Misplaced Pages

Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:46, 25 April 2010 editCoppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,262 edits →POV Tag: HIV mentioned a lot in the sources, so I think it needs to be mentioned in the lead, and could hardly be mentioned more briefly than the current single sentence. Tags are temporary.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:42, 5 January 2025 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,090 edits →This page is not even neutral: useless and almost certainly the result of offwiki coordinating 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header|noarchive=yes}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg|long}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{censor}}
{{WP Sexuality|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{controversial}}
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{Round in circles|search=no|archivelink=/Archive index}}
{{WikiProject Body Modification|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{Calm}}
{{faq}}
{{Article history|action1=PR
| action1date=05:00, 3February 2013
| action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1
| action1result=reviewed
| action1oldid= 536112161
|action2=GAN
|action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013
|action2link=Talk:Circumcision/GA1
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=537886384
|action3=GAR
|action3date=09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Circumcision/1
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=

|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=biology and medicine
}} }}
{{archivebox|auto=yes|search=yes| {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=High}}
:::*]
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}}
:::*]
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid}}
:::*]
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|translation=yes|translation-imp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Body Modification|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{Old moves
{{censor}}
| collapse = false
{{round in circles}}
| title1 = Circumcision
{{controversial}}
| title2 = Male Circumcision
{{calm talk}}
| list =
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Circumcision/Archive index|mask=Talk:Circumcision/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
* RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, '''No consensus''', 18 June 2008, ]
* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''No consensus''', 13 August 2009, ]
* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''Not moved''', 20 July 2010, ]
* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''Not moved''', 10 October 2022, ]
}}
{{Press | subject = article | title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed | org = ] | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 | date = 18 July 2013 | archiveurl = | archivedate = | accessdate = 18 July 2013 }}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
<div style="font-size:170%; line-height: 1.5; font-weight: bold;"></div>
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchive}}{{archive nav|{{archive number}}}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 300K
|counter = 62 |counter = 85
|minthreadsleft = 2 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|algo = old(45d)
|archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archive box|index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days |
<center>''']'''<br/>
''']'''</center>
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Circumcision/Archive index |mask=Talk:Circumcision/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools}}

__TOC__ __TOC__


==Misinformed page. ==
== External Links - CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com ==

