Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piccco (talk | contribs) at 12:00, 17 June 2024 (→Ethics in lead RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


Toolbox

Circumcision in Australia

This article claims that circumcision is common in Australia, but that is no longer the case. According to the Australian government, only about 10% of new borns go through the procedure https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/circumcision 49.199.181.240 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to that, the Health Direct page links to https://raisingchildren.net.au/newborns/health-daily-care/health-concerns/circumcision, which paints a very different picture to what's written in this Wikipedia article:
"The only major western country where circumcision is very common is the United States. Circumcision is uncommon in the United Kingdom, most of Europe and Asia, South America and Central America." Sleepy.lion1668 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s “no longer the case” with regard to incidence — but very much the case as concerns prevalence, which is the claim made in the source cited in that passage. Foxmilder (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a WHO report from 17 years ago. I couldn't find much data on prevalence, other than this article which gives a figure of 46% in 2011 (down from 59% in the 2007 WHO report). I'm sure the prevalence in 2024 has fallen significantly from what it was back then, and will continue to fall rapidly.
The reality in Australia is that there is a very low incidence of circumcision, and a low and rapidly falling prevalence. Medical authorities here recommend against it, and that advice has been accepted by most of the general population for decades.
In any case, incidence vs prevalence is a very subtle distinction. If the text of the article going to say that circumcision is "widespread" in Australia, then the paragraph at least needs to be explicit about the distinction between prevalence and incidence, otherwise it's misleading to those that read it. Sleepy.lion1668 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bioethics of circumcision

Should we re-add ethics to the lead? We previously agreed in past discussions on having controversies like bioethics included in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be scrapping the bottom of controversies if it was added. I don't think many healthy, psychologically normal people care about the subject matter to any serious extent. No one really cares if they're circumcised or not. As a Mexican, we sometimes jab Canadians and Americans about it in various comedy shows, but as a ranchy joke rather than a serious issue. I'm against the idea. I'm uncut and think it's stupid but that's hardly a controversy. A lot of people do a lot of stupid things. FootballRocker (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you are basing this on your own anecdotal experiences..? Ethics is absolutely an important controversy. Major medical organizations tend to address the issue of ethics in their policy statements on circumcision. Also, pretty ridiculous for you to insinuate that caring about one’s circumcision status somehow makes you psychologically abnormal. Prcc27 (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on previous discussions, a concise reference to it might be warranted. Piccco (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Circumcision's not controversial enough for this to be added. Only abortion, female genital mutilation, and a few other topics have any mention of controversy in their leads.
Gender-affirming surgery, gender-affirming care, labiaplasty, pearling, and other articles (in my view) have set WP: PRECEDENT for this; none mention it in theirs. KlayCax (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Hi, @Prcc27:. Where are you getting the notion that there's a present consensus to include it in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no mention to the ethical views on circumcision in the lead, and there has to be one, since that has always been the standard. I don't have any specific wording in mind and I think any mention has to be concise. If I remember correctly there used to be a sentence saying that "there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision". That was decent. Piccco (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with using different wording if other users think the current wording is too vague. I would be open to the previously used “there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision” wording as a compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified why "theologians" are being invoked anywhere. Bon courage (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bon courage: Theologians shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all. Agreed.
@Piccco:/@Prcc27:. Wikipedia almost never lists ethical disputes/controversies in the articles of medical procedures and/or body modifications unless it is overwhelmingly notable. Even cases such as gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery make no mention of controversy as it's seen as "poisoning the well" against the topic in question. The same applies to articles surrounding tattoos, piercings, and other adornments, despite similar controversy in some cultures. Circumcision is nowhere near as controversial as a subject such as abortion. It's legal in every polity. At the very least, it should only be considered if neonatal circumcision is criminalized in at least one country or reaches some sort of widespread controversy.
Neither is presently the case. We also already talk about the debate in developed countries already. KlayCax (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to use the “theologians” wording, and we have used different wording without that term in the past. Something can be legal yet controversial. Just this week, the U.S. state of New Hampshire debated whether or not it should be funded by taxpayers, and ethics was discussed in the debate. More importantly, major medical organizations mention ethics in their policy statements. A concise sentence in the lead is not WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria is generally substantial controversy. Not merely "controversy has happened".
The New Hampshire bill was about Medicare funding. It wasn't about the ethics of the procedure. Many states in the United States already do not cover it.
Many people support defunding it (including me) but would also say that the actual consequences of the procedure are relatively neutral/non-impactful in developed countries. KlayCax (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? That is not what any Wikipedia policy or guideline says. WP:WBA does say the lead should mention "consequential or significant criticism or controversies" in the lead. I already explained how the controversy is significant in my remarks above. Having "substantial" be the threshold would be WP:UNDUE. To answer your question about gender affirming care, I am not aware of any major medical organizations going into great detail about ethical controversies. Furthermore, that article does not have a section on ethics, this article does. The Lead should follow the body. Prcc27 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is controversy surrounding circumcision "consequential" or "significant"? KlayCax (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue any consistently reported controversy regarding a medical procedure is probably significant enough to mention. RakdosWitch (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that including "controversies" in the lead inherently bias readers against the subject. For instance, there is at least an (implicit) consensus to exclude controversies surrounding gender-affirming healthcare and gender-affirming surgery from the leads of their pages, despite far more modern controversy than circumcision. This is because it was seen as being implicitly bias/prejudice against transgender people.
Not sure what the right thing is here, @RakdosWitch:. But I don't think circumcision is controversial (to a significant extent) outside of right-wing nationalists and anti-theists in Europe. Perhaps MRA's as well.
Is that notable enough to include as a subject in the lead? Not in my opinion. Of course the fact that major medical organizations disagree on its health effects is notable enough for inclusion.
What do you think? KlayCax (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is ethics a limited “controversy” when even the pro-circumcision major medical organizations acknowledge that it is an issue? Ultimately, those organizations believe the medical benefits justify the procedure being offered to parents, but that does not mean there is zero consideration on whether it is ethical or not. Major medical organizations do not really discuss ethics with regards to gender affirming care, so the comparison isn’t really all that valid. Prcc27 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly do discuss ethics. Whether from a individualist, autonomist viewpoint or a communitarian perspective. This isn't including religious controversies. (Such as Catholicism.)
Right-wingers in the United States and other countries have also restricted gender-affirming care. So I wouldn't say that the "comparison isn't really all that valid". (If anything it's far more.)
Understandably, we don't include this because it bias readers right off the bat, and I don't see why this is any different. KlayCax (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

