Talk:Ethics of circumcision

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iadao. Peer reviewers: Leah611, Beedizzle21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Australasia/Australia and New Zealand

The article used the Australian flag, which is inappropriate, because the policy document refers to both Australia and New Zealand. I have no objection to using both flags, but using the Australian flag alone is not appropriate. As for the text, a direct quotation "generally considered an ethical procedure" is more accurate than a summary which stated that infant circumcision "is ethical."

I think that quoting from the policy is helpful in avoiding or minimising POV problems.Michael Glass (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

We are meant to summarize in our own words, not cut and paste huge slabs of content. On the web, people can always read the original if that is what they want. Alexbrn (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between, "generally considered an ethical procedure" and "is ethical." A summary should be accurate. The title should also be accurate. Australasia includes New Zealand and Australia. The word is not a synonym of Australia. Michael Glass (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree a summary should be accurate. WP:SOFIXIT. Alexbrn (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge with "Views on circumcision"

I propose merging this article into views on circumcision per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The first is essentially a subset topic of the second.

Much of the present article simply repeats (often verbatim) material on related articles. KlayCax (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

How is this article redundant..? One talks about cultural and religious views, and the other talks about ethics. Prcc27 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

They're both subsets of the same general subject. (e.g. Perspectives on circumcision) All three can easily be merged into a singular article. There's no need to fork the articles: just merge the contents. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc27. There's no need to cram one article with content that can easily be split into WP:SUBARTICLEs such as these. This isn't forking, this is offloading. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by offloading? KlayCax (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SIZESPLIT. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You created that article last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That's rather revealing. I didn't realise they did that. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and religion

Hi, @Prcc27:. What part of the edit are you specifically objecting to?

• Circumcision has become controversial in the Western world among Protestant-majority nations. (Obvious.)
• Judaism and Islam see circumcision as an ethical obligation or virtuous practice. (Obvious.)
• Mandaeism, Sikhism, and certain schools of Hinduism see circumcision negatively. (Obvious.)
• Western - particularly Protestant nations - have framed the issue as a matter of body autonomy. (Obvious.)
• Circumcision has been treated as ethically different from FGM (and to a lesser extent) IGM/intersex genital cutting by major medical and human rights organizations. (Obvious.)

I get that the lead shouldn't entirely be religious in nature. Yet it seems somewhat of an artificial divide to separate "religion" from "ethics" in general. Religions make ethical claims. Seeing as how a majority of the world's population follows religions that either see it as obligatory, recommended, or condemned, it seems inevitable that at least some mention is WP: DUE for the lead. No? KlayCax (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We already have an article which deals with religious views on circumcision (Views on circumcision). Let’s not turn this article into a coatrack. Prcc27 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

My original proposal was to merge the two articles together and create a singular "views on circumcision" page to prevent this.

That being said, at least some mention of religion seems obligatory to include in the lead, as the vast majority make certain ethical claims about the procedure. KlayCax (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This sentence is also heavily problematic. Is there a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action? What is this sourced to? What is this based on? Is this referring to the Western World? Globally?

Several cultures believe that even consensual circumcision is wrong. Beyond this, there is certainly not a "general consensus" that circumcision is "[unethical] in developed countries". KlayCax (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a few sentences in the body would be okay, as long as we could add a few sentences about ethics in the views on circumcision page. Or, even a hatnote explaining that this page is not about religion would suffice. Prcc27 (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course. I'm not sure if you're still opposed of the idea - but I think this article should be completely merged in with religion and circumcision + views on circumcision.

All three are basically the same article artificially WP: FORK'ed. KlayCax (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Presently, the predominant ethical claims about circumcision come from religion. (Which are themselves views on circumcision)
• Religion and circumcision simply showcases the ethical viewpoints of religions. (Which are themselves views on circumcision)
• Ethics are views on circumcision.

Readers shouldn't have to view three articles to get a comprehensive viewpoint on the subject. KlayCax (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No thanks. We already decided not to do that. “You created (views on circumcision) last year, this article was started in 2005. You can't call the original a redundant fork.” Prcc27 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

What is the sentence There is substantial disagreement amongst bioethicists, theologians, philosophers, and doctors over the practice of circumcision, with little in the way of a general consensus beyond a belief that routine circumcision of neonates for health purposes is a cost-ineffective and ethically-problematic intervention in developed countries, and that circumcision on a consenting adult is a morally permissible action." based on?

None of those things are mentioned in the statement you reverted. It also dramatically overrepresents the views of Protestant-secular cultures. KlayCax (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not have access to the full article, so not sure. From what I do have access to, the source does talk about bioethicists and religious ethicists’ ethical views on circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 05:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Significant issues with systemic bias issues

Tagging the involved editors @Prcc27:, @Piccco:, and @Bon courage: for this.

As mentioned a few months ago, the article has significant issues with neutrality/systematic bias, and nothing has changed.

• The article states in Wikivoice that circumcision is "sexual reduction surgery" and reduces pleasure. (Seriously?) This has been repeatedly rejected by medical organizations.
• Many of the claims in the article lack citations and make remarkably bold claims. Is there substantial mainstream controversy about the ethics of circumcision on the level of abortion and other topics? Reliable sources are clear: Nope.
• The article completely disentangles "religion" and "ethics" from one another. This is a view of the world only predominantly shared by individualist-driven, white, secular Westerners in Northern or Eastern Europe.
• The WP: WEIGHT for this article is completely undue and not representative of global opinion. 2,145-2,500 words in the article can be characterized as "anti-circumcision". 612 words can be characterized as "pro-circumcision". Meaning that the article overrepresents this opinion by 4-5x. The opinion (and ethical paradigm) of Westerners is near-exclusively represented. 0 words in the article are the opinions of individuals from Arabic/Islamic, Jewish, and other cultures. This is obviously not neutral.

The article dramatically overrepresents the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner living in Northern or Eastern Europe, and is clearly written to persuade the reader. KlayCax (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I answer in good faith to clarify the confusion; this is exactly what the article was created for and is meant to present: the modern discourse around the procedure, specifically in relation to the branch of ethics. This is a niche subject.

The article is not meant to present again circumcison through the lens of religion or as a cultural practice, as this is already covered extensively in multiple articles throughout wikipedia, including in several sections of the circumcision article itself. You yourself have created a high-quality article (Views on circumcision) that is meant to present exactly that; cultural, religious, and social views on the procedure; and it does so pretty effectively; so well-done for creating this. There is also the article of: Circumcsion in Africa, Religion and cirumcision, Circumcision in early Christianity, Circumcision of Jesus, etc. or the more specific ones: Brit Milah, Khitan, and Tuli. Evidently, the viewpoints and attitudes of various cultures are far from being underrepresented in wikipedia. In fact, they all have their very own articles. Yet, we don't complaint that these articles do not equally present the viewpoint of white, secular, individualist-moralistic advocating Westerner... As such, repeating information from these articles here, especially in the lead, is WP:COATRACK, WP:OFFTOPIC, and WP:LEADBOMB.

The article encompasses views of medical organizations from many countries around the world. If there are medical bodies from other countries that expressly discuss ethics in their policies, then it seems acceptable to add their views among the rest.

The article didn't claim that there is "mainstream controversy", but simply that there is substantial disagreement around the ethics of the procedure within certain circles, which seems true. I was under the impression that this wording was added by you.

Perhaps a hatnote that links to the article of religious and cultural views could be added in order to direct the reader there, if this is what are looking for. Piccco (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What needs to happen in that case, is that the article needs to rest on sources which take an overview of the ethical debate. Wha seems to have happened instead is that editors have decided which ethical takes to include (primary statements). A huge trim is needed. Bon courage (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage:. According to page statistics, this page has been overwhelmingly edited by sockpuppets of HRS395, an editor known for "inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles". KlayCax (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

All of these accounts are SPA/near-SPA for Australian psychologist Gregory John Boyle and related topics. What has called my attention to this set of socks is anti-circumcision advocacy; Boyle is an anti-circumcision advocate and very concerned with child abuse per Gregory_John_Boyle#Children.27s_rights. Also per this section of the Boyle article, an avid bag-piper, which explains some of the sock activity. These accounts also have the odd habit of creating a blank userpage (MFC728 (diff); DanceFreeRun diff); Beatrix12 (diff); CorrectReferences (diff); WritingRescue diff)) or some variation of "just here to help" (Piobair123 (diff); PetaFixer (diff))

It was additionally noted that If you look at some of the socked articles, you can see that they have had a massive effect; this is true of most articles they have worked on (yikes).. KlayCax (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Foreskin restoration, circumcision controversies, and other articles surrounding circumcision also appear to be strongly/overwhelmingly written by the sockpuppets. KlayCax (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Accidentally saved my edit tweaking the bias tag before I could finalize the edit summary. But we should not put our own POV in the tag reasoning, save that for the talk. Prcc27 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the POV template as this discussion seems to have gone stale. 31.217.42.136 (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)