Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision

news article addition
I reverted Jake's revert of MurasakiSunshine news ref from the New York Times on circumcision by cauterization. Jake you site WP:MEDRS for your reasoning however I believe you are taking it a bit too literal. It also states "Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article." This has value as a historical reference. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain how "With a circumcision by cauterization, electrocautery needles are used to severe the foreskin and prevent bleeding. This method of circumcision is now considered dangerous and outdated" constitutes a historical statement, Gary? It clearly is nothing of the sort.  It's a statement in the present tense that makes an assertion about current medical thinking.  Jakew (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually even worse than I thought. Not only are the cited sources inappropriate for the claim, but none of the cited sources even  support the assertion that the method "is now considered dangerous and outdated".  And one even explains that there are mixed views: "Some physicians believe electrocautery should never be used in circumcision. [...] Others describe it as perfectly safe."  So that managed to violate WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  And all in one edit. Jakew (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's obviously not safe considering multiple children (I think I can source 7 or 8 cases directly) lost their penises because of it. Also, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, 1997 stated that electrocautery should never be used for circumcision. Either way, it is a method of circumcision and should be added to the article in some form because it was at one point in use. It's not popular in the USA and Canada now but I have heard of Turkey using cauterization. Just say there is a dispute over the safety of cauterization. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Please see WP:NOR. We can't draw our own conclusions about whether it is safe or not; that's for reliable secondary sources to decide (and they'll probably consider not only the number of serious injuries, but will also put that in perspective by considering the number of total number of surgeries).  There is no reason why the CPSM should not be cited; that's a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Jakew (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jake that we should not draw our own conclusion for that is WP:OR but the refs MurasakiSunshine supplied are all quite dated which is why I said historical significance, 1975-91. They are just reporting historical fact Jake and seem to add another method that was missing from circumcision procedures, perhaps we could word it differently or come up with some better refs to cover this procedure? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've misunderstood MEDRS, Gary. When it says "high-quality popular press can be a good source for ... historical information in a medical article", it doesn't mean that an article in the popular press is a reliable source for any statement as long as the article is old.  It means that the article may be a reliable source for information regarding history that is provided by the press article.  Note, however, that per WP:PRIMARY we cannot interpret old reports of (then) current events as "history".
 * As for finding better refs, good idea! Jakew (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly original research to make the conclusion that losing your penis is bad. We don't need a source to specifically state that a surgery is unsafe if the results indisputably speak for themselves. Rip-Saw (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

American Academy of Paediatrics back circumcision
Just to update the article, the American Academy of Paediatrics have released a statement changing their position of 1999 which is mentioned in the article, In a statement released yesterday, the academy said the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure "for families who choose it". It said benefits from male circumcision included the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. It said the procedure "does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction". The new stance is a significant change from the academy's neutral position on the issue, which was last stated in 1999. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-paediatricians-back-circumcision-20120827-24w6f.html

As such the article should be changed to show this new updated position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyanne454 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I started working on this today.   03:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything old should be removed
I see this article makes a habit of citing old literature, as if the author(s) wished it could one day itself become a review. But that's not how we write a encyclopedia. We largely rely upon recent review articles (WP:MEDRS). Anything older than 10 years should be removed, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I started working on this today, and honestly the article really requires a top-to-bottom rewrite. This article is now at the top of my work list.    03:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work! Just see my comment below. I don't want your time to be wasted. =) Biosthmors (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should this article exist?
What do we need/have to mention here that cannot be summarized at circumcision? I notice there is no other Medical analysis of... article on Wikipedia. Biosthmors (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that this article grew out of Circumcision as that article got too large, and the article moved to a summary style. I wasn't involved in that split-off, but I think that the idea was that Circumcision would have just the most important medical information, and this article would have more room for more in-depth coverage and analysis of less well-covered research results and commentary.  I'm not yet convinced this article is necessary either... several times today I heard myself mutter, "Let's just delete this whole darn thing."  Give me a bit to review the WP:MEDRS sources, if I can't find a good reason to keep it either, I'll meet you at WP:AFD.    03:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge back to the circumcision article is in order. Most of the material here is non MEDRS compliant material (either old material >10 years, primary studies, or both). Most of the remaining material should fit into the main article. Yobol (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Review of sources
To check the currency of the sources used to support medical claims, I pulled all the sources from the article, extracted the dates and sorted by year, and the result is in the table below. If we are generous and liberal with the WP:MEDRS guideline and allow sources from the past 6 years, fully 75% of the sources in this article need to go. If we're more strict and limit it to four years, nearly 90% need to go. Clearly the article not only needs a complete rewrite, but it needs to be nearly completely resourced as well. It was also interesting to find about 20% of the sources were located on anti-circumcision activist sites.

18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. I'll just boldly redirect to circumcision and drop a note at the talk page there. Biosthmors (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's bold all right! I'm happy to have one less problem-fraught article to maintain, thanks.    18:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Biosthmors (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)