When did the external links change? I don't see any discussion about this. I object to CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com being removed. It has been replaced cirp.org. Like I mentioned months ago when we talked about external links, all of those articles on CIRP can be found elsewhere and the website doesn't contribute anything new to the discussion. Also, and more importantly, CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com has since received HONcode certification for quality of healthcare information on the Internet. None of the Circumcision Opposition or Circumcision Proponent websites have this coveted rating. Finally, unlike activist websites, it strives for neutrality based on ethics. While we can argue (and I know some will) about the degree of neutrality, let's keep in mind that striving toward NPOV is what WP is all about. I would like to see CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com put back up. If we need to add a sixth link, so be it. ] (]) 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:I'm afraid I don't share your view of "circumcisiondecisionmaker.com", Frank. It doesn't seem more worthy of inclusion than many of the other anti-circumcision sites. Anyway, to answer your question, it was removed in , as part of a process of re-balancing the numbers of links in accordance with ] and ]. To be specific, the rebalancing was necessary in response to the addition of "circumcision.org" in . In my view, "circumcision.org" is not particularly encyclopaedic either, but it seems marginally more suitable for inclusion than "circumcisiondecisionmaker.com", hence the present state of affairs. ] (]) 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::It doesn't appear to be "anti-circumcision" at all. They recommend circumcision in many cases. It seems to be neutral, which I thought you were in favor of.--] (]) 06:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Studiodan, there's really nothing to argue about. The following is fundamentally an anti-circumcision position: "The panel’s consensus is that the foreskin is a vital, functional part of the male genital anatomy—is not a birth defect—and, if there is not a strong, valid, and immediate medical reason for removing it, for ethical reasons, it should remain intact." There's nothing wrong, as such, with holding such a viewpoint, but it would be disingenuous to claim that such a site is neutral. ] (]) 10:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
::::They recommend circumcision for newborns of Jewish parents... completely omitting the right of the child. I'd say that's clearly pro-circumcision. i.e., You can't say they are anti-circumcision when they recommend it where those against it would not. Still seems neutral to me.--] (]) 17:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Assuming you mean , it seems a rather grudging recommendation at best: "discuss an alternate ritual like brit shalom or brit ben ... by circumcising him, you are denying his freedom of religion ... that circumcision is inconsistent with the Jewish ethical imperative to not harm another human being." ] (]) 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::The is clearly trying to present reasons why an Orthodox Jew should reject circumcision, or find an alternative to it - 90% of the page is devoted to that. It's quite obvious this is an anti-circumcision website, and it's really not appropriate to waste editors' time pretending anything else. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::I agree, and same goes for the vast majority of all medical websites being pro-circumcision websites because they see it as acceptable. That includes all of the "Circumcision techniques and videos." As such, I suggest we place all of those sites under "circumcision promotion" along with Jakew's website. ] (]) 05:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I would argue that the statement isn’t anti-circumcision but rather a human rights statement of ethics. Just change the gender and that becomes evident. ] (]) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::Calling it a "a human rights statement of ethics" isn't very helpful, Frank. It might make sense if only one ethical viewpoint existed, but that is not the case. Authors have published analyses in which it is concluded that circumcision is ethically acceptable or desirable. See, for example, Clark PA, Eisenman J, Szapor S. Mandatory neonatal male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa: medical and ethical analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2007 Dec;13(12):RA205-13 or Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48. ] (]) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
If its just a numbers game, then let’s revisit that instead of throwing out a perfectly good parental resource on the topic. We all have agreed that the information is good, we only disagree on their perspective and how many links there should be.From the discussion I have read here it seems to me that Jakew is more interested in the issue than the topic. But for most people, circumcision isn’t an issue, it is a decision or an event. They don’t view it with the same pro- or anti- polarized spectacles that activists do. Some room needs to be made for efforts that assist parents in making decisions for their children. The website has value as a resource. HONcode, is a more rigourous validation process than the consensus discussion here at WP, and its been around longer, too. Even the American Family Physicians’ website in the techniques list doesn’t’ have HONcode certification. That alone merits inclusions over and above how many links there are or if something thinks it is pro- or anti- on the issue. ] (]) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:No, Frank, I don't think we have agreed that the information is good, and I have yet to see a compelling argument for its inclusion. Rather than proposing to effectively bypass ] by claiming that a blatantly anti-circumcision site is not anti-circumcision, it might be marginally more persuasive to propose what site should be deleted to make space for it. ] (]) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::Jakew, You agreed to add it once. In fact, you added the link yourself after our discussion. Circumcision Resource Center (the work on one man) has been around for years. If it was so valuable, why wasn't it added years ago? The website shows that Circumcision Decision Maker is the work of a group. The only thing that has changed since it was originally added in December was that it received HONcode certification. NONE of the other links have this certificationi for quality of health information on the Internet. That alone merits inclusion. So, editors, let's settle this once and for all. Let's add a link to both the pro- and anti- lists. If that doesn't maintain NPOV, then let's revert to what we agreed to in December. ] (]) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm not saying that "circumcision.org" is "so valuable", Frank. In fact, as I stated above, I don't think it is particularly encyclopaedic. In contrast to what you say, both websites claim to have multiple responsible persons (note that circumcision.org states "Our Directors (majority is Jewish*) and Professional Advisory Board members (one-third is Jewish*)", however the number of authors seem a poor basis for choosing external links anyway. Also, you're making a big deal of this HONcode certification, but you haven't shown that HONcode certification necessarily makes a site more suitable for inclusion as a ]. Finally, we already have too many external links (I eventually plan to trim the lists to 3 for each point of view), and adding more is not a solution. We ought to have fewer than five; let's not increase the numbers. ] (]) 23:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree, we're getting into a ] situation here. The article is already extremely comprehensive, with almost 200 footnotes, hundreds of links, Further readings, See alsos, etc. Cutting down on the External links makes more sense. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::I am not making a big deal of HONcode because it already is a big deal. It is third-party verification of healthcare information. Many parents come to this page for quality information and WP can't deliver it all, there is too much, so high quality links are the solution. Any website that has HONcode certification is bound to be much better than some of the others that are the work of just one or two activists. ] (]) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
What we should fix is the crazy insistance that the pro circ and anti circ websites have equal numeric representation. Note the junk already in the pro side; see jakew had to resort to Jakew's own website. There are many great information websites that are blocked from circumcision because the are labeled anti-circ. They are informational. Like an encyclopedia. What do we have here but propaganda by silly numbers.] (]) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
:If you want to overturn ] then I guess ] is probably the right place to make that proposal. But I should warn you: the chances of success are basically zero. ] (]) 10:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::I agree that having equal numbers makes no sense. Our goal is to provide good information, not be a battleground for an issue. I see no reason to reduce external links, especially since this WP article only touches upon the subject despite its length.] (]) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Again, if you take issue with Misplaced Pages policy then the correct thing to do is to try to change that policy. Ignoring it is not an option. ] (]) 11:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Point taken. ] (]) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Last year I originally proposed that Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (cirp.org) be removed for the sake of CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com. That was quickly accepted, but later reverted. I still feel that Cirp.org is not a good candidate since it does not have unique content, but rather republishes articles available elsewhere such as PubMed. And, this WP circumcision article cites many of the articles that are at CIRP.org, making it redundant. I move that we exchange CircumcisionDecisionMaker.com for Cirp.org. ] (]) 14:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There has been no added discussion since my proposal ten days ago to exchange CIRP for CDM, let alone dissent. So, I will make that change now.] (]) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:I've reverted the change, and refer you to our ], in which I opposed exactly the same proposal (see my comment dated 15:37, 26 November 2009). ] (]) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::Tom Harrison, please advise on this topic. The discussion JakeW makes was in November, In December, following our continued discussion JakeW himself added CDM. Granted, it was in place of Circumcision Resource Center (CRC), not CIRP. Therefore, I submit that CDM, once again, be exchanged for CRC. Thanks, Frank ] (]) 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
:::I oppose that proposal. In my view, while neither link is particularly good, circumcision.org is marginally more suitable for inclusion than circumcisiondecisionmaker.com. ] (]) 21:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Still a stalemate on this topic. This is important, we've been discussing this for 5 months, so, I will return to my original proposal.] (]) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
When I first found Circumcision Decision-Maker (CDM) back in 2009, I came here and suggested it be added as an external link, but in a new section. I still think that is the best solution. Here's why. The websites listed in the Circ-Opposition and Circ-Promotion sections are people and organizations involved in an issue. We all know that this wiki page has become one of the battle grounds for that issue. But, parents who want more information on circumcision so they can make an informed choice for their son are not activists or part of issue. They just want answers, not debate or polemics. I would guess that many of the visitors to this wiki page are parents looking for information. We should be writing with those readers in mind. Regardless of whether you think CDM is pro-, anti-, or neutral is moot. The important thing is that it address head-on the difficult task parents have in making an informed decision regarding a surgery for their child. No other external link does that; it is in a class by itself. Leaving out CDM does our readers a disservice. Therefore, I say make a new section, say "Parental Resources" and put CDM in it. Perhaps there are other such resources, like some of the fine magazine articles that have been writing for parents?] (]) 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
