Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:48, 19 February 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Template:Vital article

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
February 12, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Men's Issues High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine: Translation Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Body Modification (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Page name

Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, male genital mutilation, or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Wikipedia does the same.

Archives

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

Archive guide
Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Autism

The link between circumcision and autism was previously refuted a while back due to WP:MEDRS concerns. However, I may have found a source that complies with WP:MEDRS. Prcc27 (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a primary source not a review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author

We do not typically state who wrote each of the sources we use. We simply use high quality secondary sources. Therefore removed [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to state who the author is either. Prcc27 💋 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the controversy surrounding the author, I still feel that it is fair to state who authored the review at the least. Sugarcube wants to include that he is a pro circ activist, and tbh it is well known that he has a pro circumcision page, and that he consistently writes controversial and often disagreeable reviews and studies. Therefore, I feel that simply stating who wrote the review is an acceptable compromise for both parties. Cirflow (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Sugarcube and why aren't they commenting on this talk page then? If we link to Brian Morris for being a pro-circ advocate then we would have to link to Ronald Goldman (psychologist) for being an anti-circ advocate. I don't think we need to link to either in this article. I don't see how linking to Morris's wikipedia page is a compromise. We don't necessarily need to discredit Morris or Goldman as long as their source is deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel that putting a link to Ronald Goldman is fair. When sources from a biased person are being added I feel that an indicator is neccesary in order to avoid UNDUE. Also, nobody seems to be arguing over Ronald Goldman not being mentioned, while there are people who are arguing that Brian Morris should be mentioned. User:Cirflow

You are the only one arguing that Morris should be mentioned. And this may be a personal opinion but when it comes to circumcision almost all the sources are biased one way or another. We don't necessarily need to name every author. Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general comment, I believe that when this article went to GA Brian Morris reviews were not used, not because there was anything wrong with them particularly, but because the name was such a red rag to anti-circ activists, and equally good reviews making the same point were always available. Not using Morris just kept the peace better. Alexbrn (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSM

We already state this twice in the article. No need to state it a third time.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that edit definitely seems superfluous to me. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's important to re mention it when a different source is counteracting it, which the U.S. antiviral association did. User:Cirflow

To be fair, the entire "medical indications" section seems superfluous to me and so maybe we should remove it or at least all that information can be discussed in another subsection. So I wouldn't mind getting rid of the section altogether to be honest. Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Autism 2

This text is supported by two primary sources

"Two recent studies have found infant circumcision to be correlated with higher rates of autism spectrum disorder, one completed in 2013 and published in the US National Library of medicine ^[1], and another published in Denmark in 2015 in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine ^[2]."

We should stick with review articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like these? ^[3] ^[4]^[5] Strongbad1982 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Prenatal and perinatal analgesic exposure and autism: an ecological link". US National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
^ "Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys: national cohort study in Denmark". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Royal Society of Medicine. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
^ http://www.medicaldaily.com/asd-and-circumcision-linked-thoughts-brain-development-factor-318144. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/circumcision-tied-autism-risk-study-article-1.2087225. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] "Prenatal and perinatal analgesic exposure and autism: an ecological link". US National Library of Medicine. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[2] "Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys: national cohort study in Denmark". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Royal Society of Medicine. Retrieved 16 February 2016.

[3] ttp://www.medicaldaily.com/asd-and-circumcision-linked-thoughts-brain-development-factor-318144. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[4] ttp://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/circumcision-tied-autism-risk-study-article-1.2087225. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 We should stick with review articles. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 01:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
-Like this one?  <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.medicaldaily.com/asd-and-circumcision-linked-thoughts-brain-development-factor-318144}}</ref>
+Like these?  <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.medicaldaily.com/asd-and-circumcision-linked-thoughts-brain-development-factor-318144}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/circumcision-tied-autism-risk-study-article-1.2087225}}</ref>
 [[User:Strongbad1982|Strongbad1982]] ([[User talk:Strongbad1982|talk]]) 16:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 {{reflist-talk}}

Revision as of 16:48, 19 February 2016

See also sections

Autism

Author

MSM

Autism 2