Talk:Circumcision/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jmh649 (talk · contribs) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the description of what a good article should be (GA) and a guideline on engaging in the good article review process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GA_criteria and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles I hope that this article can achieve the balance required to meet this standard in the future.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Will review

Over the next while. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

POV problem

The article is currently not suitable for GA status at all. It is not neutral. It presents what may look superficially like a balanced presentation, but from a point of view that is obviously American or similarly pro-circumcision. The US is unique in that it still practises male infant circumcision on a large scale for non-religious reasons. Some specific problems:

• "No major medical organization recommends universal circumcision for all infant males or banning the procedure." This is misleading. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) states in its position paper, which is referred to elsewhere in the article: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medi-cally qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case."
• "Significant acute complications happen rarely, occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States. [...] There is an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000." This is badly in need of globalisation, onas the numbers will likely be significantly worse in some countries.
• "Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." This statement is seriously POV and supported through selective quotation. Decreasing sensitivity has always been the main purpose of circumcision (although the article does not seem to mention this fact anywhere), and some studies have shown it is effective.
• The words shock and trauma do not appear even once in the article. These are very significant adverse effects of infant circumcision. When the prepuce is torn off the penis, many infants fall into a shock that makes them go through the following extremely painful operation without crying or indeed any reaction. Some studies have measured this pain. Others have documented circumcision-induced trauma after a year or even in teenagers. The KNMG paper says about this and the previous point: "Alongside these direct medical complications, psychological problems and complications in the area of sexuality have also been reported, as have extreme pain experiences in newborns causing behavioural changes which are still apparent years later. Similarly, the high social costs of circumcision as a result of complications have been cited."
• There are countless citations to a severely biased advocacy document: American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (2012). It was written by a committee of circumcision advocates. The literature review in this document has a cut-off date right after a number of major studies that would have significantly changed the outcome if they had been included. There is a lot of convincing criticism of the paper here: [1] (It's an activist source, but that does not invalidate the concrete, verifiable points of criticism such as: "In its recommendations for future research, the AAP report calls for research into potential benefits [and complications]. There is no mention of future research into the harm [as opposed to complications].")
• "There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men in high-risk populations. [...] Whether it is of benefit in developed countries is undetermined." This is very one-sided. To quote the KNMG position paper again: "Due to the large number of medical benefits which were wrongly ascribed to circumcision, it is frequently asserted that circumcision is ‘a procedure in need of a justification’. In recent decades, evidence has been published which apparently shows that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, but this evidence is contradicted by other studies. // Moreover, the studies into HIV prevention were carried out in sub-Saharan Africa, where transmission mainly takes place through heterosexual contact. In the western world, HIV transmission is much more frequently the result of homosexual contact and the use of contaminated needles. That the relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV is at the very least unclear is illustrated by the fact that the US combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with a high percentage of routine circumcisions. The Dutch situation is precisely the reverse: a low prevalence of HIV/AIDS combined with a relatively low number of circumcisions."
• Just like the AAP advocacy paper, the article makes no attempt to weigh the purported benefits of circumcision against the adverse effects. The KNMG has done this, and the result was not favourable for circumcision.
• No discussion of male circumcision is complete without a comparison with female genital mutilation, especially with female genital mutilation of types Ia and Ib.
• The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article, although that title redirects to it.
• Judaism: This section misses the chance to mention the motivations for circumcision in Judaism. According already to Maimonides: "One of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. [...] In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision." The latter reason of course points to possible adverse effects later in life, or even earlier for those who are less sensitive to begin with. Maimonides has been very influential on this topic.
• The article says "Circumcision may be medically indicated for phimosis [...]". This is a way to avoid saying that there is less invasive treatment for phimosis and that the prevalency of phimosis diagnoses is primarily a function of the prevalency of non-therapeutic circumcisions, and that almost every diagnosis of phimosis in a very young boy is deceptive or the result of violent or otherwise inappropriate 'hygienic' interventions, usually due to misinformation.

I don't think this list is complete, but I will stop here for now. Hans Adler 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The common thread that I see running through the statements made by intactivists is a human-anatomy version of "The Bumblebee Can't Fly!" (see, e.g., http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly). They think that circumcised men must be crippled, their sex life diminished, because they cannot imagine it to be otherwise. They ignore the evidence of a billion circumcised men enjoying rich, pleasureful sex lives. Just like the aerodynamicist in the apocryphal tale could not figure out a way for the bumblebee to stay aloft, the intactivists cannot figure out a way for circumcised men to experience rich, fulfilled sex lives with their partners, hence they think this must be impossible. So they spend much of their waking hours selectively compiling data to validate their hypothesis while ignoring everything that would invalidate it.188.107.215.90 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a medical topic. You don't seem to be taking it seriously if you resort to such cheap rhetoric tricks. If you have something serious to say, I suggest that you do it and remove this comment and my response as an unnecessary distraction. Hans Adler 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if my previous comment displeases you. On the other hand, you will surely agree that purple prose such as "There are countless citations to a severely biased advocacy document: American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (2012)." is unlikely to win over many people to your camp. --188.107.215.90 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what it is, whether you like it or not. And here it seems to be treated like a Cochrane review or something. Totally inappropriate. Hans Adler 08:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Zad has done an excellent job addressing issues of concern in his recent edits. As I do not see further significant concerns I am passing this as a GA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a very slight improvement that made next to no difference. The article is still severely POV. Passing it in this state was very inappropriate. Hans Adler 18:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Final Review

GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)

1. Well written.

   a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead,layout, word choice, and fiction:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (well-referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c(Wikipedia:No original research):

3. Broad in its coverage.

   a (covers major aspects): b (well-focused):

4. Neutral .

   Fair representation, no bias:

5. Stable.

   No edit wars nor disputed contents:

6. Illustrated appropriately by images.

   a b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Result: Good work, keep it up! Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

---

NOT GOOD ENOUGH YET

I contest the assertion that this article is accurate, broad in coverage,neutral,stable and that the illustrations are adequate. I feel the GA pass was given prematurely. There is and has been for some time a fierce debate going on in the talk pages about content and emphasis and many disputed and reverted recent edits. For these last two reasons(content debate and edit wars) the Good Article status is generally expressly not granted. Why were they ignored here ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The article looks like a war zone between pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision parties, just like the subject itself. The pro-circumcision side seems to have an upper hand right now, so listing this as a good article only makes sense to me as a victory from their point of view... A truly terrible representative of the ideals of Wikipedia. NosferatuBatman (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)