It appears we have a consensus that controversy/ethics should be included in the lead. We may need to get a stronger consensus on what that wording should actually be though. The theologian wording seems to not have much support. There used to be a sentence on bioethics (i.e. major medical organizations hold “widely variant perspectives on the bioethics” of circumcision) so that could be an option as well. If I am not mistaken, isn’t KlayCax the person that came up with “there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision”? Seems like a reasonable compromise, unless/until we can expand on and improve the wording. Prcc27 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Consensus on HIV prevention

The article states that:

"There is a consensus among the world's major medical organizations and in the academic literature that circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in high-risk populations if carried out by medical professionals under safe conditions." While this might be true for some time or for the world's major medical organization, there is certainly no consensus in the academic literature. Quite the contrary actually. The 3 studies used by the WHO are now highly controversials and have raised significant questions regarding methodology and ethics while one could easily find hundreds of literature stating that circumcision has little to no effects on HIV prevention :

Here is a very small list of research finding male genital surgery did not reduce HIV risk or even increased risk for heterosexual men and women. I could add dozens more:

Chao, 1994 - male circumcision significantly increased risk to women

Auvert, 2001 - 68% higher odds of HIV infection among men who were circumcised (just below statistical significance)

Thomas, 2004 - circumcision offered no protection to men in the Navy

Connelly, 2005 - circumcision offered no protection to black men, and only insignificant protection for white men

Wawer, 2009 - the only RCT on M-to-F HIV transmission found male circumcision increased risk to women by 60%

Westercamp, 2010 - circumcision offered no protection to men in Kenya

Darby, 2011 - circumcision offered no benefit in Australia

Brewer, 2011 - youth who were circumcised were at greater risk of HIV in Mozambique

Rodriguez-Diaz, 2012 - circumcision correlated with 27% increased risk of HIV (P = 0.02) and higher risks for other STIs in men visiting STI clinics in Puerto Rico

Nayan, 2021 - circumcision offers no protection to men in Ontario

Frisch, 2021 - in Denmark, a national cohort study reveals circumcision provided no protection against HIV or other STIs

