Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:58, 10 January 2014 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs)365,630 edits →Morality of mutilating children.: Comment to Tumadoireacht.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:42, 5 January 2025 edit undoDoug Weller (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,124 edits →This page is not even neutral: useless and almost certainly the result of offwiki coordinating
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	{{ArticleHistory
			{{Talk header}}
	\|action1=PR
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|gg\|long}}
	\|action1date=05:00, 3 February 2013
			{{censor}}
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1
			{{controversial}}
	\|action1result=reviewed
			{{Round in circles\|search=no\|archivelink=/Archive index}}
	\|action1oldid= 536112161
			{{Calm}}

			{{faq}}
			{{Article history\|action1=PR
			\| action1date=05:00, 3February 2013
			\| action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1
			\| action1result=reviewed
			\| action1oldid= 536112161
	\|action2=GAN		\|action2=GAN
	\|action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013		\|action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013
Line 11:		Line 17:
	\|action2result=listed		\|action2result=listed
	\|action2oldid=537886384		\|action2oldid=537886384
			\|action3=GAR
			\|action3date=09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Circumcision/1
			\|action3result=delisted
			\|action3oldid=

	\|currentstatus=GA		\|currentstatus=DGA
	\|topic=biology and medicine		\|topic=biology and medicine
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{skip to talk}}
			{{WikiProject Men's Issues\|importance=High}}
	{{talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top}}
	{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
			{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality\|importance=Mid}}
	<div style="font-size:170%; line-height: 1.5; font-weight: bold;">{{round in circles\|search=no\|archivelink=/Archive index}}</div>
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=Low\|translation=yes\|translation-imp=Top}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Men's~~ ~~Issues\|class=GA~~\|importance=~~High~~}}		{{WikiProject Body Modification\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Sexuality \|class=GA~~ \|importance=~~Mid~~ }}		{{WikiProject Human rights\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Medicine \|class=GA~~ \|importance=~~Mid~~ }}		{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=Low}}
			}}
	{{WikiProject Body Modification\|class=GA\|importance=Low}}
			{{Old moves
	{{WikiProject Human rights\|importance=Low\|class=GA}}
			\| collapse = false
	{{WikiProject Religion\|class=GA\|importance=Top}}
			\| title1 = Circumcision
			\| title2 = Male Circumcision
			\| list =
			* 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, ]
	}}		}}
	{{censor}}
	{{controversial}}
	{{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 }}		{{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}}
	{{calm talk}}
			<div style="font-size:170%; line-height: 1.5; font-weight: bold;"></div>
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 300K		\|maxarchivesize = 300K
	\|counter = 78		\|counter = 85
	\|minthreadsleft = 3		\|minthreadsleft = 3
	\|minthreadstoarchive = 1		\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(5d)		\|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=5 \|units=days \|		{{Archive box\|index=/Archive index \|auto=yes \|search=yes \| bot=MiszaBot I \|age=30 \|units=days \|
	<center>''']'''</br>		<center>''']'''<br/>
	''']'''</center>		''']'''</center>
	}}		}}
Line 51:		Line 68:
	__TOC__		__TOC__

			==Misinformed page. ==
	== Why are article topics weighted according to the amount of publications? ==

	I find this extremely wierd. One reason is that it can be much easier to publish about some things than other things, and then there will be more publications just because it is easier to publish about that. Another reason is that controversial topics tend to generate a lot of publications. If something is well accepted and not controversial there are often less publications about that, but just because something is controversial it doesn't necessarily make it more important. Considering circumcision I think it is pretty obvious that the medical aspect is very controversial, so of course a lot of the publications are about the medical aspect. There are also tons of opportunities to do medical research on circumcision, and medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects of circumcision. How are you supposed to do research upon the legal/moral aspect of circumcision anyhow? Probably there are much more medical publications than legal/moral publications simply because there are much more opportunities to do medical research and publish about it. I also don't necessarily think you can solve the moral/legal problem with circumcision by doing research. What kind of research can possibly prove that infant mutilation is immoral? What kind of research can prove that theft, murder and rape is immoral? Are there lots of publications about the morality of theft/murder/rape? I doubt it, because it is not very controversial wheter is is immoral or not, and because you can't do research to prove if a thing is immoral or not.] (]) 19:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

