Ethical concerns" paragraph that precedes it, rather than leave it in the middle of the "medical benefits" paragraph. It doesn't fit the paragraph that it is in, but it would complement the ethical concerns section and summary paragraph. The way it's laid out currently, it synthesizes the analysis of the CDC, WHO, and others, and draws a conclusion as to whether it is justified as being a routine procedure. It's also hard to say that it's not a "routine procedure", given that colonoscopies and wart removal are both "routine procedures". The data I have linked to does, in fact, establish that it is best to get circumcision done within the first 9 months after birth (lowest risk of complication, greatest amount of benefit). If it's not a "routine medical procedure", then what exactly is it? An invasive medical procedure? An emergency medical procedure? An intensive medical procedure? It's categorically routine, especially in the Western Hemisphere. In closing, I have changed my mind on completely deleting the sentenced, but I think it should be moved to the "ethical concerns" paragraph (of the lead), rather than remain in the "benefits/drawbacks" paragraph (of the lead). I also disagree with reclassifying it as something other than routine. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, we go by what reliable sources say, not by what some random editor (i.e. you) asserts is "patently" so. Alexbrn (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: So, the CDC, AUA, and AAFP aren't reliable? [10] [11] [12]. To quote Flonase, "and three is greater than one". ElectroChip123 (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

---

A New Way Forward

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

Proposal

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

Reasoning

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

Thoughts?

• Not an improvement, and deviates from the source with editorial weasel-wording ("some believe"). I'm not seeing anyone agree there's a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Summary

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

@Doc James: Based on the diffs and revision history, the three of you are also the ones who most closely watch and frequently edit this page. You may be right about a consensus, but for that I would like to see an RfC involving editors other than those who frequently edit this page. It's great that there are people looking out for this page, but that can lead to the "everything is fine the way it is; no touching" philosophy displayed. Over time, I gradually compromised on a course of action, rather than removing the sentence, I can move it to a better paragraph, and with more sources, I can frame it in the context of the debate over circumcision in the West, thereby giving the sentence more relevance. Meanwhile, the three of you haven't even agreed that "maybe it could be phrased better", and you haven't even conceded that it's actually a direct quote, rather than an assertion, and you haven't even considered how the sentence is redundant in the context of the other paragraphs and sentences, especially The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children as having no benefit and significant risks, to its having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks.[7] No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision of all males or banning the procedure.[7] Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for justification as to keeping it unchanged and where it is. Why is a position in the section that is clearly labeled as "benefits and side effects"? Can any of you give me even 1 reason? or is it just "we think it should be, and we are the Supreme Cabal of Wikipedia"?.

This is a WP:GA and your proposed changes would worsen it by taking us away from decent sourcing. With your cabal references you have gone over the line into stupidity. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole debacle crossed that line a while ago, when none of you could justify the inclusion of that sentence with anything other than "my 1 RS said so" (I have three+ for my edits) and "the others are ok with it, why aren't you" (that's not how it works here). Furthermore, how does "Circumcision is particularly controversial in Western countries, where the benefits are more equivalent to the risks and it is considered a "non-essential" procedure.[5][10][11]", which has WP:THREE sources, not improve the article? How do the changes make it less readable? How do they make it any less of a Good Article? Moreover, I didn't even remove your source, I merely put it into its proper context. It relates to the positions of national and international organizations, so I moved it to the paragraph on the positions of national and international organizations. Since the CDC clearly promotes it as a beneficial, but elective, procedure, stating/WP:Asserting that "it isn't justified as a routine procedure" is actually very contestable. I would like to see more sources before we go about asserting "not justification" in the "Evidence and Side Effects" paragraph. If we fix stuff like this, we could probably bring this article up to "featured" status. ElectroChip123 (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You want to replace:

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

With:

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

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

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

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

@Doc James: I want to replace

Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa.[10][11] Consequently, the WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV such as sub-Saharan Africa.[12] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear,[13] however there is some evidence that circumcision reduces HIV infection risk for men who have sex with men.[14] Circumcision is also associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[15][16] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[3] Prevention of these conditions is not a justification for routine circumcision of infants in the Western world.[5]

With:

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

Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa.[12][13] Consequently, the WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in areas with high rates of HIV such as sub-Saharan Africa.[14] The effectiveness of using circumcision to prevent HIV in the developed world is unclear,[15] however there is some evidence that circumcision reduces HIV infection risk for men who have sex with men.[16] Circumcision is also associated with reduced rates of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV),[17][18] UTIs, and cancer of the penis.[3]

@Doc James: I no longer desire to "remove" the sentence in its entirety. Through these discussions I have come to agree with the initial reversions you did (when I completely deleted the sentence). That said, I strongly believe that it works better in the paragraph on positions (which currently does not highlight the increased debate in the West), than in the paragraph on evidence and side effects. Currently, my problem is that it is in the wrong place, not that it exists. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Help finding a citation

As part of my edits to the "positions" paragraph (which I mistakenly/embarrassingly referred to as "ethics" in my last series of comments), I came across this sentence: "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering elective circumcision of babies and children to have modest health benefits that outweighs small risks[7], to having no benefit and significant risks.[citation needed]". At the time, neither claim was sourced, however as a part of my edits I had already located a source which backs up the "beneficial" claim (source [7] is a CDC publication). However, I don't know of a source which claims that "circumcision has no benefit and has significant risks". I know that it is a major view/position, however I haven't located a source for it (yet). At the moment I am only seeking one citation, so that I can finish polishing the lead, however I may need more for when I go to re-write the "Elective" section (which discusses those who oppose it 4x as much as it mentions its proponents). ElectroChip123 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes a reference supports two sentence in a row. There is no rule that a reference must occur after every single sentence when two subsequent sentence are supported by the same ref.

I have added the ref in question to clarify for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you! ElectroChip123 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)