Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 9
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Jakew in topic Lead addition
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Medical analysis of circumcision. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Help formating !
Look under Staph. infections jmak (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the Circumcision Procedure section necessary on this page?
There is a link at the start of the article to the articles on "male circumcision" and also to "penis". This article is about the *medical analysis* of circumcision - primarily arguments for and against - so I don't think it's necessary to have this section repeating what is already on the aforementioned two articles and, I assume, those reading/searching for this article already know what circumcision is (if not, they can read about it on the page linked at the beginning of the article. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Lead addition
I reverted an addition to the lead that had several problems:
- It began "However, a study by Gregory Boyle and George Hill found that male circumcision resulted in only a 1.3% reduction in HIV transmission." There are undue weight problems involved with citing a fringe publication in the lead, but the main problem is that through juxtaposition and the use of the term "however", it presents this as though it contradicted the previous material. In fact, Boyle & Hill simply present the absolute risk reduction in the trials rather than the relative risk reduction.
- "Another study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Fogarty International Center, found that circumcised men were more likely to transmit HIV to their female sexual partners..." The cited source found nothing of the sort, and again there are undue weight problems, as well as the fact that this is a primary source. An additional problem is the huge amount of puffery involved in listing funding sources, which is completely unnecessary.