	:I'm glad to see that you do indeed recognize that the distribution of the weight in the sourcing regarding the topic of this article is heavily medical, and that Misplaced Pages's guidelines direct us to take that into account in organizing the article. A counter-argument to "medical reasearch might get much more funding than reasearch on the social/legal/moral aspects" is that medical research is a LOT more regulated and expensive to do than simply reading up on and then writing one's own philosophical reflections on a subject. Medical research is only ever an expense; comparatively, philosophical writings cost next to nothing, so you can argue that medical sourcing should be weighted more heavily because it's so much more resource-intensive to produce. But, this article's talk page is probably not the right place to pursue these sorts of general questions. <code>]]</code> 20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

	::How many philosphers are there compared to medical doctors these days? How many serious places can you publish your own philosopical ramblings, compared to places where you can publish medical research? How many of the places publishing philosophical ramblings are approved by wikipedia? It might indeed be more costly to do medical research, but it isn't necessarily more difficult. I think a better weight system would take other things into consideration. Such as in which context the word circumcision most often is used. The word "circumcision" is probably used much more in a religious context than in a medical context. You might also give weight according to the historical use of the word "circumcision". Zionists certainly love to talk about their right to the "holy" land due to the jewish history in that geographical area.] (]) 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

	:::I see. Well, interesting question anyway. You can do your own research to answer some of your own questions by exploring journal indexes like JSTOR and PubMed. <code>]]</code> 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

	::::{{ul\|84.210.15.173}}, your points are all valid really. There's no quantitative way to reliably determine article weight for topics that are treated substantially by multiple disciplines and the results of such database searches are merely indicative. Compared to the humanities and social sciences, medical researchers publish more frequently, they publish shorter pieces that are often highly focused, and they might publish (essentially) the same research findings in multiple locales. There's also more money available for medical research, greater commercial interest, greater government funding for research into public health issues, and the medical field itself is vast compared to most other disciplines. Having said that, database searches have greater force, as in this instance, when the results indicate that medical publications outweigh all other scholarly publications on the topic by a rather massive majority. Thus, it's easy to argue in this instance that ] should apply. That is not to imply that a generalist encyclopedic article on circumcision should not be relatively comprehensive, without being overly long, and it should allow the reader to navigate in clear way to more detailed treatments of different aspects of circumcision. This doesn't correspond to policy but, personally, I'd be more comfortable arguing for a different organisation of this and other articles if there was an equivalent guideline to ] for other disciplines like sociology, history, philosophy and anthropology. If your interest is specifically in the representation of the ethics of circumcision, there are other scholarly sources that could be added to the relevant section of this article. ] (]) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

	:::::Having fully read your last comment to the end, I'm kicking myself for posting a reply. ] (]) 23:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I found your reply independently interesting and useful Fiachra and not at all tainted by an irrelevancy in the tail end of the comment that precipitated yours. --— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

	I made this argument before, that this is clearly a case of ]. The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons. While wikipedia's rules for giving weight to the amount of citations is a good rule of thumb, it clearly does not apply here. It's not a far fetched guess to make that people are gaming wikipedia's rules to push a pro-circumcision bias under the auspices that the medical benefits support their pre-conceived biases. This is unacceptable for a wikipedia article. Circumcision is performed for religious and cultural reasons, and as such the article should give weight to that rather than the medical purposes. ] (]) 07:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

	:Just like when you brought this up before, I agree with you again that it would take an application of ] to ignore the sourcing and Misplaced Pages content rules to reconfigure the article significantly, as you appear to be suggesting. In general if there's a case where it is suspected that editors are pushing an agenda, the best course of action{{emdash}}and the only course of action directly supported by Misplaced Pages's core content policies{{emdash}}is to have the article adhere strictly to the sources and a straight-forward application of those content policies, as this article does currently. Waving the ] flag to suggest that the article instead be reconstructed according to the wishes of that same group of editors suspected of pushing an agenda is the opposite of a productive thing to do. <code>]]</code> 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	::I understood that ScienceApe was proposing that we should supersede the sanitized picture of circumcision that you Zad, and a small coterie group of other editors maintain in this presently peculiarly skewed article. And not that we should continue to support the censorship. Why do you describe the opposite ?--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	::No, you did not read what I said. I said users are gaming the rules to push an agenda, meaning the rules themselves are responsible for a slanted article that does not reflect reality. You're invoking an argument from weak induction fallacy when you assert, "If there's agenda pushing, then the course of action is to follow the rules". That is NOT the case in this situation, so your generalization drawn from induction does not apply here. ''The vast majority of circumcisions are performed for cultural/religious reasons, not medical reasons.'' This is a fact in reality, and this article does not give weight to that fact in reality, it gives weight to using medical reasons to justify circumcision. You Zad68, are responsible for gaming the rules to push an agenda. ] (]) 19:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Ah following the policies and procedures of Misplaced Pages is not "gaming the rules". ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Strawman fallacy. You are intentionally misrepresenting my arguments. ] (]) 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::That happens here a great deal ScienceApe.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 15:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Sadly yes, the other problem is that we are trying to convince the people that are pushing an agenda, that they are pushing an agenda. It's pointless to have a rational discussion with these people. ] (]) 17:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

