Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

RfC: Circumcision viewpoints

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes: per WP:DUE, “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.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [1] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious wording viewpoints.

It seems WP:POV to say “opposition is often centered on the mistaken proposition that the procedure violates human rights.” How is a viewpoint (which is largely subjective) “mistaken”? This weasel wording seems to go against the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You picked the source and WP:V is policy. That's it's analysis. Is there a counter-analysis from an equally weighted source? The (poor) RfC was not (and cannot be) a license to ignore policy, right? By trying to suppress/downplay this well-sourced content you are directly violating the RfC outcome in any case. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We should not be stating opinions as fact per WP:ASSERT. A viewpoint being “mistaken” is an opinion. “Concomitant with a need to respect human rights” is an opinion. You should not be using weasel words in wikivoice. If you disagree with the outcome of the RfC, I am open to re-opening it, and pinging everyone that participated so far to see whaat they think. But no, you do not get to unilaterally overturn an RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay, WP:ASSERT. The policy is in WP:YESPOV. Unless there's some serious doubt about this (in quality RS) we are required to state as fact the knowledge in the sources without fuss. Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that we have to state opinions of a source as fact. If the source in question is POV, I am sure we could find a more neutral source. In any case, I asked the person that closed the RfC if they are willing to reopen the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow WP:YESPOV. To quote:

Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability.

I see no sourcing making this "controversial". This material does not "overturn the RfC" – that's just a canard. In fact it was you who added the source with unverified text which it did not support, and we are now trying to adjust to text which actually is supported by the source. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on the ethics of circumcision.[2] Whether or not circumcision is a human rights violation is a contested viewpoint. Since when is “circumcision is not a human right’s violation” an “uncontested assertion?” The source itself even concedes there is a disagreement on the issue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It would need to be contested in RS. Many points are "contested" (the age of the earth, aliens are here, prayer cures cancer) in misconceived ways. Wikipedia doesn't indulge that. We have the sourcing we have. The point of this source is to correct a misconception. (By this way I notice this recent review (pmid:38405642) states that the anti-human rights arguments rely on distorting medical evidence. This may be useful added knowledge.) Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It is contested in RS, including in viewpoints of major medical organizations. The Royal Dutch Medical Association views circumcision as a violation of children’s rights. Prcc27 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't suppose they have any jurisdiction outside Holland, but in any case this would be an example of the mistaken views embodied in "local norms". If we're going to cite material about "human rights" at large, we need sources that do that. Bon courage (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as medical ethics go, I would say Brian Earp is reliable enough. Otherwise, I’d say remove the entire paragraph altogether. It is wording you came up with unilaterally, and better to have nothing at all than weasel garbage. Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't he an activist? You picked the source here. On further consideration this RfC close is bad in any case; this is an overview article and not the place to cram in new material. Bon courage (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A views on genital modification page has been created. I do not believe that the article should focus on every culture's viewpoint. @Bon courage:. It is also odd that editors want to insert (their personal opinion?) into the article. The claim that FGM won't be abolished unless circumcision is legally prohibited in Western states is dubious at best. It is not held by major institutions. DerApfelZeit (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Beyond this, I believe you are correct. "The Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity" appears to be a self-promotional attempt by an editor with a stated conflict-of-interest about the paper. I'm not sure why we'd include the opinions of anyone in the first place into the article without exceptional reason. I agreed with your revert. DerApfelZeit (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sync

Okay, I've attempted to solve the issue by excerpting from the 3 detail articles to bring us into WP:SYNC. If people want to alter the wording they can do so at the pointed-to detail articles, so long as the relevant WP:PAGs are observed, of course. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: I have reverted it. Your synced version removed the explanation of the foreskin, the percentages of why the procedure is done, that complications from circumcision are rare, and most importantly deleted that circumcision is done in areas with a high-risk of HIV as part of prevention. None of those were objected to as far as I can tell, but especially not the HIV prevention part. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the thing to do to be to edit the main articles (or the excerpt parameters) so that the content was summarized here and WP:SYNC respected? Do you think pulling an extra paragraph from Circumcision could cover it, for example? Bon courage (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You are more familiar with this article and related ones along with SYNC, so I believe you have reasonable answers to those questions. My objections are listed above: The removal of content that was not objected to and that there seems to be no issue with along with the removal of content that is from a global prospective. If you can find a way to SYNC it without removing what existed here, then that would resolve my objections above. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Referencing problems due to content dispute

This edit by Prcc27 introduced more than eight referencing errors to the article. While the edit summary says this material was being "re-introduced", I can't find these references or the prose in the history of the article, so it's not clear where it was reintroduced from. Looks like it was part of the recent edit disputes here, though. I've remved the definitions, but it's pretty clear that the material is much more weakly referenced than the original version probably was.

What is the best way to fix it? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources were copied from Circumcision controversies. Prcc27 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Detailed cultural views shouldn't be mentioned

The context of the RFC is widely different from the present.

As you can see above, the RFC merely concluded that some mention of viewpoints should be included in the article(s). That has been provided by a newly created topic article and a specific one for it. Would be strange to focus just on circumcision when gender-affirming healthcare and FGM has far more notoriety in popular culture and academic scholarship. @Prcc27:. @Bon courage:.

Your edit turns the article into a coat stand of random, unconnected opinions. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph in the article also does the same thing without an undue emphasis on a particular subject:

Contrasting views have sometimes crossed into the realm of politics and law, where matters of sexual reassignment surgery, other forms of gender-affirming healthcare, circumcision, and intersex medical interventions have often become the subject of legal and social debate. Modern Western cultures often place a greater emphasis on individualist notions of consent and autonomy over ideas of communitarian obligations, natural law, or divine commandments, which tend to have more influence in non-Western societies.

What medical organizations state that circumcision has benefits? It's not in the citations. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what group of mainstream doctors or medical organization states that circumcision improves sexual function.

Couldn't find a single word online. You'd be laughed at in Germany if you made that claim. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)