It could be also useful to mention that the advertised promotion of VMMC for HIV prevention has also some contrary effects, leading men to have unprotected sexual relationships leaded by the beliefs that they would be protected thanks to their circumcision : Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men demand unprotected sex from HIV positive pregnant prostitute Sept. 2014: Uganda: Circumcision Promoting Risky Behaviour Oct. 2012: Malawi: Men more likely to practice unsafe sex after circumcision


This is definitely not what one could call a scientific consensus. Petrarco123 (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the cherry-picked lists made by anti-circumcision orgs like CIRP.org and 'circumsitionnews' (both of whom you have linked above) can be impressive to newcomers to the topic, they do not establish that there is not a consensus. And on Wikipedia we cannot conduct original research by counting sources to try to undercut the higher-tier sources that we do have, which are quite clear about the consensus. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's very frustrating that people aren't reading the page history, @MrOllie:. However I'm unsure if there's really anything we can do about the same topics being brought up again and again on this page. Most of it is because circumcision as become a significant issue along European right-wing nationalist/men's rights activists online. So editors keep trying to add stuff claiming sexual dysfunction, a supposed widespread controversy, and comparisons to FGM, far beyond the scientific evidence.
It's a broken record, but editors have the right to comment, so this is probably a condition that is unfortunately not changeable in relation to this page. KlayCax (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

If this continues again I'm handing out indefinite partial blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics in lead RfC

Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute. Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Include: major medical organizations like the AAP, the CPS, the KNMG, and the RACP address the ethics of the procedure in their policy statements. WP:WEIGHT says “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” It is clearly not WP:UNDUE to have a brief and concise sentence on ethics in the lead, when the major medical organizations also address ethics. Yes, the wording could be tweaked, but it is worth noting that (if I remember correctly), the wording was actually created by KlayCax, who is against including it in the lead. Seems like the wording could at least be a good compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Malformed RFC/Exclude: First of all, it's important to note that the "current wording" was only recently edit warred into the article, rather than being a longstanding part of the article's page. The page already includes much of what is being suggested.
For instance, the lead already states: "Major medical organizations hold variant views on the strength of circumcision's prophylactic efficacy in developed countries. Some medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh the risks, while other medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk". along with additionally stating that "Beyond use as a prophylactic or treatment option in healthcare, circumcision plays a major role in many of the world's cultures and religions, most prominently Judaism and Islam. Circumcision is among the most important commandments in Judaism." and so on. This is already covered significantly in depth.
Prcc27 cites discussion of ethics in the AAP, RACP, KNMG, and CPS policy papers to argue that the ethics of circumcision have been addressed in the literature. That's quite indisputable. However, the criteria for including controversies surrounding medical procedures is much more stringent, as it is quite normative (from someone who works in the field) to see these questions addressed in almost any procedure that medical professionals provide to their patients. The criteria for these types of pages is not "whether some controversy or questions of ethics have been raised by philosophers". The criteria is whether: 1.) The controversy is longlasting 2.) The controversy is significant, widespread, and prominent. 3.) Whether it is restricted/prohibited/banned.
Circumcision meets none of these. Even in Denmark, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the Nordics, where opposition to circumcision is likely the strongest, attempts to criminalize the procedure have been consistently voted down by overwhelming margins. It is true that within the past ten years or so there has been online controversy from Men's Rights Activists, right-wing nationalists (like StoneToss), and others in recent years, along with lesser opposition from "crunchy" liberals and anti-theists as well, but I wouldn't say that this is enough to merit the claim that it is a significant and prominent issue in global culture. (Outside of Northern and Eastern Europe.) Similarly, while there have been attempts at criminalization, these have predominantly come from far-right parties, likely in the context of Islamic immigration, and have been voted down by margins that surpass 5-1 in most European parliaments. Most of the controversy hasn't been about circumcision. It's about immigration of Muslims into Europe.
WP:AVERAGE and systematic bias is likely to skew responses. The average Wikipedian is white, male, technically inclined, formally educated, and English speaker, from a Christian or non-religious country, all of which likely to grow up in capitalistic, individualist, and autonomous cultures that are likely to see controversies surrounding circumcision more prominently than they actually are. A somewhat analogous situation has already been addressed on other articles surrounding body/genital modifications, including the pages on transgender health care, gender-affirming healthcare, gender-affirming surgery, and others, for the reason that their inclusion would inherently bias readers against the medical treatment in general. Despite the fact that there's been significantly more legal, political, religious, and cultural opposition to the practice in present day society. I agree that it should be excluded for this reason. Right off the bat, the proposed wording would - whether intended or not - bias readers. The same applies here.
Ethics shouldn't be mentioned in the lead for transgender healthcare pages, circumcision, and the vast majority of other body mods/medical treatments. The two big exceptions to this in my mind are abortion and female genital mutilation. But those are special cases where, as mentioned above: 1.) The controversy is longlasting 2.) The controversy is significant, widespread, and prominent. 3.) Whether it is restricted/prohibited/banned. All are lacking here. KlayCax (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To give a quick overview of how it fails this:
  • 1.) Controversies around circumcision are almost always controversies about other subjects. (Religion, individualism, the role of sexuality, immigration, et al.) There's a lack of any significant protests/organizations against the procedure itself. There's definitely controversy surroundings its use in developed nations. However, we already go into detail about this in the lead, so a WP: DUE amount of WP: WEIGHT has already been given in reference to this.
  • 2.) According to reliable sources: significant opposition to the procedure itself is not a prominent part of most cultures, with movements against the procedure being "small". It is also very recent. Only developing to any significant extent in the past 10 years. Even in Europe: it appears that conversations and ethical controversies about circumcision are either in relation to #1. That is, it doesn't have to do with circumcision in of itself, but rather deeper questions surrounding the aforementioned.
  • 3.) Neonatal circumcision is legal in every polity. It appears that it will remain this way for the foreseeable future. Once again, it fails the criteria.
Maybe this will change in 10 or 20 years. But the idea that we should imply a significant controversy that - at least for now - doesn't exist goes against normative Wikipedia guidelines. KlayCax (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”First of all, it's important to note that the ‘current wording’ was only recently edit warred into the article.”
No, I’m pretty sure it was added to the lead by you or another user a long time ago..? And it was recently reintroduced as a compromise.
”According to reliable sources: significant opposition to the procedure itself is not a prominent part of most cultures” is a strawman argument. The lead does not say anything about opposition to circumcision, but rather ethics in general. The literature may not give enough weight to the opposition, but they definitely do give weight to the ethical consideration of the procedure. Prcc27 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medical organizations usually give an ethical perspective in policy statements to an extensive amount of body modifications, @Prcc27:. The criteria for including it in the lead of pages is much more stringent. Stuff like abortion, female genital mutilation, and a few other things clearly meet it, but we exclude discussion of the topic on other articles such as gender-affirming surgery. It's oftenseen as introducing bias against whatever's being mentioned. (Which I generally agree with.)
We already include cultural/other views in the lead. So this RFC is basically asking: "Is there substantial legal or ethical controversy over circumcision now?" And I would say in the vast majority of nations, no. KlayCax (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include When discussing circumcision, there is no doubt that culture and societal norms are very significant, as they are the number one factor that determines its prevalence in a certain place. The lead is also meant to summarize the contents of the article. There is evidenttly substantial content within the article that would warrant the inclusion of such statement in the lead; in particular there is a section for Society and culture. Also, as already stated above, all of the major medical organizations will always include a section regarding ethical considerations in their policies. The proposed concise statement is meant to represent this whole section. The lead doesn't say what these views are (for example, in some cultures it plays a religious role, for others it's a cultural norm, in others it is uncommon etc.) the statement itself is neutral, simply stating the very fact that there are various views throughout the world, which is undeniable.
Regarding the above disagreement, I will not digress; 1) the sentence was not recently edit-warred into the article; this or a very similar brief sentence was always included somewhere in the lead as far back as I remember, and it was never edit-warred out of the article for the longest time. 2) Strawman; nowhere was the word "controversy-ies" added in the lead. This is not about controversies. Also, the various cultural/societal/ethical views are not equal to the various views on prophylactic efficiency of the medical organizations. Piccco (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we already include differing cultural views into the article. The very next sentence states:

Major medical organizations hold variant views on the strength of circumcision's prophylactic efficacy in developed countries. Some medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh the risks, while other medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk

and then goes on to state:

Beyond use as a prophylactic or treatment option in healthcare, circumcision plays a major role in many of the world's cultures and religions, most prominently Judaism and Islam. Circumcision is among the most important commandments in Judaism.

The only dispute is whether the lead should state that there is a substantial legal/ethical controversy. Judging by the landscape of 2024, I wouldn't say so, but if that changes then it could be added. Gender-affirming surgery is far more controversial in mainstream society. However, we wisely don't include controversies in the lead because it would bias readers' against it, and significant societal controversy surrounding it is relatively recent. I don't think many people here realize that in Europe "circumcision controversies" are generally about Islamic immigration (and on the fringe: Jews) into Europe. I don't see why we should blowhorn Men's Rights Activist and right-wing populist rhetoric into the article.
The consensus is clear: 1.) Circumcision works in areas of high HIV 2.) Circumcision is debatable/questionable in developed nations 3.) Circumcision is inconsequential in terms of sexual function.
It's also important that on questions of gender-affirming surgery, circumcision, and other issues, that Wikipedia understands WP:AVERAGE, and to not stigmatize bodily diversity of peoples. KlayCax (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel as though you are just repeating what you already said and are being verbose, which may inadvertently discourage other users from participating in this RfC. The lead neither says nor insinuates that there is an ethical controversy. We already explained that those other sentences do not address the ethics of circumcision. And since we have a section on ethics in the body, it should be addressed in the lead. I already explained why gender affirming surgery should not mention ethics in that article’s lead if medical organizations do not go out of their way to address it in their policy statements. Prcc27 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the points in the latest response have already been addressed and, as Prcc27 noted, are repeated. The views of medical organizations on prophylactic efficiency, as I said, are a different thing. The role of circumcision in Judaism is, of course, important, but that sentense alone does not cover the diversity of views from all over the world. See, for example, the lead of the article that you created in 2022, which concludes with "This has subsequently led to widely varying views related to the practice". Lastly, ethics is not a fringe discussion in medicine and is independent from the rhetorics mentioned above. It is true that all circumcision policies of major medical organizations dedicate a separate section to this subject. Please, do not equate the various cultural/societal/ethical views with "controversy" and keep in mind that the word itself is never used. Piccco (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly alright with This has subsequently led to widely varying views related to the practice in the lead. @Piccco:, @Prcc27:. But, yes. Discussions of ethics concern most issues in medicine and healthcare. The criteria for lead inclusion has traditionally been what I stated above. 1.) The controversy is longlasting 2.) The controversy is significant, widespread, and prominent. 3.) Whether it is restricted/prohibited/banned. All are lacking here. I don't think, like gender-affirming care, we can simply isolate it to that. I'm bringing up WP: AVERAGE because this is another example of editors attempting to push views into the article that are fringe globally. (But have significant currency among white individuals of European descendent.)
The ethics of circumcision article is problematic in of itself. Not the least, among other reasons, it was written by a "long-term sockpuppet" who was known for "inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles".
To say that gender-affirming care hasn't been controversial ethically among the vast majority of the non-Western world or among conservatives in the West is a bit disingenuous.
(i.e. I'm non-religious/culturally liberal. But I realize that this isn't the predominant view globally. Should we include the ethical perspectives of the Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and everything else?)
I think for topics such as this - body modifications are outright forbidden in certain major religions - it's best to only include it based on the three criteria listed above. No one's saying that differing viewpoints of circumcision shouldn't be added in this lead. (Indeed, a RFC on this will find that an overwhelming amount of editors agree.) It's how much it is WP: DUE in light of WP: AVERAGE and WP: WEIGHT.
Does This has subsequently led to widely varying views related to the practice work for you + self close? I'll support that. KlayCax (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the confusion here is the fact that ethics was previously seen as a “controversy” on this talk page. That was indeed a reason given by 1 user in the past to include ethics in the lead, which I echoed. But the current wording does not actually mention that circumcision is controversial or imply that. And that is not the main argument for inclusion anymore. Your arbitrary proposed criteria of a “controversy” being long-lasting, significant, widespread, and prominent, and for circumcision to be banned is not compatible with WP:DUE. The main reason for inclusion is simply because it is an important consideration made by parents and medical organizations, so WP:DUE is met. Circumcision does not have to be “controversial” for the ethics to be significant enough. The current wording is vague enough as it is (I believe BonCourage even said it was “nothing-y”). If anything, we should be expanding on the wording, not condensing it. Cultural views and ethical views are two different things, which is why we have separate articles for them. We should not conflate the two, so I oppose your proposed compromise. As for WP:AVERAGE.. that is not a Wikipedia policy, and as experienced Wikipedia users, we should be able to put our own bias aside and edit neutrally. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your arbitrary proposed criteria of a “controversy” being long-lasting, significant, widespread, and prominent, and for circumcision to be banned is not compatible with WP:DUE. It's not arbitrary. It's been the working guideline on other pages surrounding body modifications. Tattoos, hair dying, circumcision, gender-affirming/transgender healthcare & body mods, breast argumentation and reduction, and other things all have had various forms of controversies surrounding them. We generally do not include any of these things in the leads of their pages. (A notable exception to this is body piercing.) As for length: it's already 1/4th of the introduction, @Prcc27:.
It's definitely not a silly question. Roman Catholics and Sunni Muslims have far more followers than there are individuals born in the Western World. KlayCax (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I already explained to you why we do not include ethics in those articles, and I’m not going to explain it again. Prcc27 (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except major medical organizations do discuss it in the context of ethics. (I know this: as I'm a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics.) The same applies to the other medical treatments listed.
Even if this was the case — and it's not — one could also state that your suggested principles are also arbitrary. Why should that be the criteria chosen? KlayCax (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stopping you from expanding and improving those other articles.. Arguably, there should at the very least be a sentence or two in the body of the gender affirming surgery article about ethics. But I am still not sure if ethical consideration of affirming surgery is something most/all major medical organizations give consideration to for affirming surgery, unlike with circumcision where many (most?) do. If not, it could be WP:UNDUE for that article’s lead. We are only able to figure out what is WP:DUE based on its prominence in the sources; one source does not really tell us much with regards to this. In any case, we should be focusing on this article, not other articles. Echoing what the reliable sources say is not arbitrary whatsoever. As long as WP:ONUS is met, we let the sources speak for themselves. Prcc27 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ethical consideration of affirming surgery is something most/all major medical organizations give consideration to for affirming surgery. They do. Most medical organizations have ethical statements — if at not least ethical analysis — on almost every medical intervention/procedure. (Including, say, the prophylactic benefits of vaccines against X disease.) Therefore, that's a bad criteria to weight it by, and subjective in of itself.
Therefore, 1.) Significant, widespread, long-lasting societal and political controversy 2.) Current legality are the best measures to look at. Both criteria fail here. KlayCax (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gender-affirming surgery and circumcision do not really have much in common, besides both being surgical procedures. Compared to circumcision, gender-affirming is, in fact, a very rare procedure. It is also elected by the person themselves, it has no religious significance, nor is it a cultural norm in any society, it has not been widely practiced for millennia, it is not routinely performed on millions of children annually etc. This comparison is a bit arbitrary and continues to be wrongly based on the amount of controversy these procedures generate, even though we have long clarified that controversies are not the subject of this discussion. Piccco (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, @Piccco:. I don't think disputes/controversies belong in the lead of either article. (Or the majority of other pages for body modifications/medical procedures). The rare exceptions being the foreamentioned criteria. This would be abortion, female genital mutilation, conversion therapy, lobotomy, water fluoridation, embryonic stem cells, and a few other things with substantial public controversy.
Elected by the person themselves That's how someone who has a liberal, individualist viewpoint would see it. It's a view I hold too as well. However, this is exactly what I mean by WP: AVERAGE. Globally, the majority of people do not hold to individualist, autonomy-driven ethics. They hold a viewpoint much closer to virtue ethics/communitarianism. There's no WP: NPOV way for Wikipedia to side with one ethical viewpoint over the other. Why should we privilege the viewpoint of an individualist Westerner over that of a Roman Catholic, Sunni Muslim, or devout Jew? Is there a way to do this while maintaining neutrality? I doubt it.
We have long clarified that controversies are not the subject of this discussion Why should the lead not be WP: WEIGHT'ed by public controversy and legality? We're both arguably using a subjective sense of criteria to determine what belongs in it or not. I however believe that the criteria I'm suggesting is in line with WP: COMMONSENSE and WP: PRECEDENT on other articles. KlayCax (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include per WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD - emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources ... including any prominent controversies. A search for ethical views on circumcision in scholarly/academic literature shows it is well-sourced, a prominent viewpoint, notable and controversial, so it is undoubtedly DUE for the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision&oldid=1229547245"