Talk:Circumcision

Include Medical Associations Finding No Benefit from or Harmful Effects

Multiple national medical associations find no benefit, harmful effects, ethical questions or autonomy with circumcision and should be included here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law has them with citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E16B:8F99:2E98:D408 (talk) 06:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Please add the following sentence (within Ethical and Legal Issues, end of 4th paragraph)- "Parental preference is typically solidified well before the birth of the newborn boy. Even when presented with the risks and benefits during pregnancy, parents still mostly maintain their prior desires to circumcise or not." [citation here DOI: 10.1177/0009922809346569 ] Nobarney98 (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That's a pretty strong statement for a survey with 340 responses. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Circumcision equated with genital mutilation

@KlayCax: I mentioned that circumcision has been described as genital mutilation and provided two sources, and created a new paragraph in the lead on the ethical controversies concerning circumcision (as opposed to the controversies on its alleged health benefits). You reverted my changes since you deem that "This article is about circumcision in general: not the routine imposition of it for cultural, religious, or alleged prophylactic health benefits." I can't follow your logic:

• Since the article is about circumcision in general, the lead section, of course, should summarize all aspects of the subject: given the debates raised by this practice, I see no reason to omit the controversy about its status as mutilation.
• Your statement that circumcision is distinct from "the routine imposition of it for cultural, religious, or alleged prophylactic health benefits." is a fallacy, since, as the article states, "The procedure plays a central role in many cultures and religions."; "The procedure is usually an elective surgery performed on babies and children as a religious duty or cultural tradition, as in Israel and Islamic world; or as a prophylactic health intervention". Seemingly, these two motivations (hygienic and religious) are practically the only reasons for the existence of circumcision and its routine imposition.--Nacho del ruiz (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The mutilation thing has been brought up and rejected many times, please consult the talk page archives. Your edits also have the false impression that circumcision curbs masturbation - some people used to think that, but that is a discredited position now. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

• Concerning mutilation : Wikipedia is based on sources, not personal views or feelings. Several scholarly sources describe circumcision as a form of mutilation. I can provide more if you want. There is nothing to say about this fact.
  "Circumcision has been described by its opponents as a form of male genital mutilation" : I would find it difficult to find a more neutral wording than that.
• Concerning curbing of masturbation : As I said in my revert comment : Whether it does or not is irrelevant. What matters is the intended historical purpose of circumcision, whether achieved or not (since the whole paragraph is about epidemiology, history and culture). There is nothing to say about the validity of the sentence, I almost copy-pasted the quoted source, without distortion.
  Source (p 39) : "Nevertheless, circumcision was used as a social tool to control male sexuality throughout history (...) Similarly, Victorian British doctors introduced male and female circumcision to the medical practice in the nineteenth century to “prevent” and “treat” masturbation (Wallerstein, 1980)."
  My edit : "Throughout history, circumcision has been used as a means of curbing masturbation and controlling male sexuality." --Nacho del ruiz (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to include the mutilation bit you're going to need a strong consensus, as this has been rejected by a variety of editors on many occasions. Maybe run an RFC. As to it being 'irrelevant' - giving readers a false impression by quoting without context can never be irrelevant, we're supposed to be educating here. Also, this is a minor point for this overview article and should not be in the lead section. Your arguments would be more applicable if you were trying to add this on History of circumcision. - MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Nacho del ruiz, please review WP:LEDE and WP:MEDRS. The article's lead should summarize the actual article (not introduce new materials or sources), and all sources should comply with the requirements of WP:MEDRS, which are quite stringent. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This article's about circumcision in *general* - not *specifically* routine circumcision in developed countries. No reliable source calls circumcision *in general* (in all cases) genital mutilation. That's why I reverted your edits. KlayCax (talk)

@KlayCax your explanation for reverting the edit explains that it was based on “in general” being the equivalent of “in all cases”. But “in general” does not mean “in all cases”. Your reversion of the edits was thus predicated on a *verifiable* falsehood. I trust, having now been made aware of your misdefining of terms to justify your actions, you will now take appropriate action to reverse them, in line with accuracy and neutrality. SolsticeStormlands (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest be made to this article, based on which WP:MEDRS-compliant resources? Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:TALKNO carefully before commenting again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Polarised nature of discussion around circumcision being blocked in bad faith by a tiny minority of emotionally invested users

Despite the clear numerical consensus on this page for, at the very least, flagging widespread criticisms of circumcision at minimum, with a possible majority in favour of acknowledging criticism of it as a form of genital mutilation, MrOllie and KlayCax are standing in the way with emotionally-driven, bad faith arguments. The latter, in particular, has erroneously conflated the "generalities" of circumcision with "all" cases under the discussion relating to circumcision as a form of mutilation, and has used this false conflation as a means to block the clear numerical consensus with bad faith editing.

I understand that some users who have undergone circumcision may feel particularly strongly on a validation driven emotional level to obfuscate against widespread criticism and promote a specific agenda, but as things stand the neutrality of the article is being grossly held back by this behaviour. The article should be fair and even-handed, and present the proposed benefits *as well as* the argued criticisms, without users allowing entirely emotional and subjective positions to skew the editorial stance towards their own agenda. SolsticeStormlands (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest be made to this article, based on which WP:MEDRS-compliant resources? Please review WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:TALKNO carefully before commenting again. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits over multiple sections

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Edits warring and WP:BOLD

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dispute Tag

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”".
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.
6. "Discussions surrounding prophylactics, bioethics, group rights, and religious freedom have been brought up over these cases" in this diff [34]. Where is this in these sources?

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)

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)

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)

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)