Talk:Circumcision#1RR proposal

Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection.

Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-84

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-86

the numbers are kinda contradicting. lets use 1000 procedures as the comparator

I use the who scale for med side effects because we need some standard to compare.

Very common, ≥ 1⁄10 (10% or higher)

Common (frequent), 1⁄10 to 1⁄100 {1% to 10%)

Uncommon (infrequent), 1⁄100 to 1⁄1000 (0,1% up to 1%)

Rare, 1⁄1000 to 1⁄10000 (0,01% to 0,1%)

Very rare, < 1⁄10000 (lower than 0,01$)

>The most common acute complications[...]These complications occur in approximately 0.13% of procedures, with bleeding being the most common acute complication in the United States. Minor complications are reported to occur in three percent of procedures.

so 0,13% are 1,3 procedures in 1000 (so uncommon/infrequent if we use the who scale for adverse effects in medications)

3%, are 3/100 or 30 in 1000 which is already common/frequent not rare. That would be minor complications, so acute and post surgery.

this implies that either 29 of 1000 will develop complication after the surgery or the numbrs have a variation of like factor 1-30. thats a lot)

most common should describe 3% not 0,13%

>Severe complications are rare. A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.

This part starts by using terms that suggest issues are more rare after already showing they're not, then excuses that the data is bad. Maybe a comparison with other local anaesthetic surgical procedures might me helpful so that the risks are described accurately

Maybe this also should be at the beginning of the paragraph. With an explanation who cites them and what from. Because we also have

>Significant acute complications happen rarely, occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.

thats 2 in 1000, so meaning 0,2% So 1. thats uncommon, not rare.

this means that a child has a higher risk of SIGNIFICANT acute complications (0,2%) than mild acute coplications?(0,13%)

So i think the bit about issues with reliability of numbers should lead the paragraph, it should explain that because of the lack of official standardised measures of complications, one paper counted more significant acute complications (meanin the might need surgical correction) than another study counted mild ones.

i hope those are two different papers, I didnt ccheck.

And as this is a medical topic I do think that a consistent terminilogy about the occurance of complications should be used, sing the same language for numbers that can vary this much feels kinda manipulative and I would hope thats not the case. 178.8.231.70 (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:What do reliable sources say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

It should say "For adult medical circumcision, superficial wound healing takes up to a week, and complete healing 4 to 6 weeks." Not 4 to 6 months, it's never been months only weeks. Kunaiwastaken (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:there are different stages to healing. deeper healing process, the remodeling of scar tissue, and maturation of scar tissue, takes several months. Avy42 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe this should be clarified further then? It sounds to be 3 distinct stages, 1 week of superficial wound healing, 4 - 6 weeks of deeper healing, then months after are the points you made. The reason I initially commented was due the fact that specifically *4 - 6* was used, as that is very bluntly what most sources use as a baseline for: stitches disolving, no sex or masturbation, etc. To me, using 4 - 6 here looks like a misinterpretation of what you'll find online. Kunaiwastaken (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The recent article's language stated: "It is widespread in Australia, Canada, the United States, South Korea, most of Africa, and parts of Asia." The statement references "WHO_2007_GTDPSA". The source text states: "Neonatal circumcision is common in Israel, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and in much of the Middle East, Central Asia and West Africa, but is uncommon in East and southern Africa, where median age at circumcision varies from boyhood to the late teens or twenties."

On May 13, {{u|Smurr7}} made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1290156773] that removed Australia from the list in article with the edit summary "26.8% of Australian males are estimated to have been circumcised. This is not what I would consider widespread." (On a side note, from a very brief literature search, I was not able to find the 26.8% figure given listed in a WP:RS, although it does appear plausible and an in-line with estimates from WP:RS for current newborn circumcision rates in Australia.) On May 20 at 6:44, I made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1291283411] which reverted the edit and restored Australia to the list with an edit summary "Undid revision 1290156773 by Smurr7 (talk) Given source does list Australia in addition to the other counties. (sic) The most recent circumcision rate in AU does not reflect the large number of males currently in AU who were born when rates were higher." At 7:02 that same day, {{u|Avy42}} reverted my edit, again removing Australia from the list with "the goal is to have up to date information regarding how common the procedure is currently, not how common it was in previous generations". They did not add any updated WP:RS to support this assertion. At 7:59, I reverted this edit, with an edit summary stating: "Undid revision 1291285082 by Avy42 (talk) Then it is on you to cite WP:RS, the current source given clearly list Australia along side the other counties(sic)."

The original wording, which I restored, appears to be based on the quote I gave from that 2007 WHO source. If someone wishes to update the wording to remove Austraila, then they need to remove the 2007 WHO source given and provide a separate WP:RS to support it. The current article wording is also open to interpretation of what is meant by "widespread." Widespread among the current population? Widespread as a current practice in newborns (although the WHO as of 2007 felt it was "common" in newborns in Australia)? The article is not explicit in what it means by "widespread." Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

In the past, when I and other editors have attempted to mention in this or other circumcision-related articles that the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2012 circumcision policy statement is expired, we've been informed that such information is an irrelevant "factoid" and that, if it were noteworthy, reliable secondary sources would have mentioned it. Here are five secondary sources published within the last 5 years (including two co-authored by Brian J. Morris, himself) that explicitly mention that the policy is expired. Are these citations sufficient to graduate that piece of information from a "factoid" to a noteworthy fact? I'd imagine that the editors who have opposed this information's inclusion in the past don't want to go down the path of arguing that Morris' work, recently published in two mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals, doesn't meet MEDRS, but I suppose we'll see.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-024-03190-8

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10889534/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14777509221104703

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341965054_Why_Was_the_US_Ban_on_Female_Genital_Mutilation_Ruled_Unconstitutional_and_What_Does_This_Have_to_Do_With_Male_Circumcision

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/jbsm/5/2/jbsm050206.xml DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:That it can be sourced properly is an improvement, but I'm not sure how we would mention it without running afoul of WP:SYN - we should not imply that the AAP's policy has actually changed - all we really know is that they're very behind on their paperwork. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, {{Tq|In the past, when I and other editors have attempted to mention in this or other circumcision-related articles}} when was that? This is the first time your account has commented on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Notice the use of the phrases "when I and other editors" and "or other circumcision-related articles." I started the current conversation on this page (as opposed to peripheral pages), as it's the primary article covering the topic and it seemed most appropriate to try to reach consensus here (a consensus that would presumably apply to all other related articles).

:::As for the discussion at hand, you're suggesting that mentioning that the policy is expired would violate a provision of Wikipedia's NOR policy. Just how would it do that when the secondary sources are simply noting what the primary source, itself, explicitly states? Take a look at the AAP circumcision policy statement page, which, since 2017, has stated the following verbatim.

:::• Expired - This policy automatically expired.

:::• All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

:::https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement

:::Making a simple statement, such as, "This policy statement automatically expired in 2017," and citing the above suggested sources is not the same as making a more speculative or biased statement, such as, "The AAP has changed its position." It's merely stating a simple and relevant fact (one that the primary source has explicitly stated and reliable, secondary sources have also explicitly stated).

:::You seem to be suggesting that including that fact (even in a neutral, non-speculative way) would potentially mislead readers of this and related articles into believing that the AAP has formally changed its stance. It does nothing of the sort. Again, it merely states a fact confirmed by both the primary source and reliable, secondary sources. If the AAP was so concerned with people misinterpreting or debating their current stance on this topic, maybe they should have issued a new policy statement (or reaffirmed/retired this one) in the 13 years since the last one was released. It's up to editors on Wikipedia to compile the most current and accurate information, not to keep the bench warm until the AAP decides to act again (assuming it ever does). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)