	== Sexual Sensitivity Damage Dispute ==

	The article doesn't seem to effectively highlight the fact that the damage circumcision does to men's sexual experiences (both physical and psychological) are highly disputed. It seems to only have references to a limited set of studies, performed by the AAP (which is often discredited due to its pro-circumcision biases<ref>http://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/bvkj/kinpopup/psfile/pdf/70/121126_Ste50aa5e211e6a6.pdf</ref>), with a weak statement of "doesn't seem to". There are many reports and studies that find circumcision reduces sensitivity and hinders sexual function as well as causing a number of psychological issue early and later in life<ref>Bronselaer, G. et al., "Male Circumcision Decreases Penile Sensitivity as Measured in a Large Cohort," BJU International (2013). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract</ref><ref>Frisch, M., Lindholm, M., and Grønbæk, M., "Male Circumcision and Sexual Function in Men and Women: A Survey-based, Cross-sectional Study in Denmark," International Journal of Epidemiology (2011);1–15.</ref><ref>Sorrells, M. et al., “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,” BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.</ref><ref>Boyle G., Goldman, R., Svoboda, J.S., and Fernandez, E., "Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae," Journal of Health Psychology (2002): 329-343.</ref>. While I'm not saying the article should state that circumcision definitively does do damage, I think it is important to reference several sources and highlight the fact that many studies have shown circumcision has potentially negative side effect on sensitivity, sexual function, and psychological well being. The section seems very glossed over though it really is a component of the topic that is incredibly relevant. {{unsigned\|Pod1989}}

	::We use secondary sources per ] ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

	I also pointed this out, that there were clear problems with the conclusions drawn, which were even highlighted by the ones who conducted the study.

	'''Limitations to consider with respect to this issue include the timing of IELT studies after circumcision, because studies of sexual function at 12 weeks postcircumcision by using IELT measures may not accurately reflect sexual function at a later period. Also, the self-report of circumcision status may impact study validity. This could be in an unpredictable direction, although it is most likely that the effect would be to cause an underestimation of the association. Other biases include participants’ ages and any coexisting medical conditions.'''

	So not only does the terse statement in the wikipedia article fail to explain what sexual function is despite the original source expounding on what it meant, it also failed to outline the limitations and problems that the source identified with the experiment. This has to be represented in the article. ] (]) 07:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
	::What has to be represented? Are you proposing on adding a line that "there is not good evidence regarding an effect on sexual function" ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::I stated what needs to be represented. The source identifies clear problems with the conclusion it drew. Failure to represent these problems give the article a slant. ] (]) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::It would be more constructive Doc James if you devoted your responses to considering the highlighted ( 'bold ') text above and less to suggesting that another editor is making suggestions which he clearly is not.filibustering,stonewalling, and avoiding the issue are so 2013. --— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

