Talk:Circumcision controversies

Notice

Alot of the content in this article is extremely one-sided, is contradicted by other articles on the matter, has many unreliable sources, and is factually inaccurate at times. I plan to make some edits. Please put your objections here, if you don't mind Man-Man122 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"Pro-circumcision movement"?

There is a large and comprehensive section on the "anti-circumcision" movement which includes a statement that seems to be written from one the point of view of the organisation linked to.

I would be interested to know if there are any organisations currently advocating circumcision on medical grounds as opposed to purely religious ones. Given that in the US and Africa, which do not have universal health services, circumcision has historically been promoted for its claimed health benefits.

If any organisations advancing the above position (from a non religious perspective) do exist, they should be added to the article. 86.185.84.71 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@86.185.84.71 I guess you have a point. There is a "Circumcision Academy of Australia" which is exactly what you describe. UNAIDS makes extensive efforts to circumcise men in Africa to combat HIV/AIDS. Other than that, I'm not sure of a large enough movement that deserves a mention, save for UNAIDS Man-Man122 (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE. We wouldn't add organisations advancing female circumcision for the same reason. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal with "Views on Circumcision"

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

Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. KlayCax (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the history of the merge attempt and though you claimed you were merging, you merely deleted the article outright. None of the material was transferred to views on circumcision article by you. This is the wrong way to approach merging requests. Plus this article was here since 2004 and the views on circumcision was barely created by you last year. You cannot call this a redundant article since this one was an original article here. If anything the article you made last year article is the one that is actually redundant.

I think that this article has a different scope than the views on circumcision article. In fact this article focuses controversies and pro and anti movements. The historical/regional stuff can included in the "views on circumcision" but the controversial stuff retained in this article.47.179.9.162 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I fully concur with IP. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

I attempted to add context to the section discussing the controversy surrounding the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2012 policy statement by stating that the AAP had allowed its policy to automatically expire. I cited the policy page hosted by the AAP, which explicitly states that the policy "automatically expired" and further explains at the end of the document that all AAP policies automatically expire after five years if not revised or reaffirmed.

After my first edit was reverted, with the explanation that my edit violated Wikipedia's "no original research" policy, I attempted to correct my original edit to state only what was explicitly written by the AAP, itself. However, a second user reverted that edit with no further explanation.

If someone could explain how I can include the fact that the 2012 policy statement expired (again, something the AAP itself has explicitly stated on its own policy page and is not a disputed fact) without having my edit reverted, it would be most appreciated. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You'd need a decent WP:SECONDARY source offering some knowledge on this topic. Including the factoid (especially in the spun way you did) is apt to create more questions than it answers. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In what way was my second edit "spun?" My second edit only stated the AAP had allowed the policy to expire, something it explicitly states on its own website. Also, referring to my edit as a "factoid" implies that it is either a trivial piece of information (it is actually relevant to the discussion) or that it is an invented or assumed statement (it is neither). However, if a secondary source will satisfy you, Cedars-Sinai states in a February 2023 blog post on their official website that the AAP policy expired in 2017. I will repost my last edit with both the primary and secondary source cited. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A decent secondary source, not a WP:BLOGPOST. If this is truly significant it'd have been picked up; otherwise it seems meaningless (so yes, a factoid). Maybe the science is now so settled AAP don't bother with policies on this topic? Who knows? Presenting is as meaning the policy was purely and simply neither reaffirmed nor revised is a POV upon POV interpretation. Bon courage (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Intactivist websites like to make hay out of this, but scholarly sources (for example https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8654051/) continue to treat it as a current policy. It is misleading (and very much WP:OR) to act as though the AAP hasn't offered guidance on this. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)