:I'd strongly oppose that, as I did when you first made that proposal. To avoid repeating ourselves, I refer to my ] comments. ] (]) 15:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm hoping that others will weigh in on this, and in time this will be implemented. In the meantime, this might be a palatable solution for even the issue-oriented editors: I've always wondered why the Circumcision Promotion links have so many personal pages, but only one from a nonprofit organization. So, what I suggest is putting 6 links in each section. CDM in the anti- and Gilgal Society (http://www.gilgalsoc.org/) in the pro-. Gilgal Society is a not-for-profit and has literature available for readers. I don't see how anyone can complain about this solution. If your objection is that the web page is long, then obvious solution to a long page is reducing the bloated reference section holding almost 200 items. ] (]) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
:::circumcisiondecisionmaker.com is an anti-circumcision website masquerading as a neutral resource for parents; thus, it's a very poor choice as an external link, since it will mislead readers. If it is "in a class by itself", it would only be in the deceptiveness that its authors use to feign neutrality while promoting a one-sided agenda. In that light, it's very unhelpful of you to continue to pretend that it is merely a neutral resource for parents, that it simply provides "answers, not debate or polemics", and that the fact that it is an anti-circumcision site is "moot". In addition, it's difficult to understand what you mean by a "bloated reference section". The goal of Misplaced Pages articles is to have complete reference sections, and as few external links as possible, since external links represent sites that do not have material that is appropriate for Misplaced Pages (typically because they are unreliable). We should be making the external links section shorter, not longer. In that vein, I recommend we bring the "pro" and "anti" each down to four. Now, you started by suggesting we remove circumcision.org. I'm fine with that, if others will agree. I suggest we also remove the Shraga Simmons link to balance that. That way we'll be down to 13 external links: still too many, but a good start. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::I'd support that proposal, but I agree that that's still too many links. I'd therefore propose that we also delete nocirc.org (from the opposition section) and medicirc.org (from the proponents section), leaving 3 in each. ] (]) 16:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::That would be even better. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
::::We all have our opinions Jakew, and no one opinion is any better than another. In my opinion, CDM is the most neutral of any of the current pro- anti- links. Or, putting it another way, which of the 10 links there is more neutral than CDM? Speaking of opinion. Why didn't you weigh in on the Gilgal Society link? I would think that you would jump at the chance to add a pro-circ nonprofit organization. I'm curious why you haven't suggested adding it? Speaking of links, I've added links to circs.org and cirp.org in the header of the Notes and References section. Since they are linked there, and of course dozens of times in the reference section, I see no reason for either of them to be in the External Links section. ] (]) 12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Firstly, Frank, I think you meant to address your comments to Jayjg, not me. Secondly, as both Jayjg and I have noted, there are ''too many'' links, so why would either of us "jump at the chance" to exacerbate that problem? It wouldn't make sense. It might ''possibly'' make sense to propose replacing an existing link with the Gilgal Society, but frankly I don't think it is significantly more worthy than any of the currently-existing links. Finally, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to include external links in other sections; the reason for standardising on layouts in Misplaced Pages is to make it easier for the reader to find external links, since they are always in a predictable place and with a predictable heading. I suppose it's probably fairly harmless to include the extra links that you've added, but this would be poor justification for removing them from the EL section. ] (]) 15:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Frank, in addition to Jakew's comments, Misplaced Pages is not a guide for new parents, it is an encyclopedia. The goal of Misplaced Pages is not to direct people to other websites, but rather to contain all relevant material on Misplaced Pages. That is why external links should be reduced, not increased. In addition, we're not playing games here. As is both obvious and has been conclusively shown, circumcisiondecisionmaker.com is anti-circumcision. It's bad enough that circumcisiondecisionmaker.com deceptively pretends to be neutral; but for you to bald-facedly abet that deception is even worse. Any statements predicated on dissembling about this will be ignored as being obviously in bad faith. If you want to make a case for your anti-circumcision website, please make it honestly. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 01:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::I understand what you are saying WP being an encyclopedia and that point is well taken. I disagree that CDM is as "anti" as NOCIRC or Intact America. I would agree that it is pro-baby, but then that's not the same thing as anti-circumcision. It does not oppose the practice of circumcision, but rather advises against it under many, but not all circumstances. The polar divisions that Jakew and Jayjg insist upon making here are not helpful to the reader, and would be more persuasive if this was the "Circumcision Issue" Misplaced Pages page, but it isn't. This page is not about the issue. It is about the topic. And I think these discussions would be easier if this perspective was adopted. ] (]) 22:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Frank, Jayjg and I aren't making this classification for the fun of it. Circumcision is a controversial subject, making it especially important for Misplaced Pages to maintain neutral and balanced coverage, and that includes external links. ] ] requires us to maintain balance between external links representing different points of view, and we cannot do that unless we ''identify'' the point of view of a site. That's not because we're trying to focus on the "issue" rather than the "topic" (to use your terminology). It's because we don't have the luxury of ignoring either; one has to be sensitive to the "issue" in order to maintain neutrality.
:::::::Now, it doesn't matter whether CDM is less "anti" or more "anti" than other sites; what matters is that it is an anti-circumcision site. That much is obvious: it is authored by people who are unanimous in their belief that "if there is not a strong, valid, and immediate medical reason for removing , for ethical reasons, it should remain intact". Obviously they're entitled to that position, but if you ask such a group of people, you'll get an anti-circumcision site. (If they wanted a neutral site they would doubtless have recruited authors with a more balanced set of beliefs.) And, as you acknowledge, they advise against circumcision in most situations. That's characteristic of anti-circumcision sites.
:::::::It is becoming very tedious to argue this point. ] (]) 11:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::JakeW, Your polarized perspective is clear; it is an issue you believe strongly about, and others are either with you or against you. And yes, this is tedious. You can always retire. ;) I'll grant that CDM is pro-intact, but not anti-circ. This might help our dilemma. I tried to contact the webmaster of cirp.org regarding a bibliographic question only to find that he had walked away from that project. Cirp.org is not being maintained, and the last updates to the content were in November, 2008 and February, 2009. I propose that we substituted CDM for Cirp. ] (]) 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Frank, ]. Regarding your claim that "CDM is pro-intact, but not anti-circ", that is a classic ]. Again, we're not playing games here, and that includes semantic games. cirp.org has the advantage of being vastly more comprehensive than circumcisiondecisionmaker.com, and in any event, its advantages over circumcisiondecisionmaker.com have been explained before. Rather than repeating old statements, please make new, more compelling arguments. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Cirp.org is defunct. It is not being maintained. It has been over a year since new content was added. Therefore, it should be removed. WP is linking to a poor source. ] (]) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I spoke too soon. I just heard, following my previous inquiry, that there are plans to update cirp.org and keep the information current. My apologies. ] (]) 23:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::The distinction is real. Anti-circ means you are oppossed to circumcision for any and all purposes. CDM does not make that claim. Instead, it states there are times when not circumcising is better than circumcising. That makes it pro-intact. We both know that some people promote circumcision for a variety of reasons. Some of them would be better called anti-foreskin. These distinctions are important since the issue is not cut and dried, but, like most of life, continuous shades of gray. ] (]) 16:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::Frank, please read the previous comments, and try again, ensuring that your statement this time includes no semantic games. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::I did read your comments and I am not playing games. I am making an important distinction. I do not accept that a website or organization is either/or, pro/con. I'm saying responses to this topic run the gamut.] (]) 15:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Please review the previous comments, which were very clear. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Frank Koehler, I agree with you that there are distinctions that can be made among points of view; it's more complicated than just pro-circ and anti-circ; there can be large numbers of points of view. I'm sorry that I missed how this applies to this discussion. I also agree with Jayjg further above that circumcisiondecisionmaker.org is essentially an anti-circ (or pro-intact, if you prefer; or anti-circ in most situations, etc.) website which presents itself as if it's neutral. <br/>I don't think it's the type of site Misplaced Pages should link to. Misplaced Pages normally links to sites that provide information, not to sites that primarily tell people what to do. I tried circumcisiondecisionmaker.org. I clicked on "his general wellbeing" and got "Leaving your son intact is an overall better choice than circumcision for a number of important reasons: ...", and nothing about reduction of risk of sexually transmitted infections, UTIs etc. <span style="color:Red; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 18:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Coppertwig, There is a much, or more, information on CDM than is on, say, Circumcision Resource Pages. See the general information pages on the main navigation bar. Also, the "decisions" they provide in their troublshooting-type format combine to create an overview of the topic. It appears that you clicked on the first link provided (well-being), but didn't explore the rest of the website. If you want to read about STDs or UTIs, then you should navigate to those pages. Here is the link: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/decide/infant-circumcision/health/prevention/ Check it out. There is more here than meets the eye. The portal style theme is misleading. ] (]) 12:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Even if they also provide extensive information, I don't support linking to them for the reason I stated above, based on what one tends to find when one looks there. Providing information on health benefits somewhere on the site is no substitute for providing balance within prominently displayed advice. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 23:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

== Recent edits ==

I've just some highly dubious changes. To explain:

#The {{tl|POV-section}} tag was inappropriate. It is intended to be used when there is an NPOV issue with that particular section (the lead section), and directs readers to a corresponding discussion on the talk page. No such discussion exists &mdash; it refers to an old discussion that has long since been archived.
#Inclusion of ] was entirely inappropriate, partly because of the apparent usage as a "shock tactic", but also because it is a copyright violation. According to , the same image is copyrighted by the Saturday Evening Post.
#Inclusion of an additional external in the opposition section was made without discussion and without attempting to maintain the numerical balance of links.
#Inclusion of a was also inappropriate, because this video is not encyclopaedic. Careful watching reveals that the sound and picture appear to be unrelated to each other; the screaming appears to have been added after the picture was filmed.
#Creation of a new external links subsection entitled "Circumcision studies and polls", containing a news about an unnamed study, though presumably that of Lander et al., our 119th ref. This is utterly incomprehensible: the body of the article is the correct place to cite studies, not the external links section, and in this particular case it seems that we already cite the study anyway. ] (]) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
:I request that this picture be put back for three reasons. First, it was removed without discussion. Second, any 'shock' is a byproduct of the truth; that is how babies look being circucmised. Third, because the SEP has given permission for that set of images to be used.] (]) 13:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm mildly curious, where did the Post do so? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 17:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Years ago I was given a duplicate set of all the images the SEP photographer took during that photo session in order to convert it to digital. I corrected the images for color cast at that time, the Ektachromes had shifted color with age. The image that was posted here looked to be one of those I had converted. At that time I contacted the SEP (now owned by Curtis in Indianapolis) and they gave permission to use that image without restriction or attribution. ] (]) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
::::That would not qualify as permission for Misplaced Pages's purposes. Misplaced Pages would need direct conformation from the Saturday Evening Post, which is no doubt why the image was deleted. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Trinu: I've removed the quote from the American Academy of Family Physicians which stated "No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction." Evidence (although it is somewhat conflicting) can be found in numerous journals and is cited in the article. This makes the quote misleading at best. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Do you dispute that the AAFP made this statement? ] (]) 09:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
::Whether or not they made the statement (which they did) is not the issue. The issue is whether its inclusion in the article is POV. It's outdated as there have been new studies released (unless of course they have since reissued that statement), and it seems to imply that studies finding differences penile sensitivity in circumcised and uncircumcised men are either nonexistent or have all been discredited. ] (]) 19:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
:::On the contrary, that's precisely the issue. If we included only sources with which we agreed, it would be impossible to achieve a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages's policy against ] prohibits us from using our own personal assessment of sources in such a way. There are plenty of sources in this article making statements that I regard as misleading or even false, but it would be just as inappropriate for me to remove them. ] (]) 19:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
::::You should also know about wikipedia's policy on Undue Weight. That statement creates the impression that studies indicating a decrease in sensitivity have been widely discredited, which it has not. Misplaced Pages's policy on undue weight prohibits us from writing an article that does not accurately represent the scientific consensus or lack thereof, even if all of the evidence comes from experts. If the consensus is that there is very little evidence or inconclusive or conflicting evidence, then the article should reflect that. Whether you or I agree with the statement is irrelevant. Furthermore I am not conducting my own research, I am using other people's peer-reviewed research, hardly my own opinion. ] (]) 20:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::Citing reliable secondary sources helps to ensure due weight through fairly representing scientific opinion. We cite three: a review by Boyle et al., and policy statements from two medical associations, of which the AAFP is one. ] (]) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
::::::I am aware of the value of citing secondary sources. The main issue is that the statement is phrased in a way that creates the illusion of a consensus that the studies indicative of decreased penile sensitivity have been completely discredited. There is nothing wrong with statements that say "there is no conclusive evidence of decreased sensitivity," or "there is no general consensus," or even "it is not generally believed to decrease sensitivity." I propose we either note that several new studies regarding circumcision came out following the paper, or find a similar statement from another medical association that is less likely to give undue weight. ] (]) 20:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
:::::::No, it does not create the "illusion of a consensus". In fact, it is quite apparent from reading the three secondary sources that there is a difference of opinion regarding what the evidence shows. It does, however, create the impression that the AAFP believes that no valid evidence supports the notion that circumcision affects sexual sensation or satisfaction. Since that is precisely what the source states, it is not misleading. If you would like to propose alternative phrases, I suggest that you write to the AAFP. If, as a result, they use those phrases in a revised statement, you can be sure that we will update our text to reflect that. However, in the meantime, we must honestly and accurately reflect what they say. Once again, the fact that you disagree with them is irrelevant. For what it's worth, I also disagree with their statement (in my view it is misleading to say "Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified" since evidence suggests otherwise), but that does not change the fact that this is the position of a prominent, reliable, secondary source. ] (]) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The first and most important bit of reasoning behind including Yang and not Bleustein is that the Yang was released after the AAP and AAFP released their statements (even the AAFP statement included the operative phrase "to date"). Because Yang was released over a year later, I'm including it. Secondly, it is also because the replication of results is very important to the scientific community. If some studies have replicated the results but not others it says something completely different, than if no studies have managed to replicate the results of Sorrells paper. You don't need to worry about me flooding that section with peer-reviewed sources. I'll save those for the main article. ] (]) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
:To address your first point, I understand your reasoning, but ] must come first, and it is vital to consider whether the selection of studies is representative. Unless the text explicitly states that studies prior to a certain date are excluded, the reader will naturally assume that the list is complete or at least a representative selection, hence it would be misleading. Also, it is not just Yang that is excluded &mdash; other sources re sensitivity/sensation that post-date the AAFP statement include Waskett &amp; Morris and Cortez-Gonzalez et al.
:To address your second point, replication of results is indeed important, but not more so than failure to replicate results. To use a hypothetical example, if 5 of 5 studies found result X, then that would constitute very strong evidence for X. But if 5 of 100 studies found result X, then that is a very different situation. In this situation, if we just consider studies of glans sensation, Sorrells and Yang report differences, but Masters &amp; Johnson, Bleustein 2003, Bleustein 2005, Payne, and Waskett &amp; Morris all report no statistically significant differences. ] (]) 09:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

== POV Tag ==

Zinbarg said ''"You are bound by Wiki rules to leave the POV tag in place."'' . Zinbarg: what rules specifically are you referring to, and how do they apply to this particular situation? The last time I looked, as far as I remember, I didn't find rules that seemed to clearly support keeping tags. I agree with Jakew that the tag should be removed if it doesn't refer to any currently active discussion. This has been discussed previously at ]. <span style="color:Green; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 23:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

:That's an old poll, though I found several issues there that are still problematic. Seems like the poll decided to leave the tag in place. I'm referring to Wiki rules on the how and why of POV tags.

:In the short time I've worked on Circumcision, Discussion has tried and failed to fix several POV (pro-circ) issues. Specific to just the introduction: For example, HIV doesn't belong in the lead (this isn't a 'in the news' blog); HIV is a topic that's well covered in the body. On and on we find that it's a single UNAIDS/WHO article, why is it listed as two (pro-circ) publications?? The dates on the AMA and CDC UNAIDS/WHO are unusual for the article, but Jakew insists on including them to suggest the AMA is an old conclusion. Actually, I showed the medical assoc positions are unchanged and current, and the AMA statement is a current representation of the facts. But, listing all the relevant dates is blocked. Removing misleading dates is blocked. Use of the common term (and specific to the cited reference) genital mutilation is blocked. I could go on and on and on looking at prior Discussion pages. We've got lots of (pro-circ) POV in just the lead.

:Then there's the general problem of insistance on pro/con equal representation. Jakew enforces an equal number of pro and anti circ positions in the article, though often not factual in nature. See Schoen's false claim for circ timing, for example. Also, see the silly list of external links, where lousy dregs of pro circ is presented while quality informational circ websites are blocked because Jakew finds them anti circ, and insists on equal representation. He's even got his own OLD personal lousy website listed as a pro circ link! See the discussion on bringing in additional links (Jakew finds anti, and blocks). Simply POV.

:Please also look at Jakew's version of Sexual effects. I think he purposely makes it confusing frequently hogwash. He blocks a normal introduction, prevents presentation of the Sorrell's sensitivity graph, and enforces a table full of confusing junk studies (not stastically relelvant).

:I'd be glad to work on those issues, and the POV tag must remain (by the rules).] (]) 15:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
::No, the poll did not decide to leave the tag in place. Opinions were expressed on both sides. You haven't cited any wiki "rules" about keeping tags. In my opinion, the NPOV tag is to mark articles that need attention; not for cases like this, where we have a very high-polished, heavily-edited and frequently-viewed page, which has remained largely stable for a long time, with gradual changes and extensive discussion. I understand that there are things you disagree with about the article, and I encourage you to continue discussing these issues. In general the article won't be what any one editor considers optimal, but the result of hard work and interaction of multiple opinions.
::I agree that HIV belongs in the lead for the reason Jakew gave, that a large proportion of reliable sources discuss it. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to summarize what the sources say, not what Wikipedians might wish to emphasize.
::Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Jakew's version of Sexual effects"; do you mean the ] article, or a section of this article? Please give the date and time of the version you're referring to. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 23:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
:::The poll tally favored keeping one of the three tags Coppertwitg. The problems leading to that decision have not been fixed. I've revisited some recently. You know the tag rules; three known, discussed but not fixed issues of bias in content or presentation ie POV. I've detailed, discussed and tried to fix. Reverted by Jakew with often silly spurious comment.] (]) 15:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

----

''(Note: I'm changing the indentation of the following comments, for readability. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC))''

It's very difficult to understand the above, but as far as I can tell the issues seem to be:
*Inclusion of HIV in the lead. You state that "HIV is a topic that's well covered in the body", but this is ''not'' an argument against its inclusion in the lead. Please see ], which clearly indicates that important aspects ''should'' be discussed in the lead: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article ''and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject'' of the article. ... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should ''roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources,'' and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." (emph. added)
*:Unindent reply: Please review the purpose and substance of introductions. HIV is text material, and is already covered in the intro by discusssing pro medical reasons (Schoen).] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::Zinbarg, please ''read'' what you are replying to. I've quoted passages from ] that state what an introduction should include, and they clearly note that the lead should include the important points of the body of the article. HIV is one of these points. (Also, I've asked you before not to insert your replies in the middle of my comments.) ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::When you reply in such length this is the only way to follow the discussion. Please be brief. Medical issues including HIV are already in the lead pro con by Schoen and Milos. HIV is a part of medical. I was suggesting you refer to a writing manual to see the purpose of an introduction.] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::First, the text discussing Schoen and Milos does not mention HIV. Second, they are used as illustrative examples of extremes of opinion regarding circumcision, and their claims are not necessarily representative of scientific consensus. Consequently, they would be insufficient as a summary even if they did discuss HIV explicitly. HIV is not a notable aspect of circumcision because Schoen says that circumcision is protective; it is a notable aspect of circumcision because the World Health Organisation has stated that circumcision is protective and consequently many countries have initiated large-scale circumcision programmes. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::HIV isn't particularly relevant to either Schoen or Milos et al or they would have included that medical issue. Having NOT chosen to treat HIV other than as another potential medical benefit, why does Jakew think it's so critically (lead) important? Medical is covered properly in the lead. Treating HIV seperate from medical in the lead is biased to undue weight.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::As already explained, "it is a notable aspect of circumcision because the World Health Organisation has stated that circumcision is protective and consequently many countries have initiated large-scale circumcision programmes." Furthermore, as has been shown in previous discussions, HIV is given considerable weight by sources: a considerable fraction of reliable sources discussing circumcision discuss HIV in that context. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::Reading the lead with and without the reference to HIV I think the level of inclusion when mentioned gives the issue undue weight. This seems to underpin the discussions below about the sources. My feeling is that the relation to HIV prevention should be mentioned but in a softer form with the evidence being elaborated on in the text - having 1 full paragraph of 4 on what is really only section 6.4.1 is too much. I will think about better wording to see if you agree. |→&nbsp;]]23:10, 14 April 2010 (])
*::::::::I've no objection to shortening the paragraph, but I think the reference to the WHO should be retained, as it helps to balance the AMA paragraph. The CDC reference is probably not needed.
*::::::::However, regarding due weight, consider the weight given in reliable sources. For example, if you search for "circumcision" (using the "Limits" facility to examine those published in the past 5 years in accordance with ]) "circumcision" returns 1170 articles, of which 434 (37%) discuss HIV. If you further use the "Limits" facility to select only meta-analyses and reviews (ie., secondary sources), 68 (49%) of 139 articles relating to circumcision discuss HIV in their abstracts. For comparison, 11 (8%) of the reviews discuss phimosis, 13 (9%) discuss urinary tract infection, and 33 (24%) discuss complications. One might argue that PubMed will over-represent medical issues, but using Google News for the period 2005-2010 returns 3,500 (29%) of 12,000. Still, the method is not perfect, but even so, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that reliable sources give the HIV issue a great deal of weight, apparently more so than other medical aspects. ] (]) 10:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::::I agree that there is a lot of material discussing HIV in the sources; I think HIV needs therefore to be mentioned in the lead. It's currently a single sentence, and I'm not sure it's possible to mention it any more briefly while remaining meaningful, accurate and NPOV. Other solutions to balance things out are to increase the amount of material in the main body of the article about HIV (to more closely match the proportion in the lead), or to make the lead somewhat longer. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

*Mention of the authorship of the WHO/UNAIDS ref. That is a joint statement, authored by both organisations. If we only listed one organisation it would be misleading.
*:Wiki lists as publications. You have it listed as two publications for pro-circ purposes. It's one joint statement and publication, and should be cited as such.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::I've no objection in principle to re-phrasing the sentence. Please provide the text that you propose to use instead. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::HIV does not belong in the intro. The single publication should be listed as such in the text.] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::You haven't answered my question. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::My answer is that including HIV as a seperate paragraph in the lead voilates NPOV. The way it is now warrents the POV tag.] (])
*::::::Zinbarg, your original complaint was that: "It's one joint statement and publication, and should be cited as such". That was why I asked you to propose an alternative wording. Since you're now refusing to answer my question, I guess we have nothing further to discuss. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::<s>Zinbarg, when you say "You have it listed as two publications ...", what exactly do you mean? I looked at the two footnotes, and they go to two different documents (one from WHO/UNAIDS, one from CDC). Maybe you mean the first part of the sentence, which lists the organizations supporting the statements?
*:::::::How about changing ''"The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the ] (UNAIDS; 2007), and the ] (CDC; 2008) state"'' to ''"The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007) and the ] (in a joint statement: UNAIDS; 2007), and the ] (CDC; 2008) state ..."''? (i.e. inserting "and" and "in a joint statement".) I see Zinbarg's point, I think: listing some organizations and saying that they "state" makes it look as if there were as many statements as organizations.</s> (Please discuss and get consensus before editing.)
*:::::::No, wait, I see: It says "(WHO; 2007)" and "(UNAIDS; 2007)", making it look as if there were two separate documents. Were these both the same document? Then I think it should be changed. Why are those parenthetical thingies in there, anyway? Why not just remove them? The footnotes are good enough. I propose ''"The World Health Organization, in a joint statement with the ] state... . The ] also made a similar statement."'' <span style="color:Blue; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 15:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
*Inclusion of dates. This is necessary, at least for the AMA statement, because that statement refers explicitly to "all ''current'' policy statements". The date is therefore necessary to allow the reader to know when that was written. Dates for the other statements are probably less important, though it is helpful for the reader to know that they post-date the AMA statement.
*:No, the dates are not normal (its' very rare to see dates in text) for Wiki; You force the exception because they mislead. The reader is mislead to think the medical assoc postitions are post CDC UNAIDS/WHO. Many are not (as I listed for you), and all include discovery about HIV. You mislead.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::As I stated, it is necessary to date the statement since the reader needs to know what the publication date in order to process what "current" means. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::No, current relevant is not 1999, but the dates of the individual assoc statements. Many are post HIV (CDC WHO/UNAIDS)findings, and all include essential HIV findings.] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::The word "current" is used by the American Medical Association, in a statement dated 1999. ''You'' may believe that it is also true where current is defined as "2010", but we are not writing an article about what Zinbarg has said. We're discussing what the AMA said, and in the context of their statement "current" means something like "as of 1999". ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::No, I presented each medical association current statement and their respective dates, which shows that many are as current as the CDC WHO/UNAIDS publications. All assoc statements included HIV in their reviews and therefore conclusions.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::Sorry, I can't make sense of that. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::1999 is misleading because many of the medical assoc statements are more current, and as current as the HIV findings. The article presentation makes the AMA seem dated, when it's not. Even in slightly older statements, you find that HIV findings in the conclusions. And we know assoc are aware of new findings and update accordingly.] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::::Zinbarg, it is a ''quote'' from a document that was ''written'' in 1999. Are you seriously suggesting that the AMA actually intended to discuss policy statements that had not yet (in 1999) been published? (Do they have a time machine?) Or do you agree that the AMA referred to policies that were current as of 1999? ] (]) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*Describing circumcision as "genital mutilation" would violate ].
*:That is THE common term, and it's what's employed by the cited reference; so it is not NPOV.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::No, Zinbarg, the common term for circumcision is "circumcision". ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::The term used by the cited reference is genital mutilation; so that term needs to be applied in the lead. Or find a better con representative (that doesn't use the term, good luck) It is also commonly used, and understood.] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::Nothing in Misplaced Pages policy requires us to use exactly the same terminology as our sources. Sometimes, as in this situation (as noted) doing so would violate ]. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::Wiki requires representative content. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the common term among anti-circ agents.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::That may be so, but Misplaced Pages is not an "anti-circ agent". Instead, it is a neutral encyclopaedia, and that requires us to use neutral terminology. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::"Genital mutilation" is not common or acceptible terminology to describe male circumcision in this article. It is certainly not neutral and would only be included in a direct quote illustrating the language used by anti-circumcision literature. |→&nbsp;]]23:10, 14 April 2010 (])
*::::::::Note that I haven't tried to use that term in the article. But it IS the primary term for the reference, and reading that reference and anti-circ website presentations shows it's quite common (much more than FGM). Not using the preferred term is POV.] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::::Zinbarg, we can't use non-neutral terminology, even if some sources (reliable or otherwise) do. Sources are allowed to express points of view, including through their choice of language. Misplaced Pages does not have that luxury. ] (]) 15:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*You appear to object to including equal numbers of pro- and anti-circumcision positions. Again, see ].
*:Facts are facts, and are not subject to counts. You evidently don't know what ] means Jakew.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::We're not talking about facts, remember; we're talking about arguments. And to remain neutral we need to give equal weight to the various viewpoints. This is absolutely fundamental to ]: please review that policy. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::We're taking about verifiable facts. Well supported arguments. You push viewpoints (opinions), which is different from presenting facts.] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::We're talking about viewpoints. Note the language of the paragraph: "There is controversy regarding circumcision. ...", "Schoen ''argues'' that", "Milos and Macris ''argue'' that". Some of the arguments contradict each other, but we're not saying that either is correct, we're just noting that they make (rightly or wrongly) arguments in support of their position. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::The NUMBER of valid points is rarely equal in a debate. The number is based on the factual basis of the claims. Nothing else. Forcing an equal number of points therefore usually introduces bias.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::We're not discussing the number of ''valid'' points, Zinbarg. We're just listing some of the arguments that have been made, regardless of whether we think they are valid or not. So by listing an equal number of points for each viewpoint, we avoid giving either excessive weight. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::Limiting the numbers of each side to the argument does not constitute a neutral point of view but there is no easy way to weigh the relative merits of sources to decide how many of each or which of each to have. This is not an ideal way to do it, but I can't think of a better one that doesn't involve endless polls and discussions for every new link proposed. It is not POV to limit it to equality in itself either. |→&nbsp;]]23:10, 14 April 2010 (])
*::::::::It is when you limit critical information, thus preventing Wiki from having all the relevant facts.] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::::Zinbarg, are you referring here to your attempts to remove the critical information regarding HIV from the lead, and "thus preventing Wiki from having all the relevant facts"? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
*You again object to including a claim of Schoen's, with which you disagree. As multiple editors have explained, it doesn't matter whether we think a claim is true or not. Please see ]: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
*:I don't disagree. I presented a detailed study clearly finding Schoen statement wrong. Schoen is expressing his opinion, he cites no reference, and he's not based on fact as shown. Wiki is about verfiable facts. I've verifiabibly shown he's wrong.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::No, Zinbarg, you haven't shown that Schoen is wrong, nor have you presented a study that finds his statement to be wrong. All you have done is presented a study giving a different conclusion, but that doesn't prove that Schoen is wrong. Other studies (eg. ) support Schoen's viewpoint. In any case it isn't our place to prove sources right or wrong; it is verifiable that he makes this argument, and that's all that matters. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::Peer reviewed double blind research is more factual than an unsupported personal opinions. Weiss compares neonate with children, not neonate with infant (as with the study I presented).] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::I agree: peer reviewed research is indeed more factual than mere opinion, but "more factual" is an inappropriate test. For the purpose of illustrating ''controversy'', opinions are actually more relevant than facts. (I fail to see why Weiss is irrelevant, since schoen compares the neonatal period with older ages, but as I noted it is not our place to prove sources right or wrong, so I decline to argue the point further.) ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::The study I presented clearly found that 5 months (infant) was smuch afer than neonate. Weiss compares studies of children with studies of neonate. Schoen opinion is that neonate is better than children. Wrong and unsupported.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::You're mistaken. Schoen explicitly compares neonatal circumcision with those at (unspecified) older ages: "The ideal time for circumcision—the window of opportunity—is when a child is first born. At older ages circumcision is riskier, more complicated, and about 10 times more expensive." ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::Schoen does give that personal opinion. Studies show otherwise. Weiss missed the mark with his study.] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::::Why would your opinion regarding the accuracy of Schoen's view be relevant? ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
*Again, re external links, you object to balanced coverage. See ]. (Incidentally, I do not endorse the inclusion of circs.org, which was done by editors other than myself.)
*:You and a few other editors evidently work as a team, so you get all credit. I object to suppressing facts and pushing false statements in the name of "equality." Most of the websites you find anti circ are simply informational ie not pro or con. You just want to push false pro info. Your website has very limited fact, all pro propaganda material, for example.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::Zinbarg, it is extremely tiresome to deal with these repeated and absurd accusations regarding my motives. Please review ] and ]. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::I simply point to your actions. Let others judge motivations.] (]) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::"You just want to push false pro info" is a direct claim about my motivation. So, for that matter, are: "You have it listed as two publications for pro-circ purposes", "You just want to push false pro info", and " fearing presentation of clear facts". Stop it. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::Your motivations are your business, I just point it out facts other editors.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::Correct, my motivations are my business, so please stop making claims about them. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::I haven't made any claims. I've shown actions. To show more, all that's needed is a short burst of cut and paste from past discussions and votes, confirmed with your edits.] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::::Zinbarg, this page is for discussing the content of this article, nothing else. ''']'''. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
*You make vague accusations to the effect that I'm deliberately making another article "confusing frequently hogwash" (to quote your curiously nonsensical claim). I'm not going to bother to respond here, because it's completely irrelevant.
*:You block an introduction to Sexual effects, evidently (from your statement) fearing presentation of clear facts!!! Your inclusion of studies that did not find statistically relelvant info should not be presented as relevant.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::None of which is relevant to this article. ] (]) 16:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::Wiki has a similar problem (intro and biased content) in Sexual effects for the same reason (Jakew).] (]) 17:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::If you want to complain about me, do so in an appropriate forum. That is not an appropriate topic for discussion here. ] (]) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::I included problems in Sexual effects here because the POV tag has been improperly removed (by Jakew) from that topic discussion as well.] (]) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*::::::...Which is irrelevant to this discussion. ] (]) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::As stated a few times by Jakew, this is clearly irrelevant here. |→&nbsp;]]23:10, 14 April 2010 (])
*::::::::Spaully, it's good for perspectice on Jakew. Certainly, the graph is good information for Wiki on a detail level article. Do you think it should be blocked by Jakew from inclusion in Sexual effects? ]] (]) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
*:::::::::Zinbarg, this page is for discussing the content of this article, nothing else. ''']'''. Consider this your second warning. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
----


The circumcision page on Misplaced Pages is grossly incorrect and biased. It states that there are basically no downsides, and no changes in pleasure. This is incorrect.
In short, although it is clear that you're unhappy, you haven't shown any evidence of NPOV violations here. ] (]) 16:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


source:
:::Zinbarg, tags aren't methods of defacing articles when one has come out on the losing end of a Talk: page discussion. And one certainly cannot slap a ] tag on an article because one wishes to violate ], but have been unsuccessful in doing so. The purpose of the NPOV tag is to (ideally) help remove violations of NPOV from articles, not, as you are proposing, to introduce them. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 21:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php ] (]) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::::I seek to work to make the article neutral. I have shown good faith trying. The article is currently propaganda, for the very specific reasons cited. The reader needs to be aware of disagreement among editors on specific issues. I have presented (and the poll agreed) several problems that I'm willing to work on. If Jakew and Jayg refuse neutrality, the tag remains.] (]) 15:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


:This precise topic over whether circumcision decreased pleasure during sex was debated last year (see ]). After a prolonged and, at times, heated debate, it was decided to retain the statement involving pleasure.
Zinbarg I don't think you have made a case for there being significant POV in this article, and there is discussion over any substantive points you have raised. Just hold off for a bit to decide what you think are major problems and post them here. Having the tag in the article benefits neither editors or readers at present. |→&nbsp;]]16:07, 14 April 2010 (])
:To the topic of the specific reference you provided, the article was published in 1997 (so approaching 26 years old) and was authored by ], an anti-circumcision activist and a person who is "known for his unconventional medical view(s)". Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of circumcision and pleasure since that article was published. ] (]) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:Spaully, do you think the current HIV paragraph belongs in the introduction?] (]) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons. They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon. Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.
:You'll find other reasons for the POV tag in the poll statements ]. The vote came out in favor of the single tag. Those reasons remain as well.] (]) 17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
::] (]) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::I notice the tags were initially placed by ] as he thought the article too anti-circumcision, specifically on one sentence. This was resolved and then a poll was held, oddly, and there was no consensus either way with both openly pro- and anti- supporting removal and not. I will try to read through the above discussion though it is fairly dense, but the original poll holds no sway over this. |→&nbsp;]]22:51, 14 April 2010 (])
:::Discussions challenging the protective effects of male circumcision against HIV seem to come up every few months. The last one was in April to June of this year (see: ]).
::Zinbarg, your recent edits have, as I feared, moved the article away from ], in direct contradiction of that policy, so I've had to revert them. Do not remove from the lede the date of the AMA statement, nor the information about AIDS, without consensus, particularly as these edits have a deleterious effect on the article. And, as Spaully points out, a 15 month old discussion about tags holds no sway today; as has been stated before, tags are not weapons for permanently defacing articles. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
:::{{tqi|Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons.}}
:::The tag was maintained by several editors Spaully. Generally, it's been there for specific reasons, like the current introduction bias. If you want, I'll get you a long list of ongoing (not fixed) complaints from discussion. Jayg, you are mistaken.] (]) 00:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Both US-based medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), and international based medical organizations (including the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS) have all acknowledged that male circumcision offers a level of protection against acquiring HIV. The argument that circumcision is primarily supported by the U.S. medical industry for financial gain overlooks the substantial body of evidence that supports the claims of reducing the acquisition of HIV. The claims that "the US medical industry" strongly supports circumcision for financial reasons appear to be ].
::::No, not mistaken at all, and a discussion 15 months ago regarding tags is not relevant to whether the article should currently be tagged. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
:::{{tqi|They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon.}}
:::::Right: tags are supposed to be temporary and indicate problems that can actually be fixed, not differences of opinion between editors. The "controversial" template is a talk page template; there is no equivalent for articles as far as I'm aware. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
:::As per policy. The Misplaced Pages policies ] and ] require that due weight and proper balance be considered when editing articles. Misplaced Pages does not give equal weight to all points of view; it gives weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
:::{{tqi|Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.}}
:::The comparison of HIV prevalence rates between countries must consider a multitude of factors, including but not limited to sexual behavior, access to healthcare, education, and public health initiatives. The casual claim that Western European countries exhibit lower HIV prevalence than the U.S. does not account for these variables. For instance, South Korea presents a counterexample to these claims: it has an HIV prevalence rate that is significantly lower than that of many European countries, despite having a higher circumcision rate than the United States. Regardless, without ], your claims appear to be original research and not eligible for inclusion under the policy of ]. Even assuming you are able to locate sources to support this view, they would still need to be evaluated in conjunction with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE policies discussed above. ] (]) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Circumcision obviously increase frictions making sexual activity such as masturbation less easy due to the lack of skin, many circumcised man use lub to reduce that friction their lack of skin create, and
::::circumcision obviously make the glans keratinized discoloured and the mucous dry while all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated the glans is obviously made to stay hydrated and covered, not uncovered and dry,
::::those are obvious and observable facts we can all do by making comparisons to circumcised and not circumcised penises by thousands of pictures we can find online and experience. ] (]) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.
::::https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 ] (]) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
::::https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86 ] (]) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Some circumcised men, like some uncircumcised men, use lubricants during sexual activity, but many circumcised men do not experience any issues without them. This point seems irrelevant to the article. If you are suggesting that circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure or decreased sexual function compared to uncircumcised men, the majority of studies indicate that circumcision does not lead to any decrease in sexual pleasure or cause sexual dysfunction, as referenced in the article. There has been extensive debate on this topic on this talk page.
:::::Regarding your claims about circumcised penises being "discolored" and the notion that they are "supposed" to have "mucous" (presumably referring to smegma), these views are not applicable to the article. Your personal opinion that penises "supposed" to be uncircumcised does not make it so and does not warrant inclusion in the article.
:::::It is crucial to consider the quality and context of the research. The first study you mentioned is a retrospective cohort study, which is generally regarded as one of the lowest quality of studies available (especially compared to studies like randomized controlled trials). It's first author is the open anti-circumcision activist, Morten Frisch, and numerous researchers have voiced their concerns about a large number of methodological issues in that specific study (see: ).
:::::Even if the study were conducted in a neutral and methodically sound manner, a handful of cherry-picked studies of questionable quality cannot substantiate biomedical claims in an article, as per ]. This is particularly true when there is a substantial body of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials that contradicts those findings. Again, Misplaced Pages articles give weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". ] (]) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::No I’m not talking about smegma, and that’s not an opinion, circumcision obviously alters the penis appearance because just looking at thousands of different penises pictures the not circumcised ones are always averagely significantly more colorful appearance than circumcised on average ] (]) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The foreskin has a "mucous membrane", but a healthy foreskin does not produce significant amounts of true "mucus". If someone is noticing a visible amount of "mucus" under their foreskin, it is likely smegma.
:::::::
:::::::You did not merely claim that those circumcised penises were differently coloured or appeared different; you claimed they were "discoloured" and were "supposed" to look a different way. The Cambridge English dictionary defines discoloured as "something that has become a less attractive colour than it was originally." The colour difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is due to the exposure of structures that are covered by the foreskin in an uncircumcised penis. The belief that a penis is "supposed" be uncircumcised or a circumcised penis is a "less attractive colour than it was originally" are subjective opinions. Misplaced Pages articles are not places to post "]", and all content must conform to Misplaced Pages's ] policy. ] (]) 11:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So you are admitting that circumcision change the mucous color, to a paler color? And I meant mucous not mucus, and no a penis is supposed to have a foreskin this is part of the penis anatomy. ] (]) 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This is literally discoloured since a penis is originally not circumcised and a circumcised penis is slightly of a paler color for the exact reason I thought, due to exposure like you said ] (]) 05:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Ok so you all misunderstood my says, I just said that anatomically speaking a mucous is a special skin whom is supposed to stay hydrated not dry, like lips vulva anus or any other place that are mucous and special skin made to being permanently exposed to humidity, the gland and half of the shaft are not skin but mucous and are made to stay hydrated, I never mentioned smegma, I said that circumcision is not natural for a penis since it’s a modification, that’s just anatomical facts not opinions, and you confirmed that circumcision do alter the mucous color of the penis due to permanent exposure, and I suppose I’m right about the keratinized thing since you said nothing about it. ] (]) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I meant uncircumcised have more skin making the shaft more mobile making mouvements easier for masturbation as example, I never said uncircumcised men never use lubricant, but COULD be more frequent with circumcised men due to the fact they have less skin mobility increasing friction. ] (]) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I never said circumcision decrease sexual pleasure. I know what we think about me, that I’m an idiot what rely on my personal opinions and trying to confirm my beliefs which is an idiot in my definition, that’s extremely delusional unrealistic and weak mentality strength ] (]) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Does not affect functions at all? Foreskin provide more skin which make the shaft mobile and make back and forth movement easier like masturbation. ] (]) 06:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Length of references == == Content not uploaded ==


Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection.
This article initially appears pretty lengthy but I notice that is largely due to the huge references section, almost half the page. I see that there are significant quotes from sources including peer reviewed journal articles in the list. I have not seen this to nearly the same extent in other articles and I am concerned that it increases the length while potentially posing problems with misrepresenting the source and infringing on their copyright.
Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.


https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6
In certain cases, such as reference 16, sections have been edited presumably to show what the author thinks are the salient points. This again raises problems with original research and synthesis.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86


== Question because this place seems to be the most objective and scientific place for deep answers I will never have anywhere as I got one before and it was interesting and very informative. ==
The job in writing this article is, as far as is possible, to create a neutral summary of the information supported by sources but written as a summary. Using large quotes also brings the possibility of undue weight, especially where parts of the quotes are boldened.


Is it true that circumcision lightly alter the penis appearance? Because if we look at thousands of different penis picture we can see a tendency for uncircumcised penis to be on average slightly more pink in the thousands of penis pictures, I never seen a single circumcised penis being vivid pink or “purple” every individual are différents so it depends on the individual and it’s all relative but I’d say as example a circumcised men whom was supposed to have a “purple” glans will have it pink instead because circumcision seems to change the coloration a little bit. ] (]) 05:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest that people wanting to follow up on the sources should follow the links and have the opportunity to read the full paper and as such these quotes should be removed from the sources either altogether or used within the text if they are particularly informative. |→&nbsp;]]13:04, 14 April 2010 (])


==Bias==
:You will find Avi and Jakew responsible for creating the huge reference section. It serves their pro-circ propaganda purposes. It's another reason for the POV tag.] (]) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
::], or there will be repercussions. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
:Yes, I agree that we can probably get rid of most of the quotations in the references section without causing any problems. ] (]) 16:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Problems with the article:
::All the quotations should be removed from the references section. Do not selectively remove quotes Jakew. Spully, I don't understand your paragraph regarding reference 16; since it has no quote or edit.] (]) 17:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Ref numbers tend to change as a result of edits to the article, Zinbarg. At the time of Spaully's comment, appears to have been the current version of the article. Ref 16 contains a long quote from the RACP. ] (]) 10:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
::::I mildly prefer keeping all the quotes rather than deleting all the quotes, as some of them provide useful information for the reader. However, I suggest deleting the following quotes: All the dictionary definitions at the beginning (remove ref 1 completely); removing the quote about Coptic and other churches (but keeping the ref); and removing the quotes of medical association policies (but keeping the refs). Generally the medical association policies are available online at a click anyway, so providing the reader with a long quote isn't much help. The dictionary definitions are more suitable for the talk page, as justification for the wording of the article content, than useful to the reader. I believe page load time is essentially a function of the number of ref tags, not the amount of text, so unless readers print it on paper, long refs do little harm. I don't feel strongly about which quotes are removed, so don't feel you need to wait for me to comment on any proposals; however, I urge editors to discuss fully and reach some sort of consensus before making any such changes; I don't want to see editwarring over the quotes. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


https://en.intactiwiki.org/Wikipedia_bias_on_circumcision
==Circumcised Penis Image==


Thanks. ] (]) 17:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The current image is quite obviously very graphically manipulated. Notice the washed out background (most obvious). You can also see softened/blurred skin, and very obvious image cutting. In addition to this, the fact that such editing is not seen for the not-circumcised penis creates a neutrality problem.] <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Do you have an RS? ] (]) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
::They do not. Automation for humans is coming anyway, we won't allow these anomalous tips to exist. We have the technology. ] (]) 22:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::What? ] (]) 11:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::AUS posted as retired after posting here. See RosaSubmarine's talk page, looks like a meatpuppet. ] ] 11:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)


== Offwiki lobbying ==
:Yes, it would be nice if the pictures were more similar. At one stage we had a pair of images that were very similar indeed, but for some reason (I forget what) they were replaced with what we have now. ] (]) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
::I recall that as well. I'll take a look into the history and old talk pages and try to figure out what the reason was for replacement. If anyone here knows the reason, please jump in.--] (]) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


See ] which explains the recent talk page posts here. ] ] 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Jake, this isn't about the photos being disimilar. It's that the circumcised image is obviously manipulated and blurred. The background is strangely washed out, and the circumcised penis has low contrast, making it hard to see. The uncircumcised image is clear and sharp. What we need is a photo of a circumcised penis that has this clarity, with about the same field of view.] (]) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:42, 5 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85Auto-archiving period: 45 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Page name

Editors sometimes propose that the page should be renamed to male circumcision, male genital mutilation, or male genital cutting. Consensus has rejected these proposals, because they are used in only a small minority of reliable sources. Most reliable sources refer to circumcision as "circumcision"; thus, in accordance with WP:TITLE, Misplaced Pages does the same.

Former good articleCircumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
March 14, 2022Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Translation Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconBody Modification (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

  • RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, No consensus, 18 June 2008, discussion
  • RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, No consensus, 13 August 2009, discussion
  • RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 20 July 2010, discussion
  • RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 10 October 2022, discussion
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.

Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85
Archive guide
Sample PubMed

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


Toolbox

Misinformed page.

The circumcision page on Misplaced Pages is grossly incorrect and biased. It states that there are basically no downsides, and no changes in pleasure. This is incorrect.

source:

https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php 104.194.36.23 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This precise topic over whether circumcision decreased pleasure during sex was debated last year (see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 85#"Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure."). After a prolonged and, at times, heated debate, it was decided to retain the statement involving pleasure.
To the topic of the specific reference you provided, the article was published in 1997 (so approaching 26 years old) and was authored by Paul M. Fleiss, an anti-circumcision activist and a person who is "known for his unconventional medical view(s)". Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of circumcision and pleasure since that article was published. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons. They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon. Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.
212.97.248.58 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussions challenging the protective effects of male circumcision against HIV seem to come up every few months. The last one was in April to June of this year (see: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_85#Lack_of_Consensus_on_HIV_prevention).
Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons.
Both US-based medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), and international based medical organizations (including the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS) have all acknowledged that male circumcision offers a level of protection against acquiring HIV. The argument that circumcision is primarily supported by the U.S. medical industry for financial gain overlooks the substantial body of evidence that supports the claims of reducing the acquisition of HIV. The claims that "the US medical industry" strongly supports circumcision for financial reasons appear to be WP:FRINGE.
They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon.
As per policy. The Misplaced Pages policies WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE require that due weight and proper balance be considered when editing articles. Misplaced Pages does not give equal weight to all points of view; it gives weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.
The comparison of HIV prevalence rates between countries must consider a multitude of factors, including but not limited to sexual behavior, access to healthcare, education, and public health initiatives. The casual claim that Western European countries exhibit lower HIV prevalence than the U.S. does not account for these variables. For instance, South Korea presents a counterexample to these claims: it has an HIV prevalence rate that is significantly lower than that of many European countries, despite having a higher circumcision rate than the United States. Regardless, without WP:reliable sources, your claims appear to be original research and not eligible for inclusion under the policy of Misplaced Pages:No original research. Even assuming you are able to locate sources to support this view, they would still need to be evaluated in conjunction with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE policies discussed above. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Circumcision obviously increase frictions making sexual activity such as masturbation less easy due to the lack of skin, many circumcised man use lub to reduce that friction their lack of skin create, and
circumcision obviously make the glans keratinized discoloured and the mucous dry while all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated the glans is obviously made to stay hydrated and covered, not uncovered and dry,
those are obvious and observable facts we can all do by making comparisons to circumcised and not circumcised penises by thousands of pictures we can find online and experience. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Some circumcised men, like some uncircumcised men, use lubricants during sexual activity, but many circumcised men do not experience any issues without them. This point seems irrelevant to the article. If you are suggesting that circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure or decreased sexual function compared to uncircumcised men, the majority of studies indicate that circumcision does not lead to any decrease in sexual pleasure or cause sexual dysfunction, as referenced in the article. There has been extensive debate on this topic on this talk page.
Regarding your claims about circumcised penises being "discolored" and the notion that they are "supposed" to have "mucous" (presumably referring to smegma), these views are not applicable to the article. Your personal opinion that penises "supposed" to be uncircumcised does not make it so and does not warrant inclusion in the article.
It is crucial to consider the quality and context of the research. The first study you mentioned is a retrospective cohort study, which is generally regarded as one of the lowest quality of studies available (especially compared to studies like randomized controlled trials). It's first author is the open anti-circumcision activist, Morten Frisch, and numerous researchers have voiced their concerns about a large number of methodological issues in that specific study (see: ).
Even if the study were conducted in a neutral and methodically sound manner, a handful of cherry-picked studies of questionable quality cannot substantiate biomedical claims in an article, as per WP:MEDRS. This is particularly true when there is a substantial body of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials that contradicts those findings. Again, Misplaced Pages articles give weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
No I’m not talking about smegma, and that’s not an opinion, circumcision obviously alters the penis appearance because just looking at thousands of different penises pictures the not circumcised ones are always averagely significantly more colorful appearance than circumcised on average 104.163.174.55 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
The foreskin has a "mucous membrane", but a healthy foreskin does not produce significant amounts of true "mucus". If someone is noticing a visible amount of "mucus" under their foreskin, it is likely smegma.
You did not merely claim that those circumcised penises were differently coloured or appeared different; you claimed they were "discoloured" and were "supposed" to look a different way. The Cambridge English dictionary defines discoloured as "something that has become a less attractive colour than it was originally." The colour difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is due to the exposure of structures that are covered by the foreskin in an uncircumcised penis. The belief that a penis is "supposed" be uncircumcised or a circumcised penis is a "less attractive colour than it was originally" are subjective opinions. Misplaced Pages articles are not places to post "opinion pieces", and all content must conform to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
So you are admitting that circumcision change the mucous color, to a paler color? And I meant mucous not mucus, and no a penis is supposed to have a foreskin this is part of the penis anatomy. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
This is literally discoloured since a penis is originally not circumcised and a circumcised penis is slightly of a paler color for the exact reason I thought, due to exposure like you said 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok so you all misunderstood my says, I just said that anatomically speaking a mucous is a special skin whom is supposed to stay hydrated not dry, like lips vulva anus or any other place that are mucous and special skin made to being permanently exposed to humidity, the gland and half of the shaft are not skin but mucous and are made to stay hydrated, I never mentioned smegma, I said that circumcision is not natural for a penis since it’s a modification, that’s just anatomical facts not opinions, and you confirmed that circumcision do alter the mucous color of the penis due to permanent exposure, and I suppose I’m right about the keratinized thing since you said nothing about it. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I meant uncircumcised have more skin making the shaft more mobile making mouvements easier for masturbation as example, I never said uncircumcised men never use lubricant, but COULD be more frequent with circumcised men due to the fact they have less skin mobility increasing friction. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I never said circumcision decrease sexual pleasure. I know what we think about me, that I’m an idiot what rely on my personal opinions and trying to confirm my beliefs which is an idiot in my definition, that’s extremely delusional unrealistic and weak mentality strength 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Does not affect functions at all? Foreskin provide more skin which make the shaft mobile and make back and forth movement easier like masturbation. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Content not uploaded

Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection. Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85 https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86

Question because this place seems to be the most objective and scientific place for deep answers I will never have anywhere as I got one before and it was interesting and very informative.

Is it true that circumcision lightly alter the penis appearance? Because if we look at thousands of different penis picture we can see a tendency for uncircumcised penis to be on average slightly more pink in the thousands of penis pictures, I never seen a single circumcised penis being vivid pink or “purple” every individual are différents so it depends on the individual and it’s all relative but I’d say as example a circumcised men whom was supposed to have a “purple” glans will have it pink instead because circumcision seems to change the coloration a little bit. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias

Problems with the article:

https://en.intactiwiki.org/Wikipedia_bias_on_circumcision

Thanks. RosaSubmarine (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
They do not. Automation for humans is coming anyway, we won't allow these anomalous tips to exist. We have the technology. Automatic Unit Slicer (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
AUS posted as retired after posting here. See RosaSubmarine's talk page, looks like a meatpuppet. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Offwiki lobbying

See Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Off-wiki coordination on Circumcision related articles which explains the recent talk page posts here. Doug Weller talk 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: