→Edits warring and WP:BOLD: Fixed a wikilink Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
:: 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.[[User:Stix1776|Stix1776]] ([[User talk:Stix1776|talk]]) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC) |
:: 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.[[User:Stix1776|Stix1776]] ([[User talk: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 [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Global%20Map%20of%20Male%20Circumcision%20Prevalence%20by%20Country.svg 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. |
|||
::: 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. As I mentioned in the edit summary, 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 dramatic waste of time/overly detailed for the lead to go into detail about which way incidence is going in each specific country (e.g. many Anglospheric countries, down; African countries, up.) |
|||
::: 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" to the elective section of the body. But that's simply because the lead is only supposed to give a quick summary of the body. I'd be perfectly okay if you added that sentence back. |
|||
::: As [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] mentioned, a lot of the rules you're quoting don't specifically apply to this case. [[User:KlayCax|KlayCax]] ([[User talk:KlayCax|talk]]) |
Revision as of 15:20, 17 January 2022
Circumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 |
Sample PubMed |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Toolbox |
---|
Lede change
I see the topic of changing the title to MGM has been discussed, and I agree that circumcision is the common name and should be used. However, the lede should be changed to read something like: "Circumcision is a form of male genital mutilation in which the foreskin is removed from the human penis." 172.72.188.8 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The predonderance of sources do not describe it that way, so neither should the article lead. - MrOllie (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
- 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.
- Thanks for responding.
@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)
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.
- 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.
- 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. As I mentioned in the edit summary, 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 dramatic waste of time/overly detailed for the lead to go into detail about which way incidence is going in each specific country (e.g. many Anglospheric countries, down; African countries, up.)
- 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" to the elective section of the body. But that's simply because the lead is only supposed to give a quick summary of the body. I'd be perfectly okay if you added that sentence back.