	:::::{{U\|Jmh649\|Doc James}} asks a reasonable question. {{U\|ScienceApe}} is unhappy with the representation of this study and its findings in the article. Therefore it is reasonable to query what concrete proposals they offer to improve the representation of the study. ] (]) 11:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Except I already said what needs to be represented in the very post he responded to. Tumadoireacht is right, he's filibustering, his question was inherently rhetorical, and not genuine. In another post he deliberately strawmanned me and misrepresented my position. These people are not honestly discussing the problems with the article. ] (]) 17:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::That's the standard MO at this article when someone points out how biased it is. The article owners ask for concrete change proposals which they can shoot down by citing biased literature and agreeing with each other. This is unlikely to change without intervention: Most people outside the US consider circumcision to be an unsavoury, atavistic, but essentially harmless practice. As it is also a taboo subject for most of them, they are very unlikely to get involved. For many, however, circumcision is a religious obligation, an important source of income, or something which they must defend for psychological reasons because they themselves or their parents have afflicted their children with it. (Let's ignore the tiny but vocal sneaky minority of those for whom it is a sexual perversion.) This seems to be a much larger number than those who, like me, started researching the subject due to a public debate and found that in many cases it amounts to baby torture.
	::::::Of course similar situations exist at many articles, and it is still possible to fix them. I would be motivated to do this here. But even when I still had the time to do it, I couldn't. Several of the article owners seem to have far superior access to the often extremely expensive literature. This makes it almost impossible to check for selective or misleading quotations, cherry-picking of biased sources etc. Also, for the reasons I gave above the interventionist bias also seems to exist in a large segment of the literature. By agreeing to elevate that segment to 'most reliable', the article owners can easily quell all dissent.
	::::::For flying saucers or ghosts we rightly eliminate most of the specialised literature because it is fringe. For circumcision or the virgin birth of Jesus we can't do this because these aberrations are too popular and consequently the specialised literature is accepted as scholarly or even scientific regardless of its intellectual shortcomings.
	::::::I would like to offer a solution, but I can't think of one. ] 17:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::I'm going to bring this to ]. ] (]) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	Okay I will put forth a suggestion. Source gives this as a summary of the quality of evidence regarding sexual function "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" I guess we could add a summary of this. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Your suggestion does not address the problems the study identified with the conclusion it drew. ] (]) 23:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	::You lost me. It is very clear "There is both good and fair evidence that sexual function is not adversely affected in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men" There is no issue. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::That's a non-sequitur. ] (]) 03:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::How is it a non-sequitur? You appear to want the article to carry more content about the quality of the evidence base for this one particular statement. Others have pointed out singling out this one secondary source's comments about a primary source is undue. You haven't made a concrete edit suggestion yet here. So Doc took the initiative and offered a bit from the secondary source that summarizes their findings regarding the quality of the evidence base, and it doesn't single out one particular primary source in an undue manner. <code>]]</code> 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	:::: This argument seems wholly pointless and pedantic because it's on the wording from a review of literature - if you want to make a claim that it's disputed, introduce a ]-quality citation (i.e., a ], ], ], or, preferably, a meta-analytic systematic review) asserting the opposite position. Anything else won't matter, because it's not in line with community policy; i.e. ] will remove it. I've taken the liberty to point out the problems in the refs cited above for use as sources in the article.{{P\|22}}<ref>'''Note that <u>all of the above</u> are <u>NOT ] QUALITY</u> because:<br><br>{{bull}}(1) This paper is isn't pubmed indexed, and hence not a medical source (also ignoring the fact that it's entirely in German - what particular sentence was this quoted for?)<br>{{bull}}(2) A comparative study and primary source.<br>{{bull}}(3) "A survery based" <-- ROFL! ] → invalid conclusions<br>{{bull}}(4) Same as (2) <br>{{bull}}(5) Ignoring the fact that the study, being 12 years old, is way out of ] (that alone merits exclusion), it's a primary source.'''<br><br><br></ref><br> I hope this helps direct this conversation back to ]. Regards, ] (]) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	I decided to see what popped with MEDRS filters on this topic (search terms: circumcision pleasure) after looking for a ref I needed in another article - the only thing that popped up was this,<ref name="pmid22373281" /> a meta-analytic literature review which seems to support the material in the article. Might be worth adding, since it wasn't used as a source.<ref name="pmid22373281">{{cite journal \|author=Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A \|title=A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise? \|journal=BMC Pediatr \|volume=12 \|issue= \|pages=20 \|year=2012 \|pmid=22373281 \|pmc=3359221 \|doi=10.1186/1471-2431-12-20 \|url=\|quote=<br>DISCUSSION:<br>We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. '''Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded.''' Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.<br><br>SUMMARY:<br>Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.}}</ref> ] (]) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	{{reflist talk\|closed=1}}
	::Thanks Seppi. A recent pubmed indexed meta analysis. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	:::The evidence also suggests that infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of ]. ] (]) 19:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Seppi provided a recent systematic review and meta analysis which is pubmed indexed. David do you have one supporting your statement that "infant circumcision is a blatant abuse of ]"? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Well... who are you to say that it isn't a human right to be allowed to grow up in an non mutilated body? I certainly think I have the right to grow up in a non mutilated body. I also think other people have the right to grow up in non mutilated bodies. Tell me why you think you have the right to mutilate other bodies without their "grown up" consent.] (]) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Per ] Misplaced Pages is not based on our own personal opinions but on reliable secondary sources. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	I know we're all about properly sourced studies, but the conclusion seems obvious to me. Like most men in the US, I'm circumcised. Above the cut line, on the remaining inner foreskin, I have lots of sexual sensation. Immediately below the cut line, I have none. The shortest inner foreskin I've seen is 2 inches and the longest, at least 6 inches. Residual inner foreskin is typically 1.5" or less, depending on the style of the cut. If it's fair to assume that the nerve endings of the inner foreskin are evenly distributed (and based on my anecdotal experience as an older gay man that's encountered a rather large sample set of uncircumcised penises, this is a reasonable assumption), could we not say with certainty that losing any part of it represents a net loss in sensitivity? This isn't even accounting for the vast drop in glans sensitivity, without which none of us could wear underwear. Am I the only one who feels this way?

