Jump to content

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dubious wording viewpoints.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on the ethics of circumcision.[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sync

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Removal of medical ethics statement and information about the foreskin

[edit]

May these improvements be reinserted for readers?

Since I got a warning about a "conflict of interest" I'll note that I'm involved in opposing the genital cutting of intersex and male individuals and that the Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity is also something I was deeply involved in. However, I don't see a problem if this is stated up front. The Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity was a landmark paper that represents the current consensus of those working in the field of child genital cutting, and "includes physicians, ethicists, nurse-midwives, public health professionals, legal scholars, human rights advocates, political scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, sexologists, sociologists, philosophers, and feminists from Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas with interdisciplinary or experiential expertise in child genital cutting practices across a wide range of cultural contexts." Circumcision is the most common form of genital modification and mutilation (e.g. the non-consensual, non-therapeutic cutting of an individual's without consent) in the world. It would therefore me be an utter wrong to not mention it in any detailed capacity. That's not biased in the least. The article at the current moment wrongly implies an artificial distinction between male-female genital cutting that has been utterly discredited and rejected by scholars, with an emerging consensus that ethical separation by sex or gender no longer makes sense.

I don't see how this is advocacy as this is just repeating what those in the field are saying. It's inevitable that the most common forms of modification/mutilation are going to be addressed the most. @Horse Eye's Back:, @MrOllie:, @Chrono1084:. Information about the foreskin being erogenous and the most sensitive to light-touch has also been removed. This is despite the famous 2007 Sorrells et al. study which analyzed the foreskin and found exactly this. WholeAndProud (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Kate Goldie Townsend notes in 2021: "At the time of writing in mid-2021, policy on child genital cutting and modification is inconsistent in the UK, US, and most European states, and there is growing consensus that this inconsistency should end."
This is not the ramblings of a few crazy people. This is the predominant view of scholarship. The article currently labels most forms of male genital cutting "circumcision" while female genital cutting is labeled as "mutilation". This is an outdated paradigm that has been debunked by nurses, sexologists, sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, anthropologists, and genital cutting experts. The article should make some reference to this discrepancy. The foreskin should also be identified as the most sensitive part of the penis to light-touch and heavily erogenous, as research papers have made clear. I don't see a reason why this should be hidden. WholeAndProud (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorrells et al. is a primary source, and per WP:MEDRS isn't usable for biomedical information on Wikipedia, particularly when the sources that do meet MEDRS requirements (like position statements from the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics) say differently. Looking through the sources you cited, none of them look to comply with WP:MEDRS either. MrOllie (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry WholeAndProud, the page likely needs improvement, particularly because the info seems to be outdated, but for now I'm a bit busy with maybe helping keep endosex male child genital cutting/circumcision expert J. Steven Svoboda's page. Also, I'm not sure I want to get too involved in genital cutting articles, particularly because of the vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive I seem to remember litterature reviews that confirm the foreskin could be the most sensitive penile part. That would be ok to publish? Or maybe just already use the 2024 American Journal of Bioethics article? "healthy, sensitive genital tissue" (page 50). It's probably a good idea to mention the WHO. Currently it seems to only mention Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC), as a possible way to help prevent HIV infection https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (22 July 2024 update) Concerning the 2012 AAP policy : "AAP policy has been allowed to expire [apparently in 2017], with no known plans to renew or reaffirm it" (page 49) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 "the AAP might be “trying to just stay out of controversy for a little while.” A spokesperson for the AAP said the organization was unable to comment." https://undark.org/2024/01/01/contested-science-circumcision/ Maybe the WHO also wants to stay away from the controversy surrounding involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting? Other organizations policies (also page 49) could be interesting for this article and others:
"Accordingly, the claim about net health benefits has not been adopted, or has been explicitly rejected, by all other comparable health authorities (i.e., mainstream national-level medical bodies to have issued specific policies or guidance on the subject), including the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the Danish Medical Association, and the Finnish Medical Association (see Lempert et al. 2023 for a recent summary, with a focus on UK guidance)."
Also maybe let's avoid having too much text at the article's sections.Chrono1084 (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation&oldid=1266336219"