Talk:Circumcision#Problematic HIV addition

{{Article history|action1=PR

| action1date=05:00, 3February 2013

| action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1

| action1result=reviewed

| action1oldid= 536112161

|action2=GAN

|action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013

|action2link=Talk:Circumcision/GA1

|action2result=listed

|action2oldid=537886384

|action3=GAR

|action3date=09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

|action3link=Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Circumcision/1

|action3result=delisted

|action3oldid=

|currentstatus=DGA

|topic=biology and medicine

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|translation=yes|translation-imp=Top}}

}}

{{Old moves

| collapse = false

| title1 = Circumcision

| title2 = Male Circumcision

| list =

RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, No consensus, 18 June 2008, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, No consensus, 13 August 2009, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 20 July 2010, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 10 October 2022, discussion

}}

{{Press | subject = article | title = Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed | org = BBC News | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 | date = 18 July 2013 | archiveurl = | archivedate = | accessdate = 18 July 2013 }}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 300K

|counter = 85

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(45d)

|archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Archive box|index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days |

Archive guide

Sample PubMed

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Talk:Circumcision/Archive index |mask=Talk:Circumcision/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}

__TOC__

Content not uploaded

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-86

On ethics section the formulation of the sentence.

Why it’s called a (belief) that systematic neonatal circumcision is cost ineffective in developed countries when this is not recommended by public health by developed countries based on some studies and present data, except USA where STDs is more common with a bad health care system, this sentence is presented as if the statement is unfunded and entirely just opinions, and you’d call it a fact that systematic neonatal circumcision is cost effective in developed countries when this is not supported by studies in the context of developed countries with low STDs rate? 2001:56B:9F1C:EC33:15BD:3FCD:AC48:B731 (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

:you could add those sources to the article. the wiki says many bioethicists so it's an expert belief/opinion Avy42 (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

wildly inconsistent rate of complications

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)