	It seems to me that these studies are focused on very narrow definitions of what comprises sexual performance and satisfaction. (This is not unique to sexual studies; anyone proclaimed 'fully recovered' after an accident might take issue with that phrase.) If you only measured whether orgasm could be attained, you might easily conclude a penis wasn't even necessary. Likewise, when an individual compensates for a loss of sensitivity with a rough, high-friction grip, is it fair to say the experience is the same as if the shaft had four touching surfaces of sensitive, movable foreskin? My impression of the results of these 'it doesn't matter' studies is as a negative indictment of their methodology rather than a statement of empirical fact. ] (]) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


	== Edits January 4 ==

	There has been a series of edits today that do not appear to improve the article's use of the sources, and so were reverted by myself and {{u\|Jmh649}}. The latest edit was , it modified "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." in the lead and in the body to state instead, According to the ], Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function.(citing ''four'' sources) Despite the AAP's positive stance on the procedure, their policy states that the "health beneﬁts (of circumcision) are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."(citing the AAP policy statement). The issue with this proposed change are that 1) The current article content is cited to <u>four</u> sources, not just the AAP Technical Report, and the proposed edit misrepresents the sourcing by making it appear as only the AAP is stating this and giving undue weight to the AAP's policy statement that is not cited anywhere in the article currently; 2) It makes it appear as if the entire cost/benefit analysis being done is based on sex effects, which is not true; 3) The lack of recommendation of routine use of the procedure on neonates is not just the position of the AAP but of medical organizations worldwide, the article already covers this where it says "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males" and sourced to Bolnick, calling out the AAP here only again is redundant and is undue weight on the AAP. <code>]]</code> 13:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
	:The problem with the other citations in the citation bundle which you keep using as a "get out of jail free card", is that there is no free version on the net for any of those citations. I was only able to find their abstracts here, , and none of them mention anything about circumcision impacting sexual function. You need to provide us with a link to the full contents of those articles if you're going to keep using them as an excuse to keep the article in its present form. ] (]) 17:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

	::Please look again. The entirety of Perera 2010 is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. The entirety of the AAP 2012 Technical Report is freely available online and the article provides a convenience link directly to the full text of that source. For all three of the AAP 2012 Technical Report, Doyle 2010 and Perea 2010 the freely-available abstracts do indeed clearly state their conclusions regarding sexual function. The conclusions drawn by Sadeghi-Nejad 2010 have been discussed several times before and I have provided verbatim quotes from that source, they can be found in the archives. <code>]]</code> 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Provide the links please. ] (]) 19:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::The links are provided in the article references. ] (]) 19:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::I can't find them, can you post them here so I can read them? ] (]) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::"Control F" Perera in the article, etc. ] (]) 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	A NPOV dicussion has been added to the NPOV Noticeboard regarding the content disputes found here. ] (]) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Our article reflexes the best available sources. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	The criteria for removing the POV tag are: (from ])<br>
	"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever:
	#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
	#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
	#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."
	As their is ongoing discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, these criteria have not been met; the tag should remove until those discussions are formally closed or become quiescent. <small>]</small> 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	As covered at the ] discussion there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular {{u\|Mark Arsten}}'s assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point" so the repeated re-adding of the article-wide tag is editing against consensus as evaluated by an outside administrator. Also the NPOV tag template documentation states "This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the public." and as the NPOVN discussion states explicitly that the argument being made is ignoring the weight given in the reliable sourcing, this criterion isn't met. <code>]]</code> 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

	Per Doc James aka UserJmh649 "Our article reflexes the best available sources" I am presuming that he means reflects or references. A reflex action, differently known as a reflex, is an involuntary and nearly instantaneous movement in response to a stimulus- which some of the debate responses here actually do resemble some of the time. A glimpse of a freudian undergarment ? Should we also be mentioning the historical and religious sources which have stated for thousands of years that one of the purposes of circumcision is to diminish sexual pleasure ? --— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Thanks Tum. Please note '''It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.''' ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Agree, there is no legitimate neutrality dispute; I'm seeing vexatious POV tagging only (and have removed it accordingly). Please raise concerns calmly in line with WP guidelines and policies. If it emerges there is a clear POV problem then (and only then) can the article be tagged while editors work it through. ] <sup>]\|]\|]</sup> 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Also agree. I should note that the purpose of the tag is to "attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame." As the issue has been raised at ], one of the most watchlisted pages on Misplaced Pages, tagging now is superfluous if its purpose was to attract attention to the article, and would only serve as a "badge of shame" at this point. ] (]) 20:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Jmh649's claims are nonsense. All of the problems with neutrality have been explained at the NPOV noticeboard which I linked. There is a discussion going on there right now. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from the article when there's a discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard right now? ] (]) 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:] please stop this nonsense. There is no consensus against me regarding whether or not the NPOV template should be at the top of the circumcision article or not. There is an on-going discussion at NPOV noticeboard which you have actively been participating in. What on earth is the reason not to put the NPOV template on the top of the article other than to stifle discussion regarding the NPOV discussion? It is disgraceful that this kind of bias and agenda pushing has been going on for this long unnoticed by anyone. Can someone sensible please put the NPOV template back on top of the ] article please? ] (]) 17:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::ScienceApe raises an interesting question: why is a content discussion for this article being held at NPOV/N? It should be right here, where future editors will be able to find and refer to any developed consensus. ] <small>]</small> 17:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::We've been having too many problems on the talk pages, that's why I took it to the NPOV noticeboard. If we can't find a resolution there, then I think the next step is intervention. ] (]) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::We've had "resolution", meaning stable consensus, for quite a while--the article has been very stable for about a year now. Often what happens is that change suggestions don't get implemented because it turns out they're not in line with Misplaced Pages content policy as applied to the best-available sourcing. That might mean the issue wasn't resolved to somebody's preference, but that doesn't mean the issue wasn't resolved properly and in accordance with Misplaced Pages content rules and processes. What is "intervention"? <code>]]</code> 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::It doesn't matter how long content has been on an article for. If there is something wrong with an article, then there is something wrong with the article. You just constructed another strawman. The problems I identified with the article were never about preferences, and you haven't refuted one of my arguments, instead you employed strawmen and other fallacies which I identified every time you did it, so you can not misrepresent my position. ] (]) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::What do you mean by "intervention"? <code>]]</code> 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::What do YOU mean Zad by "stable consensus" - is it a stable of editors who will nod and whinny to the narrow and selective med source based and article construction that you principally maintain here. This article is one of the most contested on the site. Stability can mean that a small and determined block of editors are blocking positive change. That is an ugly kind of stability. --— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:28, 9 January 2014 (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.
	==Protection==
	I disagree with the protection that ] has put on the page. No one has been making any content changes to the article. The sole purpose of that protection is to prevent anyone from putting a NPOV template on the article even though there's a NPOV discussion going on right now. This is unacceptable, and abuse of admin powers. ] (]) 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Oops, I protected the ]. -- ] 20:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Your specious remark does not in any way invalidate what I said. There is a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV noticeboard, and you have prevented anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article while the discussion is going on. ] (]) 20:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::That's the point. What is the issue here? -- ] 20:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Abusing your admin powers to lock the page for your preferred version of the article for one. ] (]) 20:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Feel free to take your concern that {{u\|John Reaves}} is abusing his admin powers to ]... please leave this article Talk page for discussion of article content. <code>]]</code> 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::I'll do that. ] (]) 21:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::Please link to where I have indicated that this is my preferred version. -- ] 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::Take your concerns ] ] (]) 21:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::::::::I have no concerns. -- ] 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::::::PLease explain why a NPOV discussion has been prevented from being tagged on this article if it concerns this article. You may have no concerns with doing such but others do.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

			source:
	== Missing Information... ==

			https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php ] (]) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
	When I compare this article with the one in the German Misplaced Pages, I miss some topics.

			: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.
	For instance the whole subject of "not as good effects", as often occurring Meatostenosis or the loss of most Meissner's corpuscle.
			: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)
			:::: 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.
			::] (]) 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: ]).
			:::{{tqi\|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 ].
			:::{{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.}}
			:::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)

			== Content not uploaded ==
	I think wide parts of that do not have the NPOV. This should be marked on the article page, and not in the talk page.
	] (]) 20:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Secondary sources to support its inclusion? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::<p>Keep in mind that English Misplaced Pages has much higher standards for sourcing, especially for biomedical information. Please see ]. <code>]]</code> 20:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::As an outside observer of this discussion, when reading the article, the references in the "adverse effects" seem very reliable. If the reliable sources are stating things like less than 1% of procedures have adverse effects, and there are no sexual implications, then we should not place ] on adverse effects.
	:::Having said that, your two specific points above about meatostenosis and Meissner's corpuscle (related to decreased sexual function presumably) do not seem to be mentioned currently in the article. If there are '']'' which discuss these, it would only take an extra sentence to mention them in the article. I would defer to zad68's opinion regarding the suitability of such sources in this case because s/he has handled this controversial topic well and is probably more familiar with the literature than anyone else here.
	:::Regarding NPOV templates on the article, there appears to be a majority of editors who do not feel there is any non-NPOV content, so I would think they are not needed. ] (]) 21:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thanks Tepi, agree with your comments. I looked through my source database for these terms and didn't find anything relevant. The only sources that mention Meissner's corpuscles in particular were old primary sources from the 1990s, which apparently German Misplaced Pages is OK with but our standards are higher here. <code>]]</code> 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	If we are omitting key information by over zealous and partial application of the Med edit guidelines and fetishising on the recently published here perhaps we should say not that our standards here are higher but that they are certainly different or that our agenda is as currently exercised.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

			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.
	== Morality of mutilating children. ==
			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
	I haven't seen a single argument why some people think they have the right to mutilate other bodies without their adult consent. Children are obviously not mature enough to know wheter it is a good or bad idea to become mutilated. Children can also easily be manipulated into doing stupid things simply by offering them candies. I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies. Fortunately that is illegal. By the same reasoning it should oviously be illegal to mutilate children, because we don't know what children are going to think when they grow up. I am sure there are tons of people that feel like their rights were violated when they were mutilated as children. I think physical mutilation of children is just as seriously wrong as sexual abuse of children. Leave the kids alone, and stop this nonsensical propaganda! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			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. ==
	:Use of emotive words like ''mutilation'' likely indicate that you do not hold a NPOV, and this comment is barely related to discussion about how the article can be improved. We need to be careful not to use Misplaced Pages talk pages as a forum for general discussion about the topic (]). As pointed out before, we need to use reliable sources to build the content of the encyclopedia. We cannot use our own opinions. ] (]) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Reliable sources for what is morally right and wrong? I think your source should be your conscience, not pubmed. I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs. ] (]) 23:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

			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)
	The term mutilation is often used on this topic in other contexts (]) and the term is applied regularly to male circumcision in Europe, so its not neccisarily a POV issue for him to use that term here. Mutilation is a significant POV, particularly outside of the US, but we do require ] to satisfy ]. Advocacy groups in the US and Europe are acceptable only to document that "person X said Y" - so one would need high-quality medical or media sources to bring into the article (which I would think it should be no problem to find due to how common this POV outside the US) Misplaced Pages does not edit on what is "right" or "moral", as there are many opinions about what "right" and "moral" actually is.] (]) 23:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

			==Bias==
	That pesky ] again. FYI, this kind of comment does absolutely nothing to persuade others. If you want to change the article, find some reliable sources (]) and then seek consensus via the talk page. Otherwise, kindly do not waste others' time by posting your own opinions here. ] (]) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	::Conspiracy? I don't see any such thing anywhere. I see stupid humans violating the rights of other humans everywhere. Especially in non western European countries.] (]) 23:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
	:::Morality can be an elastic and contradictory yardstick particularly when religious text or tradition is cited as guidance. Would '''body modification by excision and scarification''' be a more neutral term than mutilation to apply to circumcision ? The involuntary nature of most religious and clinical child circumcisions and particularly of all the well documented forced male adult circumcisions on three continents get little or no mention in the article. This is most odd. What the cutters do with the cut off foreskins in all the three major and most famous cutting cultures ( American, Jewish and Muslim) gets no mention in the article. The ongoing risk and previous deaths of Jewish infants in New York from oral-genital contact with the male adult foreskin cutter gets no mention in this article -- can any member of the cabal who defend the article as it currently wobbles honestly defend these, and similar glaring omissions with a straight face ?--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::You need reliable sources. I honestly don't know how else to explain this. ] (]) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::As I have said many times, in this article it is very stupid to give weight according to how many secondary sources you find. Most secondary sources are medical, but circumcision is a religious tradition. It is very obvious that the editors of this article are pro-circumcision, and use the secondary sources argument only because it aids their pro-circumcision agenda. The editors of this article think it is okay to violate human rights. That people shouldn't be allowed to grow up in non-mutilated bodies. The editors of this article support human right violations.] (]) 17:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::<p>The answer is the same as the last dozen or so time you have brought up these same things. Misplaced Pages does cover these topics at ], ], ] and ] respectively. This article is a ]-style overview of the main points of the topic, per the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing; once again you are directed to please see ] for an explanation. Not every last bit of detail about every aspect of the topic will be covered in the main overview article in a summary-style constellation of articles. What goes where and with what emphasis is determined by the emphasis found in the reliable sourcing, it does not go by how important individual Misplaced Pages editors think it should be, this is covered explicitly at ]. <code>]]</code> 15:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Why are you so eager to follow this ] when it is obviously morally wrong to mutilate the bodies of other people without their adult consent? If you had a conscience, you would care much more about human rights than about following the guidelines at ].] (]) 17:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
	@Lesion - National Newspapers and Local Health Authorities and Court Records ARE reliable secondary sources and cover the omitted topics mentioned by me above.--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
	:Tumadoireacht would you please engage with the Misplaced Pages content policy points raised? Don't you remember a year ago you started ]? You proposed adding content that was sourced to National Newspapers (as you word it) but the RFC closed something like 20 to 2 against your position because it was ]. Once again, the issue isn't whether it exists, but rather where it should be covered on Misplaced Pages and with how much emphasis. I already pointed out that Misplaced Pages does already carry the content you're talking about in the articles I listed. <code>]]</code> 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

			Problems with the article:
	:Tumadoireacht, do you disagree with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines with regard to how to handle this topic? It seems that you do. And if so, this talk page is not the place to try to change those policies. Again and again, you blame the editors of this article for things that you disagree with...when these editors are simply following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Repeatedly attacking the editors of this article is not something that belongs on Misplaced Pages, per ] and ]. And ] is counterproductive and ]. ] (]) 21:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

			https://en.intactiwiki.org/Wikipedia_bias_on_circumcision
	== Map of all the sub articles on Circumcision suggestion ==

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

			:Do you have an RS? ] (]) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	More experienced editors assure me that having a "See Also" section in an article such as this one is not cool and they will not countenance it. I disagree and think an exception should be made. However as this is unlikely to fly-there are so many such related articles that I wonder is there a need for a map or Tony Buzan-like family tree illustrating these articles or some other way of showing their availability other than refs buried in the text body of the article ?--— ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 11:46, 9 January 2014 (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)
	:For a start, there's these (some of which look like a more natural home for some of the topics lately discussed). It strikes me editors concerned about article quality on this topic might do well to have a look at some of the rubbish here, rather than focus on this GA.
			:::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)
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	:*]
	] <sup>]\|]\|]</sup> 12:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

			== Offwiki lobbying ==
	There's ], which is placed at the bottom of the article. ] (]) 12:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

			See ] which explains the recent talk page posts here. ] ] 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	A third resource that will provide what you're requesting is ]. <code>]]</code>

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

Misplaced 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.

Please 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.

Circumcision 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
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
February 12, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
March 14, 2022	Good article reassessment	Delisted

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.

Men's Issues High‑importance

	This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Translation Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Body Modification (defunct)

This 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

Human rights Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This 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.

Move logs: Circumcision
Male Circumcision

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

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013.

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.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

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
Analysis Citation bot External links

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: