[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 85

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 80←Archive 83Archive 84Archive 85

RfC: Include hatnote linking to Female circumcision?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Due to how this discussion played out, and the lack of initial options in the RFC, I'm going to have to break this close down into a couple parts. First, there is a clear consensus to include some hatnote in the article, whether it be to female circumcision or female genital mutilation. Two of those opposed were open to a compromise hatnote, and one editor would support only if the hatnote were to FGM. Those opposed to any hatnote were a small minority, and the many of the oppose arguments were weak.

Objections to the hatnote based on female circumcision not actually being circumcision, or being a metaphor do not hold water. The purpose of a hatnote, as pointed out extensively in this discussion, is for assisting the reader in navigating. This holds true for the assertion that it may create a comparison between male circumcision and FGM, as a hatnote does not imply any connection or comparison. It was demonstrated clearly that the term is still in use, and that hatnotes are for readers that may be seeking an article with a similar name to, or that otherwise might be confused with, the article with the hatnote.

Now onto the real pickle, based on the strength of arguments, as well as the amount of support, I see a rough consensus to include a hatnote to Female circumcision. It was covered in extensive detail by Alsee that the term is still in common use. Bluerasberry argued that we should avoid the use of female circumcision because it normalizes and propagates its use. This argument was solidly refuted with first hatnotes being a navigational aid, and second with WP:NOTCENSORED, which states Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Pincrete calls further attention to Alsee's arguments, namely that as a navigational aid for the reader the hatnote should be using the terminology the reader is familiar with. Numerically, of those that would support some hatnote, around two thirds prefer a hatnote containing female circumcision.

Lastly, there was not enough discussion on the point to determine if there should be a hatnote linking to The Circumcision. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


Should a hatnote linking to Female circumcision be added at the top of the article? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • No The term, when applied to women, is purely metaphorical. The procedure in women is essentially different. Any such hatnote would be done with a view to providing a spurious "balance"; no such balance is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    The argument that "the procedure in women is essentially different" is not a valid reason to not include a hatnote, as the hatnote serves as a way to direct readers to relevant information and provide context, not to imply equivalence between the two procedures. The goal of Wikipedia is to present information in a neutral and accurate manner, and a hatnote linking to the article on female circumcision is a way to achieve this goal. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: No. Obvious bad faith argument. Editor has repeatedly tried to have Wikipedia compare circumcision and FGM in articles. (Disclaimer that I've been in the argument surrounding whether it should be in and have somewhat of a conflict of interest. I am a convert to Reform Judaism who was circumcised as an adult, underwent no change (positively or negatively) in sexual function, and was upset about the current bias surrounding articles in this topic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OntologicalTree (talk • contribs)
    Allegations of bad faith are serious accusations and should not be made lightly. The inclusion of a hatnote is a standard Wikipedia practice for directing readers to related articles and providing context, and it should not be viewed as an attempt to compare or equate the two procedures. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
No - Female circumcision is genital mutilation. Readers can be expected to know the difference and the addition of a hatnote like this seems insulting, wether intentional or not, to observant Muslims, Jews, and others who practice circumcision. BogLogs (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The use of the term "genital mutilation" is a matter of debate and has been used to describe both male and female circumcision. The hatnote serves as a way to direct readers to relevant information and provide context, not to make a value judgment about the practices of any particular group. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
It`s bad form to make an RfC then WP:BLUDGEON every comment. Take a step back and let the process you started play out. BogLogs (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@BogsLogs I disagree with your reasoning, especially since female genital cutting can also be done for religious reasons too. This hatnote has nothing to do with religious genital cutting and/or whether genital cutting is justified. Even if readers know the difference between male and female genital cutting, it is still convenient to have a hatnote up top, to direct readers to the FGM article. At the very least, I would expect the FGM article to be listed in the “see also” section. Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
If you honestly cant see the difference between the two, no amount or debate here is worth the time. Hatnote and see also section with this included are both unnecessary and uncalled for. BogLogs (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As I said below, a hatnote actually clarifies that the two are different. Your personal POV on religion and genital cutting is not relevant to this RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As I said I'm not interested in explaining to you the difference between circumcision and gential mutilation. You are welcome to do a google search and listen to some of the victims of FGM. The sky is WP:BLUEand this is an insult to muslims, jews, and women who have been mutilated. BogLogs (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLUE is an essay, not a policy. And honestly, I didn’t ask you to explain the difference between the two, and whether or not the two are different is pretty irrelevant. You keep saying that what is being proposed, is to equate female genital cutting with male circumcision. Not true. A hatnote’s purpose is to clarify, not to make comparisons. It is not insulting to anyone, to help our readers to easily navigate our articles. Nobody should be saying “we should have a hatnote, because female circumcision is equivalent to male circumcision” either. Let’s discuss based on Wikipedia policy, and what’s best for the readers and the article, not based on personal POV. Thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe what I've written above is POV, this action would be needlessly controversial from what I and others have stated. As other editors have already noted adding a hatnote would give the impression that these are analogous or similar. But if that still appears too pov to be given due consideration this is the last I'll say on the topic. We have a search bar at the top of every page. If readers want to learn about female genital mutilation or any other topic they only need to write a few letters and they can go directly to the article. Hatnotes should only be used when the names and topics of articles are very closely related or easily confused with eachother. This ain't it. BogLogs (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
You do realise that such a hatnote had been included in this article until only very recently (in July last year), without any issues? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
You do realize if there were no issues it wouldn't have been removed right? BogLogs (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
No, it was replaced with a hatnote to a disambiguation page which has since been deleted per WP:NOTDAB, and then the hatnote got removed entirely. There were no issues prior to this dispute, with the hatnote being there for years. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I guess that is the nice thing about RFCs, they get wider community feedback and build consensus among larger groups of editors. Sometimes we may not like the result but that is a part of any community effort. The RFC here is should a hatnote be added and I have still not found any arguments here compelling to add one. BogLogs (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I want to add that per WP:NOTCENSORED, hatnotes do not have to be popular among specific religious people. Prcc27 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable here as nothing is being censored both articles still exist in full exactly as they were before the start of this RFC, only a link at the top of one that is irrelevant will not be added. BogLogs (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes It clarifies what this article is about, and redirects users to the appropriate article, if they are looking for information about female genital cutting. A hatnote would not necessarily imply that male circumcision is comparable to female circumcision. Actually, the purpose of a hatnote is to say, “this is *not* what the article is about.” The fact that the title of the FGC article already says “female genital mutilation” not “female circumcision”, makes the concerns about a hatnote creating a false comparison somewhat moot. Prcc27 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No. It is important not to equate or conflate these two things without context, and a hatnote simply does not have the space to provide the necessary context. Any minimal navigational benefits do not override this concern. - MrOllie (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak No On one hand, it is beneficial to link to related topics. On the other, a hatnote may be interpreted by some as a sort or equivalence between the two, which not only offends some people, but is also misleading if that is the reader's takeaway. (I'm fairly callous about offending the sensitive when plainly presenting facts, but allowing potential readers to come away with a slanted perspective is something I think should be avoided.) Seems to me that the proper place for the link is in the "See Also" section, which this article curiously lacks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Clear Yes include. Summoned by bot.[1] Experienced RFC closer. Involved parties here have clearly gone off the rails. Most arguments above should carry little or no weight. With all due respect for the clearly experienced and responsible editors above, any problems with past disputes or past arguments have zero bearing on whether a hatnote is appropriate here under Policies and Guidelines. The issue here is simple. Why do we have WP:Hatnotes? In summary it is sometimes predictable or expectable that readers will end up on the wrong page. Hatnotes exist to aid readers after they have arrived at the wrong page. That is their purpose, and that is the criteria for using them. I expect few, if any, people opposing will seriously dispute that a non-trivial number of people searching for information on the female-practice may enter "circumcision" in the searchbox and end up on this page. "Circumcision" may be the only term they have ever heard for the practice. It is important to remember that our most important service is to readers who LACK the knowledge to enter any better search term. Clearly a hatnote is needed here to help those readers.

    I also note that "Female circumcisions" appears no less than five times in REF tiles, and that it appears no less than nine times in REF tiles when you include "Female Genital Cutting"*2, "Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery", and "Circumcision Status...Females". This stands as further evidence of association between the topics and the significant risk of people landing at this article but needing a hatnote to the other article.

    Furthermore, I invite opposers to consider the rather serious real world harm that could ensue if we fail to abide by hatnote guidelines and we fail to assist those readers in reaching the other article.

    Note that WP:HATNOTERULES says Linking to redirects is typically not preferred, although of course exceptions can occur. This is exactly one of those exceptions. Female circumcision redirects to Female genital mutilation. Even the least eduacted and least sophisticated reader who has landed at Circumcision can immediately recognize Female circumcision guides them to a more relevant article. Exactly those readers most in need of help may never have heard the term Female genital mutilation, and may struggle or skip past the later words as unfamiliar. Alsee (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Strong No; "female circumcision" has widely fallen out of use — Similar to @Mr swordfish:'s statement. Adding a headnote would be WP: Undue and would give off a misleading impression to readers that the two things are seen as analogous by a significant minority/majority of major medical organizations and researchers and/or still in common use.
"Female circumcision" has also widely fallen out of use in the English-speaking world. Outside of contextualizing it in the communities involved: the vast majority of reliable sources use "female genital mutilation" or "female genital cutting" to describe the term. "Female circumcision" is in contrast a term that has rapidly fallen into disuse.
I wouldn't necessarily oppose it being added in a "see also" section. KlayCax (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
While it is true that the term "female circumcision" has fallen out of use in some circles, it is still a commonly used term, particularly in certain communities where the practice is still performed. For example, some communities may use the term "female circumcision" as a way to describe the practice in a culturally or socially acceptable manner. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No The sources we have which are thoughtful about term selection recommend against this. The sources which apply the term circumcision to FGM are incidental; the recommendation to not use it is intentional and comes from deliberated expert consensus. Here is an example source from the United Nations -
A counterargument that would move me is if anyone presented sources which demonstrated that there is organized expert or stakeholder community consensus in favor of using the term "female circumcision". I do not think any such activism exists; the sources suggest that there are 1000s of activists specifically recommending not to use this term, and no one thoughtfully advocating to keep the old term. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, I would invite you to read Alsee's argument in favour of the hatnote (see above). ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Alsee gives an excellent argument against the hatnote, i.e. hatnote rules disfavor linking to a redirect. If the hatnote was to female genital mutilation it would probably generate less opposition, although I still think the proper place is in a See also section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there had always been a hatnote prior to July 2022. This was that hatnote. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: I can support a hatnote like "For Female genital cutting, see Female genital mutilation". I understand the importance of directing readers to female cutting on an article about male cutting, but I do not want to present the term "female circumcision" in a hatnote because that normalizes and propagates its use. I agree with Alsee that readers need to be able to easily navigate from the male cut article to the female cut article. I disagree with Alsee that having cited reliable sources normalizes the use, because in this case, there is recent broad expert consensus to avoid the term.
Thanks for sharing the old hatnote Neveselbert and agree with swordfish about hatnote to FGM only because there is reason to believe there may be reader confusion. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I would also support such a compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTCENSORED, we shouldn't be beating around the bush here. The title of this article is "Circumcision", therefore it only makes sense to mention the term "female circumcision". ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, it may not matter if a hatnote offends certain religious people. Other than that, I do not think WP:NOTCENSORED necessarily applies/compels us to use “female circumcision”. I prefer the “female circumcision” wording since, as you pointed out, this is an article about circumcision. But again, I am willing to settle with “female genital cutting”; whether or not we have a hatnote seems more important than what the hatnote says. Prcc27 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED is not applicable here as nothing is being censored both articles still exist in full exactly as they were before the start of this RFC, only a link at the top of one that is irrelevant will not be added. BogLogs (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Additionally you have not garnered a consensus to include a hatnote here which is the RFC. You shouldn't really be negotiating amongst the few of you yourselves about what wording should be used before you get consensus to include any hatnote altogether. BogLogs (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
“Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link.” Prcc27 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Discussion is part of the consensus building process, and this RfC is not over. Concurring with a user isn’t “negotiating”. Prcc27 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: Can you tell me more about why you think this is a censorship issue? For censorship, I would expect that there is a stakeholder community that wants the term. In this case, so far as I know, no one prefers this term. I imagined that the user community for this term is disengaged from the contemporary conversation, and either is remembering a term from a generation ago or is somehow reading old publications now. Do you know or imagine otherwise? What evidence indicates that some community is expecting to see this term? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I did not state that this is a censorship issue. However, the use of the term "female circumcision" is not limited to disengaged communities or old publications. The term is still in use, particularly in communities where the practice is still performed, and it is important to reflect this in our articles. Additionally, the exclusion of a hatnote could be perceived as promoting a particular point of view or disregarding the perspectives of certain communities. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I want readers to perceive that Wikipedia is "promoting a particular point of view or disregarding the perspectives of certain communities". I am coming into this discussion with the assumption that 100% of FGM is bad, all cultures and communities which have this practice are either ignorant or wrongdoing in their acceptance of this practice, and that global or digital colonial forces should take the position that everyone's responsibility is to eliminate FGM immediately. Wikipedia itself as a publication takes certain positions in social issues. I see no room in Wikipedia for presenting multiple sides or apologetics, except to showcase FGM as an error in communities who tolerate the practice.
@Neveselbert: I am not asking you to debate the issue, but to be clear about my position: yes, I believe Wikipedia does and should take ideological and editorial positions when expert and activist consensus seems universal and the other position is extreme WP:FRINGE. This is such a case, and I think Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy requires bias against and suppression of any language tolerating this practice.
I may be in error or ignorant myself, but this does not seem like an ambiguous situation. If anyone has another view I would be interested to hear it, because I assumed that everyone here in this conversation would feel the same way. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
You are indeed, frankly. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The term "female circumcision" is bolded in the lede of Female genital mutilation, if the term really was that wp:fringe that wouldn't be the case. Whether you like it or not, the term is still commonly understood and that's why a hatnote is necessary to avoid confusion, otherwise it's entirely possible someone who was brought up in a culture where FGM was referred to as "circumcision" might just assume "female circumcision" is indeed related to this article based on the citations that refer to the term. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, one could easily apply your I am coming into this discussion with the assumption that 100% of FGM is bad, all cultures and communities which have this practice are either ignorant or wrongdoing in their acceptance of this practice, and that global or digital colonial forces should take the position that everyone's responsibility is to eliminate FGM immediately. stance to all forms of involuntary genital modification and mutilation, including the subject of this article. I would personally agree with that, but it's not of any service to this discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: I hear you, and for almost all similar situations I would agree, but this one case is different.
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS does not apply to this situation because the evidence shows 100% global consensus that FGM is bad. The wrong has already been righted, and the only thing left for Wikipedia editors to do is to choose to side with the ~100% or the ~0%. Among everyone who participates in the global discourse, there is no informed and respected person identified anywhere in the world who is advocating for this practice. We know this because neither you nor anyone else is bring sources to cite to Wikipedia.
The reason why this does not apply to male circumcision is that the citable sources easily demonstrate that there is not 100% global consensus to ban male circumcision. Someone might have a personal opinion about male circumcision, but for FGM, we have the rare case where all good and informed people agree that there is no place in this world for the practice.
I could be convinced otherwise if anyone presented a contemporary source using the term "female circumcision" in an informed way, somehow comparing it to male cutting. No one has presented such a source. For that reason, Wikipedia is justified in taking a position, and avoiding the propagation of the term. To do otherwise would be to make Wikipedia contrary to the experts and human rights activists. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
It is important to acknowledge the serious harm caused by FGM and to work towards its eradication. However, treating the issue as a binary, black-and-white issue is problematic. Not all forms of FGM are considered equivalent to the most severe forms and not all communities who practise FGM see it as a harmful tradition.
Moreover, the idea that there is 100% global consensus on the issue is questionable. While a significant majority of the world may condemn FGM, it is still practised in some communities and is culturally and socially entrenched. Simply suppressing the term "female circumcision" and taking a biased stance on the issue without fully understanding and acknowledging the complexity of the situation is not a productive solution.
Additionally, it is important to maintain a wp:neutral point of view, presenting information and perspectives from diverse sources. Suppressing a term, even one that is widely regarded as inappropriate, without presenting it in context and considering its use in certain communities and cultures is not in line with wp:policies.
‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry I violently agree with almost everything you've said in your various comments, but none of it has any relevance to WP:HATNOTE. The debate here reminds me of Abstinence-only sex education, where some people get caught up in a crusade-of-appearances and disregard that such programs actively increase teen-STDs and teen-pregnancy. You literally argued FGM is bad, it may as well have been "teen-pregnancy is bad".

WP:HATNOTEs exist to help people who arrived here but who need to read the other article. My Google search on "female circumcision" turns up over two million hits, including many medical, academic, and scientific sources among the top hits using this term this year. Furthermore there are portions of the world where that practice is endemic and openly advocated under the term "circumcision". It is obvious that significant numbers of readers will type in "circumcision" as the only term they know, as the only term they've been given by advocates. Opposition here actively impedes those people from reaching the article they need to read. Alsee (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Neveselbert and Alsee: I have said that FGM is bad, but that is not the reason for excluding prominent links to the term. Here are actual reasons:

  • There is a side against using the term "female circumcision" which controls 100% of the published discourse. If I am wrong, then you should be able to demonstrate otherwise.
  • As a complement to that, the side in favor of using the term "female circumcision" is absent from the published discourse.

Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Systemic bias for citing published sources. "Systemic bias" does not mean bad or good; usually when anyone brings it up, they are complaining, but in almost all cases, no one brings it up because Wikipedia's bias is simply its nature. I feel like you are coming to Wikipedia making arguments without sources. I have cited the United Nations advising against doing what you propose to do, and at Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology, I see sources showing 100 years of recommendations to avoid use of this term and analogy. I disagree with what you are proposing because I see no evidence that anyone is advising to propagate this term. I do not see propagation of this term as neutral because using it does not continue an existing conversation, but instead, it revives and empowers nearly dead analogy which for many decades others have been suppressing. I have shown you sources for my position. If I am in error, then prove me wrong by showing insightful contemporary sources which either advocate for the use of the term or use it routinely in stakeholder community published descriptions of the practice. I doubt the existence of the community for which you are advocating, who are searching for this term and who would benefit from Wikipedia's cataloging system making it equivalent to the other available terms. Hidden redirects are enough to get readers to the content they need. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I understand your perspective on this issue, but I strongly disagree with it. You are presenting a limited view of the situation, as it is not accurate to say that 100% of the published discourse is against the use of the term "female circumcision." There are several communities that do use this term, and they should not be suppressed or excluded from the conversation.
Regarding the sources you cited, the United Nations and the recommendations from the last 100 years are not necessarily the only sources that should be considered. Other sources and perspectives should also be included in order to present a more comprehensive and inclusive view of the issue.
Furthermore, it is not accurate to assume that the term "female circumcision" is absent from the published discourse. There are numerous communities that use this term, and they should not be dismissed simply because they do not align with the dominant perspective.
Finally, I would like to emphasize the importance of promoting a wp:neutral point of view. This requires acknowledging and including different perspectives and sources, rather than suppressing or excluding any particular point of view. I would encourage you to consider the other side of the argument and allow for a more comprehensive and inclusive discussion on this issue. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Neveselbert: Can you provide sources proving the existence of the communities for which you are advocating? If not, then why not? Can you respond to my request for sources? Bluerasberry (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
See Alsee's comment below. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry You and others are trying to argue that this does not belong in this article's content - and you are correct. As I said, I violently agree with pretty much everything you've said. Pause and consider - you are trying to win an argument by repeating things that I agree with. Hopefully you've noticed that there's something wrong with that picture, chuckle. Hopefully I've caught your intellectual interest.

I'm not disagreeing with your arguments, I'm saying they don't apply. If you want to change my mind you need to focus on why I think your arguments don't apply. I'll try to distill my key point more clearly. Quoting the WP:HATNOTE guideline, The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. A HATNOTE is an encyclopedia navigational element, not article content. A HATNOTE is not part of the article, it is part of the page. A HATENOTE lives above an article, it has absolutely no relation to whatever the topic or content happens to be on that page. Any arguments related to the topic or content of this article have no bearing on encyclopedia elements outside the article - even if that navigational element happens to live on the same page. The article on this page is a red herring.

As I mentioned before my search on "female circumcision" turned up lots of medical/academic/scientific sources. I won't bother linking any, because what Reliable Sources say is irrelevant to the current question. What is relevant is that we know many people exist who have been told that the term for the female-practice is "circumcision". It doesn't matter who told them that, it doesn't matter whether we consider them reliable. The only thing that matters is that we know that they WILL type this term into the search box and we know they will land on the wrong page. The only thing that matters is that we know those readers will need a navigational aid to help them arrive at the correct page. Alsee (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alsee: Thanks, we agree on a lot, and yes, I am enjoying the conversation.
Here are points on which I disagree -
  • "we know many people exist who have been told that the term for the female-practice is "circumcision""
  • "we know that they WILL type this term into the search box"
  • "they will land on the wrong page"
  • "those readers will need a navigational aid"
I doubt the existence of these people using the term. My evidence is decades of reliable sources which use another term, and where sources do use the term, either the sources are older, or they describe it as an older term to be avoided. There still is some legacy use of the term, but since it is universally deprecated, Wikipedia's avoiding it would be conventional while Wikipedia's continued use of it would be unorthodox revival of a term which without our intervention to save it would die more quickly. Some few people use the term, but based on the sources using the term, they seem likely to be Western librarians, activists, or anthropologists in whom I have faith to arrive at the article with the usual hidden redirects we have set up.
How did you arrive at your premise that there is community using the term "circumcision" to describe this practice, and what do you presume about their demographics that leads you to believe that they need more assistance to find what they want than Wikipedia's usual hidden redirects can provide? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry I'm surprised this part is still in question, but ok. There are several parts of the world where the practice is utterly endemic with close to 100% of women affected, which includes almost universal acceptance of the practice among the local population, with "circumcision" being used in commercial advertisements for the practice and use among medical or quasi-medical professionals preforming it. Where the practice is endemic and accepted they obviously do not call it "female genital mutilation". They don't even call it "female circumcision", they simply call it "circumcision" (or the local translation of "circumcision"). Google turns up an endless flood of sources I could cite, but I'll try to cite just a few to make key points:
  • ABC.NET.AU news reports on commercial advertisement: Bring your daughter to "mass circumcision" for $10, a Facebook advertisement in Indonesia's South Sulawesi province reads. I cite this first, western news calling out a Facebook ad, for the raw point that this is how practitioners advertise to people in populations where such practice is considered normal, expected, or even mandatory.
  • BBC news: Uganda FGM ban: 'Why I broke the law to be circumcised aged 26' Perhaps the best source to read-in-full to demonstrate the point. Note that this article has zero occurrences of "female circumcision". It has 18 occurrences of "circumcision", every one vividly illustrating that this is exactly how members of these populations use the word. It's not "mutilation", it's not "cutting", it's not even "female circumcision", the word they use is just plain "circumcision". For many people "circumcision" is the only way they've ever heard it described. It's the only thing they'd know to type in the search box.
  • pulitzercenter.org reprints VICE News Another story demonstrating a first-person account that this is the word used by victims. The female circumciser, an older woman whom Tracy recognized as a member of a neighboring community... Tracy believes she and the other girl were cut because being home from school due to the coronavirus pandemic made them vulnerable to undergoing this practice. "Because we’ve stayed at home for long, so the parents just decided they would just circumcise us". If Tracy came to Wikipedia, before or after it happened to her, she likely would have typed in "circumcision".
  • New York State has significant populations of immigrants from affected areas. The New York Department of Heath has a page dedicated to female circumcision. What is Female Circumcision? It is the practice of removing either part or all of the external female genitalia ... It is estimated that more than 7,500 girls and women in New York State are at risk for having FC performed on them either in the state or overseas. The Department of Health has an additional page for heath care providers. That same page actively discourages health care providers from using the phrase Female Genital Mutilation, instructing them that It's more appropriate to use the term "cutting," or "Female Circumcision" as it is more commonly known.
  • egypt.unfpa.org 86 percent of Egyptian married women between the ages of 15 and 49 have undergone FGM, 74 percent of whom by doctors. Although a positive change in women’s attitudes about circumcision has occurred, there is still widespread support for the continuation of FGM in Egypt. The percentage of mothers who intend to circumcise their daughters in the future has declined to only 13%. Note how the source itself wants to refer to it as FGM, but proceeds to say Egyptian women themselves have attitudes about "circumcision" and intent to "circumcise" their daughters.
The language of the Ivory Tower vs language of population. The hatnote isn't for authors of prestigious Reliable Sources. The hatenote is for the millions who hear and say circumcision in real life, so that they can learn what Reliable Sources say. Alsee (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Alsee: I view your arguments as unclear and unconventional. I am not saying they are in error, but neither do I see them as proving your point in this weird situation. Here is the weirdness that I see:
  • None or almost none of these sources use the term "female circumcision" as the clear primary name for this topic. While you selected sources which use the term, I think all but the NY department of health term either use FGM in the title, or use FGM throughout the text after saying circumcision in the title
  • None of these sources are from the stakeholder community using this practice
  • All of these sources are external Western propaganda disparaging the practice
My perspective on this is that none of this establishes that local communities using this practice, either in English language or their own language, is searching for the term "female circumcision" by that name. What we are discussing here is whether to explicity use the written term "female circumcision" in a hatnote or perhaps other visible Wikipedia cataloging tools. The alternative that I want to the use of "female circumcision" is the use of the term "female genital mutilation", and the deprecation of the circumcision analogy. I do not see in these sources you have shared a preference for the term "female circumcision" over "female genital mutilation". Moreover, I do not think these sources give information about what local community stakeholders think at all, because these sources are by and for Western audiences who are external to those communities.
You made these claims - to what extent do you think the sources you shared back these up?
  • ""circumcision" being used in commercial advertisements for the practice and use among medical or quasi-medical professionals preforming it"
  • "they simply call it "circumcision" (or the local translation of "circumcision")"
The Wikipedia article at Female_genital_mutilation#Terminology does not make these claims, in my view. The sources there communicate other analogies with cleaning or purification.
I hesitate to grow, encourage, or recreate an analogy in Wikipedia without evidence that this analogy is still actively chosen in preference to other terms. The sources you are sharing do not have that preference, nor am I seeing it elsewhere.
Do you have more to say about this? I might be at the point to simply disagree with your sources and their interpretation. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry I think we suffered some confusion between two related questions. (1) should there be a hatnote, and (2) if so what should it say.
Every source I gave attested that there are populations who use and understand "circumcision" as a term and practice that applies to girls. The first source attests a practitioner advertising $10 mass circumcisions for girls. The second and third sources attest women from these populations using "circumcision" as the sole term to describe what happened to them (one forcible and traumatic, the other proudly proclaiming her choice). The forth attests that these populations come to medical professionals asking for, or asking about, circumcisions for girls. The final source highlights how the source itself wants to use the phrase FGM itself but has to switch to "circumcision" as the actual common term in the Egyptian population, it further attests that it is commonly preformed by doctors. This all addresses question 1 - we easily pass the notably low hatnote threshold to reasonably anticipate some readers will type "circumcision" into a search box wanting/expecting information about the female practice.
Regarding question 2, how should the hatnote be written. I will start by referring back to guidance from the New York State Department of Health. They are a Reliable Source in general, and they have specific experience and expertise with significant immigrant populations who do request information on circumcision for girls. They explicitly advise AGAINST responding to such requests with phrase "female genital mutilation", advising instead to respond with the phrase "female circumcision". They don't go into the rationale, but I think it's clear and it closely aligns with our considerations here. Someone requesting information on "circumcision" of girls has most likely never heard the term "female genital mutilation", they likely won't recognize it. Furthermore there is a significant chance they have weak knowledge of English, they may not recognize or understand "genital" or "mutilation". Even if they do understand the phrase FGM, they will likely hear it as judgemental and personally disparaging. That can result in them withdrawing or rebelling. In regards to a hatnote, the entire purpose is to help a reader who landed on the wrong page. In this case we are are dealing with someone who typed "circumcision" into a search box. When they realize this page only covers males, they will likely do a hasty scan of the page hoping something jumps out as matching what they're looking for. In their mind they are looking for information on circumcision but for girls/women/females. They're not editors, they're not going to think "hatnote", they'll randomly scan and hope some link jumps out. They have a good chance of catching a shiny blue link that matches exactly what's in their head - Female circumcision. They are far less likely to catch an unrecognized or unrecognizable Female genital mutilation. The sole purpose of a hatnote is to help exactly that reader, to help them find their destination in the clearest and most successful and most efficient way we can. If we set aside all of the article-content issue as irrelevant, I think it's clear which link is most likely to help the person who needs it. Alsee (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Alsee: Can you clarify what you mean about the Egyptian source, or alternatively just state your meaning in another way? What you do mean when you say the source wants something, and how does the source explain that circumcision is the best translation of the original Arabic?
Also briefly, I am indifferent about your point 1 the hatnote, so if you want support for a hatnote, then I can give that. Your point 2 is my interest - trying to identify and examine the reasons for putting the words "female circumcision" in the hatnote. Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry I'm largely reposing the same quotes from the Egyptian source, but I'll try to add clarification as requested.
egypt.unfpa.org 86 percent of Egyptian married women between the ages of 15 and 49 have undergone FGM, 74 percent of whom by doctors. The RS chooses to use "FSM" when communicating it's own ideas as an RS speaking to other RSes. That is considered the proper or preferred term in medical and academic discourse. The source continues Although a positive change in women’s attitudes about circumcision has occurred, there is still widespread support for the continuation of FGM in Egypt. The RS chooses "circumcision" as the best word/translation of what women say, for the attitudes expressed by women. In the same sentence the source again uses FGM as their own terminology for the practice. The percentage of mothers who intend to circumcise their daughters in the future has declined to only 13%. Again the source selects "circumcision" as the best word/translation of intent expressed by women. The source is Code-switching between the preferred term for academic discourse, and the actual word they hear-and-use when they survey the public. Egyptian women have attitudes and plans about circumcising their daughters. Regarding any translation concerns, I don't think(?) you intend to dispute RSes on what they deem to be proper translation. The New York source similarly attests translation. NY Dept Health addresses immigrants coming from varied languages asking about "circumcision". Either the patients routinely translate their langues to English as "circumcision", or services are provided in the other languages and health professionals routinely translate those languages to "circumcision".
As NY Dept of Health attests, actually helping the people who show up asking about "circumcisions" takes precedence over the wish that the usage would go away. When someone from these populations shows up requesting "circumcision" info the best way to help them is to distinguish their use of "circumcision" into "female circumcision", providing a clear and understandable bridge to give them further information.
A word frequency lookup showed neither "genital" nor "mutilation" in the top 14000 used words in English. A vocabulary of 1000 words is considered basic conversational, a 4000 word vocabulary is considered advanced, a 10000+ vocabulary is considered fluent/native. Any reader from a population where the practice is endemic is unlikely to understand either "genital" "mutilation". I don't see how anyone can seriously question that reader will most easily spot and click Female circumcision, rather than the likely unreadable Female genital mutilation. That reader is going to struggle if/when they get to that article, but they can't get to the article at all if we don't give them a hatnote they can understand. Alsee (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Section break. The new reply tools are confused by {outdent}

It's not irrelevant and you know that, don't be disingenuous. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
For it to be relevant you would have to show that circumcisicion is closely linked to female genital mutilation, the article you are trying to link. This is something you have not done. Additionally please assume good faith even when discussion doesn't follow your own views. Thanks. BogLogs (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
As I've pointed out, only until recently has there not been a hatnote. Again, this isn't about "closely linking" the two topics, it's about disambiguating them. I'll assume good faith, but I'm struggling to understand the reasoning that a hatnote isn't relevant when there is obviously a need for one. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith too even though we are clearly at opposite ends of this RFC discussion. Could you explain why you think disambiguation is relevant for the two articles Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation if you are not saying they are closely linked? You also say there is an obvious need for one. Could you explain what that need is and how that is more pressing than the concerns editors have expressed?
Also a hatnote from last year isn't relevant here as we are discussing wether a hatnote should be included going forward not wether one was appropriate in the past. BogLogs (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
While they are not the same thing, they are related in that they both involve the alteration of genitalia, and it is important for readers to understand the distinction.
Regarding the need for a hatnote, I believe that it is more pressing than the concerns raised by other editors because it helps readers to understand the difference between the two practices and avoid confusion. A hatnote serves as a quick reference for readers who may not be familiar with the subject matter, and it provides a convenient link to the relevant article for further reading.
As for the hatnote from last year, I understand that we are discussing whether a hatnote should be included going forward. However, the fact that a hatnote was included in the past suggests that there is a need for clarification between the two articles, and I believe that this need still exists today.
‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course. It's a form of circumcision, and it would be natural that someone would look up "circumcision" even if they weer only interested in the female one. It would help the readers navigate.--Ortizesp (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    Please have another read of this discussion, and perhaps both of the articles at issue. The hatnote should be excluded so people don't incorrectly equate the two as you have apparently just done. MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
    Actually I think excluding the hatnote does the exact opposite, as it means we're not disambiguating the two. This article mentions the term "female circumcision" in five citations, yet without a hatnote who's to know that the two aren't equatable? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support for the pre-July 2022 status quo as pointed out by Neveselbert: [2]: This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation. There is clear benefit to readers to be informed that there is a separate article covering FGM, and the previous wording both acknowledged the potential for confusion and directed to the modern preferred term. This doesn’t conflate the two articles at all, while being clear that the two are not wholly un-related. I don’t see where any offence would arise. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please remember that hatnotes exist to aid navigation, per the guideline WP:Hatnote. The points above about whether or not the topics are related and whether or not the term is metaphorical are completely irrelevant. The word "circumcision" is used in many sources with this meaning (just search for "her circumcision" in quotes on Google Books to see lots of examples), so a hatnote is needed to aid navigation.
There should also be a hatnote to The Circumcision, again to aid navigation. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • (Already voted no above) Possible alternative solution: using the "see also" tag as disambiguation instead of a straight "yes" or "no" — "female circumcision" is included... but in the see also section in the same way that the current consensus on female genital mutilation resolved the term's use in the article: mentioning "female circumcision" with Martha Nussbaum's quotation on it. This is one of the rare cases where a simple lead disambiguation would be misleading and the use of notes and/or other information would better inform readers. I don't think a consensus on the matter will be reached otherwise. And I think this would be unobjectionable to both sides of the discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    @KlayCax I had trouble interpreting what you wrote, but I don't think anyone is suggesting any changes to the lead of this article. Also I can find no relevant comparison to anything at the Female genital mutilation article.
    What is proposed is to restore a hatnote above the article here. I think(?) you are suggesting putting a link down in the See Also section instead. If so, you're mistaken in suggesting that would be unobjectionable. The purpose of a hatnote is to help someone who arrived at the wrong page. Specifically, someone who entered "circumcision" in our searchbox or Google's searchbox seeking encyclopedic information on circumcision of females, and who ended up on the page here. That person obviously isn't likely to read this irrelevant and unhelpful article long enough to find a link to the correct page buried in the See Also section. That renders such link worthless for the intended purpose. Alsee (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry for the ambiguity. Part of the text got jumbled up and/or incorrectly removed for some reason. (I didn't notice at the time.)
    You're understanding it correctly.
    It would be moved to the "see also" section of the article, stating something like: "Female circumcision: a dated/anachronistic (or similar wording) term for female genital mutilation" Then placing a note on it that repeats what is currently on the FGM article's description of it in the lead: Although discussions sometimes use the terms 'female circumcision' and 'clitoridectomy', 'female genital mutilation' (FGM) is the standard generic term for all these procedures in the medical literature ... The term 'female circumcision' has been rejected by international medical practitioners because it suggests the fallacious analogy to male circumcision. I'm open to including something and I don't think a consensus is going to be reached otherwise.
    (Since right now the responses seem right down in the middle.) @Alsee:, @BogLogs:, @Bluerasberry:. What do you think? KlayCax (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    @KlayCax My last comment explained why your 'See also' suggestion didn't work. You emptily repeated your suggestion, without noticing or disputing why I said it didn't work.
    Regarding your read on the !vote and predicted result, I'll attempt to offer what insight I can. Yes the headcount is currently 7-7, but this is one of those cases where raw headcount is misleading. Notice that every 'No' all came in first 9 responses. It was 7 people piled against the RFC author - and me the only person to support their proposal. Every response afterwards has been 'Yes'. The direction of discussion completely reversed. I (correctly) called out the initial votes as dominated by involved parties, gone off the rails stuck in irrelevant past arguments. I cautiously foresee reaching a 'yes' consensus. You failed to notice, or failed to engage, why the discussion has reversed. Alsee (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    P.S. Your 'See also' suggestion is a proposal/argument for editing article content. That's exactly where the argument fails. That argument and reasoning have no weight or validity outside the article.
    The page with the bicycle-Cycling article has a hatnote at the top for a strategy Cycling (ice hockey). The fact that the strategy-hatnote happens to live on the same page as the bicycle content is incidental. It should be obvious that any reasoning or argument relating to bicycling-content carries no validity or weight in a debate on a hockey strategy hatnote.
    You're focused on old content-arguments here, you're mistaking the hatnote for part of the article here, you're mistakenly trying to apply local-article-content reasoning to something that has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Alsee (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. The "no" side makes many absolutely valid statements but fundamentally misunderstands the point of hatnotes. A hatnote is not there to make claims about the article's topic but to provide for navigation. From WP:HAT: The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. [...] Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because [...] [t]hey may be seeking an article with a similar name to, or that otherwise might be confused with, the article with the hatnote. See also more specifically WP:SIMILAR and WP:HATCONFUSE, and note that hatnotes aren't supposed to link to articles that are topically related (WP:RELATED). It's irrelevant whether the discourses in which a reader may encounter the term are academic or reliable, what matters only is that they exist. It's clear from the above discussion that term "circumcision" (with or without the qualifier "female") has a solidly attested, if now obviously deprecated, use for FGM. However, this doesn't mean that the hatnote shouldn't be carefully worded (if Wikipedia editors can misunderstand the point of hatnotes, then so can readers!). How about something along the lines of This page is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation.? There was a suggestion to have this link in the "see also" rather than the hatnote, but that would do nothing for readers who have arrived at the wrong article, and it will actually be validly exposed to the criticism currently levied on the hatnote proposal (unlike hatnotes, "see also" entries are expected to be topically related: MOS:SEEALSO). – Uanfala (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Uanfala How about something along the lines of This page is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation.? While I appreciate an urge to find options for compromise, I think you'll reject that text on second consideration. Consider a reader who typed "circumcision" in our search box or Google search, and landed on this page expecting this page to provide them with information on circumcision of girls/women. The article content is actively unhelpful, deliberately designed to avoid any association between the male and female practices. That reader rapidly scans random stuff on the page hoping maybe something helpful jumps out at them. Do you think that text would work for the hatnote? The reader likely has never seen the term "female genital mutilation" before. If they are from a community that practices "female circumcision" their English skills are likely weak or unsophisticated, they may not even recognize the words "genital" or "mutilation". I don't think the target reader is likely to successfully catch the hatnote unless the link itself jumps out as Female circumcision. Alsee (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. Female or male circumcision are both circumcisions. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • No to a hatnote to Female Circumcision, but Yes to a hatnote to Female genital mutilation. If we are talking about navigation then we should have navigation to the article name in Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
    @ActivelyDisinterested: Unfortunately, I think the RfC wording is not the best. So to clarify, do you oppose a hatnote with the wording “This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation”? Prcc27 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yes I oppose such a hatnote. If hatnotes are for navigation the wording should be "This page is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation." That is the article with have, not anything else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for clarifying. Prcc27 (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to some kinds of hatnote, perhaps using {{about-distinguish|male circumcision|female genital mutilation}}, which should render as This article is about male circumcision. It is not to be confused with female genital mutilation. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    This seems like a good phrasing to me, which should hopefully address most of the concerns raised in this discussion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
    I !voted No above, but would support this language. Perhaps we have a compromise that can achieve consensus here? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, with endorsement of the "not to be confused with" language above. In this context, acknolwedging that FGM is sometimes called circumcision diminishes rather than supports false equivalence. Sennalen (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Coming here from WP:WPDAB; I have neither knowledge or interest in this topic itself. But if female circumcision is a kind of circumcision (as the name implies), then of course it needs it needs to be disambiguated (directly or indirectly) via a hatnote in the general Circumcision article. Worse alternative: Go the Male circumcision as article name route, which I guess nobody wants. – sgeureka t•c 09:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, I accept that 'female circumcision' as a term is old-fashioned, euphemistic and intensely disapproved of by (Western and medical ?) sources but, the function of a hatnote is navigational, it does not imply 'equivalence'. I am further persuaded by Alsee's cogent arguments, including that those most likely to have personal reasons for wanting to read this article, are among those most likely to use this term. That isn't a critical reason for me, but it does no harm to acknowledge it. Also by Sennalen's point that In this context, acknolwedging that FGM is sometimes called circumcision diminishes rather than supports false equivalence. I would also endorse Ljleppan's 'distinguish' suggestion above as an alternative that might satisfy all 'sides'. Pincrete (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Obvious yes, with the hatnote stating "Female circumcision". Thank you to Alsee for stating exactly my thoughts, better than I could have. Hatnotes are purely a navigation aid. If people looking for female circumcision knew it was called FGM, they wouldn't be here in the first place, they'd be at the correct article. The people that want to know about FGM but end up here, are those who don't know female circumcision is genital mutilation. The hatnote's intended audience is them, and them alone.
Given how depressingly emotional this discussion started out as, let me make an emotional argument (as I wince): if people don't recognise the link in the hatnote pertains to what they're looking for, they won't click on it, and won't learn the truth! More seriously, we should never let our emotions harm our mission of democratising world knowledge. All our efforts are pointless if readers can't find the article they're looking for. DFlhb (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC postscript

According to the pageview statistics at Female circumcision this hatnote resulted in an increase of appropriately 26.5 views per day. That is nearly ten thousand readers per year being directed to the Female genital mutilation article. It's rare for a hatnote to get that kind of usage. Heck, a majority of our articles don't get anywhere near that level of traffic. I understand and respect the reason some people opposed the hatnote (even if I think it was misapplied) but our readers are clearly making heavy use of the hatnote. It is going to be life-changing for some of those people. Sometimes our work can be tedious or frustrating, but it can also be important and worldchanging. Alsee (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure."

This statement should not appear in this article unqualified. There is no consensus in the literature as to whether it has an effect or not. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this should be reworded. For starters, the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology’s viewpoint contradicts this statement. Prcc27 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
And in the very same paragraph, the article says "...the existing evidence is insufficient to make conclusive determinations...".
Seems like we're contradicting ourselves here. Agree that it should not appear in its current unqualified state. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
”There are popular misconceptions and myths that circumcision benefits or adversely impacts sexual pleasure” is problematic wording. This wording makes it sound like that the view that circumcision has effects on sexual function is only a myth. If there is no consensus in the literature, why would we portray dissenting viewpoints as “misconceptions”? I propose rewording it to: “there are popular misconceptions and myths regarding circumcision benefits and adverse effects in relation to sexual function and libido”. Another option would be to remove the sentence altogether. I also think we should add the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology’s viewpoint to the section; it is a significant minority viewpoint, so it is allowed to be included under WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology isn't a major medical organization. The World Health Organization, UNAIDS, JHPiego, and many others have explicit policy statements saying there is overwhelming evidence that, when performed in sterile conditions by a trained operator, circumcision does not effect those metrics. (Going so far as to explicitly label it misinformation and a "myth") For instance: there are many myths about male circumcision that circulate. For example, some people think that circumcision can cause impotence (failure of erection) or reduce sexual pleasure. Others think that circumcision will cure impotence. Let me assure you that none of these is true You could selectively quote minor organizations to state almost anything. (For instance, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists rejected the consensus on anthropological climate change until 2007.)
It's notable that major medical organizations - including those highly critical of routine circumcision - do not default to arguments surrounding function. Of course, if a major medical organization releases a new statement saying that circumcision inherently damages (or improves) function, then it should be added to the article. KlayCax (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Note that routine circumcision can still be unethical even if this is the case. (A stance multiple medical organizations take.) KlayCax (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus either way, that's established by "...the existing evidence is insufficient to make conclusive determinations..." Policy statements do not constitute a consensus in the medical literature. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Klaycax The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology is a multi-national organization. Your link is to the twitter page of only one of their members (the Danish Association of Clinical Sexology). It makes sense to mention a sexology organization (or in this case a group of sexology organizations) in a section about sexual effects. They may not be a major medical organization overall, but in the context of sexology, we can give them due weight. Prcc27 (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@KlayCax: “They don't seem to be a major medical organization - and from their Twitter, seem to promote a lot of ideas that are significant outliers in the field of human sexuality.” Once again, NACS is comprised of several *different* sexology organizations in Northern Europe. The Twitter page you linked to is the Danish Association of Clinical Sexology, which is one of many sexology organizations that is affiliated with NACS. That is *not* the official Twitter page for The Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology, which is the medical organization in question. FWIW, sexology organizations are inherently going to be smaller in size than other types of medical organizations. Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
They don't seem to be a major medical organization - and from their Twitter, seem to promote a lot of ideas that are significant outliers in the field of human sexuality.
Also, we are talking about giving due weight to the minority viewpoint. If NACS was the only outlier, maybe you would have a point. But the Royal Dutch Medical Association, and perhaps some of the literature seem to agree with them. I’m open to suggestions for using another source, but it seems clear to me that the view that circumcision negatively affects sexual function is a significant minority viewpoint. Prcc27 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There's been a debate on here on whether the Royal Dutch Medical Association is even a major medical organization in the first place. (We had a similar RFC on this a few months ago surrounding the RDMA's positions on VMMC programs.) That being said, I'll take it as a given that they are. Even then, their 2010 policy statement on circumcision is an overwhelming outlier among other medical organizations. For instance, the 2010 RDMA policy statement that's being cited here also proclaims that it is doubtful that VMMC circumcision is efficacious in high-risk areas. (Amid other notions that are regarded as rejected.) Meanwhile, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, and other major medical organizations have released statements describing the notion as a myth and/or discredited, including those in non-circumcising majority countries.
I don't disagree with you that circumcision — like all surgeries — has complications (including those that relate to sexuality). The issue would be changing the sexual effects page section to state that circumcisions without complications inherently reduce sexual pleasure. That's not a significant minority viewpoint in the literature.
I'm a lot more tolerant than a lot of editors on here surrounding the acceptance of older medical literature/policy statements. But it's important to note that 2010 was a long time ago and there's been a multitude of research surrounding circumcision since. Using a 2010 [Typo, meant 2013] statement from a small sexologist association and the RDMA seems remarkably weak here. If a major medical organization such as the WHO, UNAIDS, Jhpiego, British Medical Association, et al. releases a statement stating that circumcision inherently reduces sexual sensation than of course it could be added into the article. Using two statements from a sexological Association and the RDMA from 2010 does not cut it.
Again, if something substantive changes, then it could be added. But a lot of this seems like retreating old ground. On many scientific subjects that have received notoriety, you could cherrypick the positions of at least one organization to say whatever you want about the subject. KlayCax (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
“The issue would be changing the sexual effects page section to state that circumcisions without complications inherently reduce sexual pleasure.” That is not what I am proposing. I am proposing we say “some sexologists hold the view that circumcision negatively impacts sexual function” or “such and such organization(s) hold the view…” Also, you incorrectly stated that the NACS viewpoint was from 2010, it is from 2013, less than ten years old. You must be confusing it with the Royal Dutch Medical Association’s year of publication. Prcc27 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Prcc27:. Apologies, that was a typo. I wasn't confused here. I had to leave and do something right after I posted that. The response was quickly proofread.
That is not what I am proposing I know you don't want to state that it does in Wikivoice. However, adding "some sexologists hold the view that circumcision negatively impacts sexual function" would give the implication that it is a widely held opinion. That's not the case. The NACS is a small sexological association; the RDMA — the only debatable major medical organization that claims anything like this — holds positions on circumcision radically different from that of other European/global medical organizations.
(The RDMA also reject the notion that consensual VMMC in sub-Saharan Africa is efficacious at all, to just give one example.) Despite major medical organizations such as the British Medical Association, World Health Organization, UNAIDS, European Association of Urology, Canadian Urological Association, et al. all uniformly affirming that it does.
It would also open up a whole new bag of worms. There's a small minority of (predominately Australian, American, and Canadian) doctors/minor medical organizations who have extensively argued that it often increases pleasure — because of greater glanular exposure during sex — and have released papers claiming that it does. Obviously, we shouldn't include those notions in the article for the same reason. Both of those given positions are predominately rejected. KlayCax (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
So, therefore, there is no consensus either way and the matter remains a topic of dispute. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
No. It's normative — even on topics with overwhelming consensus — for at least one organization to be neutral/dissent. (To reference what I wrote above: the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and several other scientific organizations explicitly denied anthropologic climate change until the late 2000s to-mid 2010s.) Despite this, we rightfully didn't say that climate change was widely "disputed" among the scientific community or give it undue weight. The World Health Organization explicitly says: "there are many myths about male circumcision that circulate. For example, some people think that circumcision can cause impotence (failure of erection) or reduce sexual pleasure. Others think that circumcision will cure impotence. Let me assure you that none of these is true." I don't know if there's any more statements that could be clearer than that. Citing a minor sexologist association and a 2010 RDMA paper doesn't cut it. (It's been pointed out by editors that the RDMA also rejects consensual VMMC in Sub-Saharan Africa - despite an overwhelming consensus that it is efficacious in the prevention of HIV/AIDS transmission.)
Using a singular, minor sexologist association + a WP: MEDDATE'ed 2010 RDMA statement (which also strongly goes against the scientific consensus on other topics surrounding this + other issues) to overrule the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, JHPiego, Danish Medical Journal, Canadian Urological Association, Asian Journal of Andrology, American Academy of Pedatrics/College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. is WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
As Mr. Swordfish already pointed out, we currently cite a study that says “existing evidence is insufficient to make conclusive determinations”. Stating in wikivoice that circumcision does not affect sexual function, and that it is a “myth” that there is an impact on sexual function, contradicts the literature we currently have in that section. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
That's a reference to Tian et al. (2013), which states:
"Regardless of the present study outcome that shows an absence of adverse circumcision effects on a range of parameters related to sexual function and penile sensitivity, there is scope for further research, especially additional large, well-designed RCTs in diverse settings and over much longer time periods."
It's also WP: MEDDATE'ed (it weas added in 2013) and concluded: These findings suggest that circumcision is unlikely to adversely affect male sexual functions...In summary, male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function or sensitivity when compared with uncircumcised men. Although the literature contains a wide range of evidence for and against circumcision, the better quality studies affirm the recommendations of reputable experts who have evaluated the benefits and risks of circumcision as a desirable intervention early in life.
There's been several policy statements from major medical organizations — including from the WHO, et al. — definitely stating it doesn't since. All we're reporting here is that a 2013 paper on it stated that. For "The effect of circumcision on sexual partners' experiences is unclear as this has not been well studied.": it's a completely different topic that is not affected by the first sentence. "Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure" is in reference exclusively to circumcised men. "The effect of circumcision on sexual partners' experiences is unclear as this has not been well studied." is about their partners.
This is an argument for updating/removing the source; not modifying the repeated RFC'ed conclusion unilaterally. There's been extensive policy statements and metastudies on the matter from 2013. (Similar to the WHO's wording.) KlayCax (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd be in favor of removing Tian et al. (2013) from the article entirely at this point. It's past WP: MEDDATE and is essentially used to repeat the preceding sentence. It doesn't improve the article at all. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd be entirely opposed. It's a nuanced statement, unlike the pontificating statement that it precedes, which wrongly implies that there is a medical consensus that it has no effect. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not do anything unilaterally. You’re the only one in this section that currently disagrees, so it might actually be you that is acting unilaterally. You stated that MrOllie, Bon Courage, and Doc James disagree with my edit, yet they have been silent throughout this entire discussion. Also, I am not aware of an RfC on this matter, care to link to it? In my opinion, MEDDATE does not necessarily apply, if it is the strongest systematic review we have to date. Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
He's right, I disagree with it. There's no reason to add weasel words there to try to weaken the statement. MrOllie (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Pinging folks since their names have been invoked: @Bon courage:, @Doc James: - MrOllie (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
A user already inferred what their stance would be, so pinging them seems like WP:CANVASS. Also, some users do not like being pinged on talk pages that are already on their watchlist. Anyways, no, it is not “weasel wording”. We use “some evidence” or “strong evidence” throughout the article. Prcc27 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems more like not talking about them behind their backs to me. MrOllie (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Who is talking about them behind their backs? Do they not have this page on their watchlist? You responded without being pinged. If pinging user(s) can unfairly influence the talk discussion, it is best to avoid it. Prcc27 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with WP:WEASEL. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
'Seriously contested' is a higher bar than this. You can't get 100% of people to agree on anything. I once saw an opinion poll where only 80% of people agreed that puppies are cute. If we followed this logic everywhere articles like Climate change would read very differently. MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
That's a completely disingenuous trivialisation of this issue. There is no consensus in the medical literature whatsoever for the claim that "Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure." The claim has been contested repeatedly in the literature. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The claim has been contested repeatedly in the literature. Almost every claim is contested repeatedly in literature. That's how science works. The World Health Organization and several other organizations explicitly state there is a present consensus. A decade and a half old paper from the RDMA (which has WP: Fringe viewpoints surrounding consensual VMMC in Africa and other topics) and a decade old statement from a minor sexologist association do not denote anything like this. KlayCax (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The World Health Organization and several other organizations explicitly state there is a present consensus. Source? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Again, those statements do not constitute a consensus in the medical literature. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
No, there is no "overwhelming consensus" that it has no effect. The existing evidence is inconclusive, which is in complete contrast to the issue of anthropologic climate change. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Multiple international organizations, including the WHO, have stated there is a agreement on the matter and that it is a "a myth".
The statement in the article is almost exactly identical. If an organization such as the World Health Organization, et al. starts to assert something different... of course this can be revisited. But we're just rehashing arguments already addressed. KlayCax (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The WHO link you added does not open on my end, it is a dead link. Furthermore, if the 2013 systemic review is MEDDATED, one could argue that a WHO viewpoint from 2009 is, especially since we have newer viewpoints from the WHO. Prcc27 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
The WHO link was not added by me. It's been in the article for years. I just restored the citation. (See citations 65/66 It's been in the article for years.)
If the WHO source, RDMA statement, and 2013 systemic review are all MEDDATED - then the wording doesn't change.
As subsequent papers have made similar statements. KlayCax (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Multiple international organizations, including the WHO, have stated there is a agreement on the matter and that it is a "a myth". Where exactly have they stated that? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It's been a routine verbatim statement in several WHO, UNAIDS, and JHpiego joint papers.
There are many myths about male circumcision that circulate. For example, some people think that circumcision can cause impotence (failure of erection) or reduce sexual pleasure. Others think that circumcision will cure impotence. Let me assure you that none of these is true.
They jointly use the word "myth" to describe the idea of circumcision increasing/decreasing function.
What WHO statement has changed - surrounding sexual function in circumcised men? KlayCax (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not what they said, you're misrepresenting what they've said. It may well be the WHO position that it has no effect, but nowhere have they stated that this is the medical consensus. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
That's not what they said, you're misrepresenting what they've said. You asked me whether WHO directly labeled it "a myth". They did. The sentence was clearly also in reference to other sources as well. I never proposed adding "consensus" to the sexual effects section. Just that there is no good reason to include something like Prcc27's proposal here. It's WP: Fringe and WP: Undue.)
And what WHO, UNAIDS, or JHpiego stance has changed on the matter of sexual function? KlayCax (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I asked you where they stated there is a agreement on the matter. They haven't. It would be more accurate to say something like There is limited evidence to suggest that circumcision has a significant impact on sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure for most men. However, individual experiences may vary. instead of the present wording which is obviously misleading. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
How is the wording misleading? We presently don't say anything about "consensus" in the article.
Pushing WP: Fringe notions in the article is WP: Undue and uncalled for. KlayCax (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Now you're being ridiculous. It's not a fringe notion, it's a point of contention, one that has no conclusive answer to it. It's not undue to point out that there is no consensus, in fact it's extremely due considering WP:WIKIVOICE. It's entirely misleading and inappropriate to suggest that a definitive statement can be made. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A decade and a half old statement from an organization known for fringe and/or fringe-adjacent viewpoints on circumcision + other subjects (RDMA) and a minor sexologist organization (from 2013) isn't going to merit singlehandedly overturning the WHO, UNAIDS, JHpiego, American Academy of Pedatrics/College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. For the same reason: we shouldn't add claims by (fringe-adjacent viewpoints) supporters of circumcision that it's likely to "increase pleasure due to increased glanular exposure". Both claims are predominately rejected in literature. KlayCax (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I never said that, I said that the idea that a definitive statement can be made is misleading and inappropriate. Again, those viewpoints don't constitute a consensus in the medical literature. The bottom line is, the existing evidence is inconclusive. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I realize you're not advocating for the idea. I was using it to show citing marginal voices would lead the article down the path of absurdities and madness. We shouldn't include either idea (that it benefits or harms) for the same reason.
It's WP: Fringe. KlayCax (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Right, I'm not suggesting we do that. We should just clarify that there is limited evidence to suggest that it has a significant impact. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I do agree with you that perhaps more should be added to the section. Perhaps we could add something like: "When successfully performed by a trained practitioner at the beginning of the sentence. Since multiple major medical organizations note that tribal/non-trained practitioner circumcisions have significantly higher complication rates - including on those that relate to sexuality.
It's something that may not be immediately obvious to readers. @Neveselbert: KlayCax (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I oppose your proposal wording. I would support “When performed by a non-trained practitioner, circumcisions have a significantly higher complication rate with regards to sexual function.” However, this would be its own separate sentence, and it is not a sufficient compromise in itself. Your proposal does not change the fact that we have a systematic review that says “the existing evidence is insufficient to make conclusive determinations”. You claimed there was an RfC, but I am still unaware of when a consensus was established to reword the “Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure” sentence into Wiki voice. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The statement's sourced. What's the issue? PistachoCash (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
The issue is we have conflicting information in the section. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
It appears pretty much settled from stuff I found online.
Why is it marked? Love the article otherwise, not sure why my response was deleted. PistachoCash (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
There isn't a major controversy, as explained above. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I misunderstood PistachoCash’s edit, didn’t realize it was referring to “sexual partners”. However, it is worth noting that even though the CPS viewpoint is new, the sources the CPS used for this specific claim are rather old. The current CPS policy at a quick glance appears to be very similar to CPS’s old policy. In fact, now I am wondering, is it the same policy verbatim? Or are there subtle differences? Prcc27 (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like the policy was “reaffirmed in 2021”? If we are going to use the logic that reaffirming a policy = new policy, that would technically mean the Royal Dutch Medical Association’s policy would count as a 2022 policy. The KNMG released a statement saying “the above documents were reviewed in March 2022: content is still correct.” Prcc27 (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Can't find it, link?
Regardless, the KNMG is a wild outlier on a lot of topics surrounding circumcision, opposing even consensual VMMC programs. Wikipedia's articles on almost every scientific topic, from climate change to evolution, would look dramatically different if a single organization (even major!) was all it took to describe something as controversial. (See this.) The overwhelming position of major medical organizations is that circumcision neither improves or decreases sexual function. See also here.Tagging @Neveselbert: @Bon courage: @MrOllie:.
Even implying that circumcisions without complications reduce pleasure is overwhelmingly WP: Fringe.
This seems to be a pretty settled manner. KlayCax (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
It's not, for reasons I've explained. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 05:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@KlayCax: Here is the link where KNMG reaffirmed their policy statement. FWIW, I am not necessarily saying we should count renewed policy statements as new policy statements though. Prcc27 (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Prcc27:. Although the 2010 wording appears to have been changed into: "circumcised men are at a much greater risk of sexual problems later in life" instead of the idea that it inherently reduces pleasure. (I'm not fluent in Dutch. I'm using a translation service. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's still a WP: Fringe position but a much weaker assertation.) Regardless, unless an unequivocal position of a major medical organization comes out, this appears to just be a rehash of the conversations on circumcision and HIV + the American Association of Petroleum Geologists discussion above. Unless something changes - it shouldn't be in the article.
The KNMG is an outlier on a lot of subjects and is often not classified as a major medical organization - something you yourself said.
My argument is:
  • The KNMG isn't a major medical organization. (Which several other editors stated as well in previous discussion.)
  • Even if the KNMG was a major medical organization, there is a traditionally a small number of outliners - even among major medical organizations - on issues. Our articles on climate change, astrology, and many other articles would look radically different if a single major medical organziation could single-handedly overturn statements. The KNMG position on circumcision - ranging from VMMC to sexual effects - is overwhelmingly fringe and rejected by organizations like the WHO.
  • As mentioned above: "It would also open up a whole new bag of worms. There's a small minority of (predominately Australian, American, and Canadian) doctors/minor medical organizations who have extensively argued that it often increases pleasure — because of greater glanular exposure during sex — and have released papers claiming that it does. Obviously, we shouldn't include those notions in the article for similar reasons. Both of these positions are overwhelmingly rejected."
Unless something changes: No, it clearly doesn't belong in the article. Especially replacing the current version with the claim that There is limited evidence to suggest that circumcision has a significant impact on sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure for most men. However, individual experiences may vary.
This seems to be a similar debate to the Circumcision and HIV discussion a few months back. KlayCax (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The impact of circumcision on sexual function, sensation, desire, and pleasure remains a topic of ongoing debate and scientific research, with some studies suggesting it may have a minor effect, while others find no significant difference. would be a sensible compromise. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
How about something like:
Circumcision has a neutral impact on an individual's fertility, libido, and sexual pleasure. There are popular misconceptions that circumcision significantly benefits or adversely impacts sexual pleasure. High-quality studies have consistently failed to find a statistically significant difference in sexual response between individuals who are circumcised and who are not. According to a 2014 review, the effect of circumcision on sexual partners' experiences is unclear as this has not been well studied. According to a 2015 policy statement from the Canadian Paediatric Society (reaffirmed in 2021), "medical studies do not support circumcision as having an impact on sexual function or satisfaction for partners of circumcised individuals". That work? @Neveselbert:. KlayCax (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
It's a start, but how about something like:
The impact of circumcision on an individual's fertility, libido, and sexual pleasure is a subject of ongoing scientific inquiry. While there are popular misconceptions that circumcision may significantly benefit or adversely impact sexual pleasure, high-quality studies have consistently failed to find a statistically significant difference in sexual response between circumcised and uncircumcised individuals. However, the available evidence remains limited and inconclusive, and the effect of circumcision on sexual partners' experiences is not well understood due to a lack of research. The Canadian Paediatric Society's 2015 policy statement reaffirms that medical studies do not support circumcision as having an impact on sexual function or satisfaction for partners of circumcised individuals, but further research is needed to fully understand the potential effects of circumcision on sexual health. Could that work? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
What we have currently is fine. The proposals are wordy watering-down and bad style. See WP:MEDSAY. Bon courage (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I still think The impact of circumcision on sexual function, sensation, desire, and pleasure remains a topic of ongoing debate and scientific research, with some studies suggesting it may have a minor effect, while others find no significant difference. is better than the above, and certainly better than what there is currently. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
some studies suggesting it may have a minor effect, while others find no significant difference Those statements aren't contradictions. And what sources say circumcision alters male libido? I do agree that "sensation" should be removed - replaced with just pleasure. KlayCax (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I support replacing the current text with The impact of circumcision on sexual function, sensation, desire, and pleasure remains a topic of ongoing debate and scientific research, with some studies suggesting it may have a minor effect, while others find no significant difference., with one minor alteration. We should specify long-term impact, as you are not supposed to have sex for at least 42 days after getting circumcised, so clearly there is a short-term negative effect. Nosferattus (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

what is the source for "topic of ongoing debate"? (which cannot be said anyway for WP:RELTIME reasons). Smells like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Bon courage (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, clearly it's not a settled debate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
And the source is? WP:V is core policy remember, Seems to be this question is settled per the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The question is far from settled, hence the vigorous debate in the medical literature. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Any reliable sources for that? Bon courage (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bon courage: The claim is literally in one of the sources we currently cite: “there is ongoing controversy regarding the impact of circumcision on penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction.” [3] Prcc27 (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. That is all I wanted to know. A 2018 source cannot be used for "ongoing" however, and that's a word that should generally not be used on Wikipedia because of WP:RELTIME. Bon courage (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
We still should not be saying “circumcision does not affect sexual function” in wikivoice. Especially when there has been significant controversy (as noted by the above source) and a systematic review cautioning against making conclusive statements. “There is some evidence that circumcision does not affect sexual function” would be more appropriate than the current wording. Prcc27 (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Why? We assert what the good sources say. The fact that this is "controversial" does not nullify it. Lots of people deny reality. Bon courage (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:WIKIVOICE: “avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.” Prcc27 (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
What source says these assertions are contested? It says they're controversial. Not the same thing. Vaccine efficacy is "controversial" but the science is not seriously contested. The very same sources states the conclusion: "Conclusion: There is lack of any convincing evidence that neonatal circumcision will impact sexual function or cause a perceptible change in penile sensation in adulthood". What do the most recent sources say? Bon courage (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no serious contestation. On the matter of sexual function, medical organizations in non-circumcising nations state the same as those in predominately circumcising ones. Even the RDMA statement cited by Prcc27 has been dramatically watered down from the 2010 version, substituting pleasure (2010) with possible later in life sexual function. (now) The only thing I'd change the sentence with is to Circumcision has no effect on sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility. It was predominately based on a Morris et al. (2013) paper that no longer exists within the article. I'm failing to see what's controversial about any of the other statements.
Even the Tian et al. (2013) citation is a decade old at this point and contradicted by a multitude of other, better, newer sources. KlayCax (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of serious contestations, including pmid:21672947, pmid:17378847, pmid:23374102, pmid:14979200, pmid:18481425, pmid:23600924, pmid:21747599, pmid:21492404. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Unreliable, ancient sources that don't say that are not useful here. Why are we using any old sources anyway? 5 years should be the cut-off per MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
So they're unreliable because of age? In that case, we should remove all citations dating before 2018 from the article supporting obviously controversial statements such as these. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
If the material they cover is covered by newer, better sources, then yes. Bon courage (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
pmid:32994555 acknowledges serious contestations, stating Although many authors support the hypothesis that circumcision status has an impact on sexual functioning, a negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, 'Seriously contested' is a higher bar than this. MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
And as I mentioned earlier, serious contestations include pmid:21672947, pmid:17378847, pmid:23374102, pmid:14979200, pmid:18481425, pmid:23600924, pmid:21747599, pmid:21492404. The material these sources cover are yet to be covered by newer, better sources, though pmid:32994555, which falls under WP:MEDDATE, at least acknowledges they exist. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It's also being quotemined/cherrypicked here, @MrOllie:.
  • There is enough literature supporting the fact that childhood circumcision has no negative influence in sexual function per se.
  • ...recent systematic review[s] of histological and anatomical data on sensory receptors in the penis, which includes also those changes that appear in puberty concludes that nerve endings related to sexual pleasure reside in the glans and the foreskin have no role in sexual sensation. Meissner corpuscles of the foreskin had unlikely a role in erotic sensation as their density decreases at the age when sexual activity gets higher. Free nerve endings showed no statistic correlation with sexual response and tactile sensitivity of the glans, as the later decreases with sexual arousal and it is not linked to sexual sensation. Hypotheses on higher penile sexual sensation after circumcision correlate to the bigger surface accessible of genital corpuscles after the removal of the foreskin, based on their distribution in the glans. Furthermore, vibrational and thermal sensitivity during intercourse are perceived as a reward mechanism and neither of them is related to circumcision status. In the prospective study carried out by Aydur they reported no relationship between circumcision age and overall male sexual function... When comparing subgroups of specific spheres of sexual function, avoidance and communication appeared to be influenced by age at the time of circumision. However, these seem to be very subjective matters related to negative body image perception as previously described. Many studies have proven that MC has no negative effect on sexual function.
Essentially, the meta-analysis here is saying that it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that circumcision doesn't damage sexual function from a physiological point of view. But dislike of circumcision status — like other forms of body dissatisfaction — can affect sexual functioning. That's not breaking news. There's nothing shocking about that statement. Using it to overturn the WHO, UNAIDS, Jhpiego, et al. + a multitude of other major medical organizations is an obvious misuse of the source. (Which in fact claims the exact opposite.) KlayCax (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It's also being quotemined/cherrypicked here, I've done nothing of the sort. The point it proves is that there are serious contestations to be acknowledged, contrary to what you said previously, and that these contestations are not at all fringe. Nobody is suggesting using it as a source to overturn those organisations, the only suggestion I'm making is that a more nuanced statement is warranted in light of these contestations. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
That's called original research. If you want to "prove" there's "serious contestations" (?) you need a source saying that. Bon courage (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm using KlayCax's terminology, who misleadingly claimed There is no serious contestation., so I responded in kind. I've already provided sources and indeed have provided a source acknowledging those outdated sources, which would discredit the idea that such contestations are fringe. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
And your source is ... ? Bon courage (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
See my earlier comments. The source acknowledges authors who have made such contestations. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It says Many studies have proven that MC has no negative effect on sexual function and therefore there is now enough literature [now to support] the fact that childhood circumcision has no negative influence in sexual function per se [that is, for physiological, not psychological reasons]. The quote you're citing within the paper is in relation to circumcision's impact on individual's self-confidence and body image. All it says is that bodily self-confidence/body image can impact an individual's experience of sexual pleasure/function, and, that for a small minority of individuals who are circumcised, dislike of their status may lead to problems with those metrics. Using it to state that circumcision physiologically reduces pleasure (when it concludes the opposite) is not what the source is saying. In fact, it's the opposite. He says it's disproven. KlayCax (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
That's not what I'm saying it be used to state at all, rather it should be used to acknowledge the serious contestations made by authors in the mainstream, which are not fringe. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
A source that says the opposite isn't going to establish that you can treat these facts as 'opinions' per WP:YESPOV. Every scientific question has a minority that argues against the mainstream, no matter how 'serious' those individuals might be, that does not add up to 'seriously contested' as in the scientific consensus could go either way. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It states that those claims are now essentially disproven. We could maybe include something in the psychological section about it. (With caution) But it's important to not go into WP: Undue territory with the idea — since the percentage of people with an intense dislike of their own status is rare. KlayCax (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Closing tag

I removed the tag as there was clearly not going to be a consensus to change current wording through discussion. @MrOllie: @Neveselbert: @Bon courage: @Prcc27:.

But I hope the changes made since the tag was applied are at least satisfactory for everyone involved in this conversation for the time being.

The initial wording of:

Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure

has been changed to:

Circumcision does not affect sexual pleasure, function, desire, sensation or fertility

Personal proposal

I'm suggesting that Tian et al. (2013) and Bossio (2014) will be given a waiting period to remain in the article until January 1, 2024. (A decade after both were published.)

  • AAP et al. (2012) is removed from the sexual function cite past January 1, 2024. (Although the policy statement will still be used for non-sexual function/pleasure matters.)
  • Tian et al. (2013) has been superceded by a multitude of newer policy statements by major medical organizations.
  • Bossio (2014) has been superceded by the Canadian Paediatric Society (2015, reaffirming in 2021) and several other statements from major medical organizations.

If major medical organizations comes out in the future and states that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure/function then this could obviously be revisited. KlayCax (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax, would you be open to Circumcision does not generally affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure, in light of the following sources that have noted some effect (pmid:21672947, pmid:17378847, pmid:23374102, pmid:14979200, pmid:18481425, pmid:23600924, pmid:21747599, pmid:21492404)? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Something like this: When successfully performed in an aseptic setting by a trained practitioner, circumcision does not impact sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility. Would be fine.
I'm not aware of any research that states that it impacts desire/fertility. KlayCax (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
No, that just flies in the face of common sense. There are always risks involved regardless, which is why adding generally makes much more sense. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
That's why it states successfully performed. That excludes risks. KlayCax (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Postoperative risks are still possible. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Which is covered by successfully performed. I'm not denying that there's postoperative risks. KlayCax (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
You are by saying that if "successfully performed", there are no postoperative risks, when there absolutely are regardless of whether the operation was successful or not. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that the wording denotes that. Without complication work? KlayCax (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it should be stressed that this can vary by individual, as some individuals have reported a difference regardless of whether they were performed on successfully without complication. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
It's fine, @Neveselbert:. That's the wording the WHO and Canadian Paediatric Society uses. The cases you mentioned are forms of complications.
Tagging related editors: @MrOllie: @Prcc27: @Bon courage:. KlayCax (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
No, they're not all "forms of complications" (see pmid:21672947, pmid:17378847, pmid:23374102, pmid:14979200, pmid:18481425, pmid:23600924, pmid:21747599, pmid:21492404). I don't know why you can't accept the word generally. You can't deny that some individuals have reported an effect later in life despite having had no complications from the operation itself. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
A lot of those studies aren't about penile sensation/pleasure at all. Sorrells et al. (2007), Yang et al. (2008), Tang & Khoo (2011), or Dias et al. (2014). Many are talking about vibration/fine-touch sensation; all don't purport to be talking about pleasure at all.)
The others either have horrendous methodology, are significant outliers, and have often been rebutted in the foreamentioned multiple policy statements. (Shen et al. (2004), Frisch & Lindholm & Grønbæk (2011), Namavar & Robati (2011), Bronselaer et al. (2013) are all good examples of this.)
The problem is "generally" implies that circumcision physiologically alters pleasure, et al.
Published policy statements are clear that it doesn't. KlayCax (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
In which case, you could just have physiologically in place of generally, while clarifying that this only applies in cases without complication. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, adding now. @Neveselbert:. KlayCax (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
So Neveselbert specifically suggested that we “[clarify] that this only applies in cases without complication”, and I am not seeing this in your edit. I also want to remind everyone that “there are popular misconceptions that circumcision benefits or adversely impacts sexual pleasure” is still in dispute. The evidence is not strong enough to say that definitively. Prcc27 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Saying "there are popular misconceptions" surrounding it is directly from multiple sources. KlayCax (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
An old WHO source, an ACOG source which has a disclaimer at the bottom that says the FAQ page “is not intended as a statement of the standard of care”, and a paper that says young males in the study had misconceptions, but does not necessarily say how that relates to whether the general population has misconceptions or not. Prcc27 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Misconceptions don't apply in the case of WP: MEDDATE.
It's not like it suddenly stops becoming so after five years. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
“There are popular misconceptions that circumcision benefits or adversely impacts sexual pleasure” is essentially a medical claim that insinuates that ‘circumcision does not benefit or adversely impact sexual pleasure’. So yes, MEDDATE would apply. Even if MEDDATE does not apply, WP:AGE MATTERS does. Prcc27 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Has later research overturned this then? Bon courage (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The WHO came out with a newer policy statement. So why are we citing one of their older policy statements? If the older policy statement is more comprehensive than the newer one, maybe I would be open to its inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that it is a medical claim. We already state the facts Circumcision does not affect sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility.. Stating in addition that there are misconceptions about this is a claim about society/culture. MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree, as an adjunct to the fact it is a good bit of knowledge about a societal phenomenon. If it stood alone, there could however be a problem. Bon courage (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, it is somewhat irrelevant if MEDDATE applies. WP:AGE MATTERS says “be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded”. Doesn’t a newer WHO policy supersede older policy statements..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Why are you asking me? Read the newer policy statement and see if they say something like 'There are no popular misconceptions about this'. If not, it hasn't been superseded. MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, the newer policy statement makes no such claim. It is misleading to say there are “popular misconceptions” in the *present tense*, when we are using a source that is over a decade old. Just because “misconceptions” were “popular” in 2009, does not mean those “misconceptions” are still *popular* in 2023. Prcc27 (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
how do you know? Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I meant something along the lines of When successfully performed in an aseptic setting by a trained practitioner, circumcision does not physiologically impact sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 10:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
That seems more concise and preferable to the two verbose footnotes. My question is, however, is the proposed wording and/or the current wording compliant with WP:OR/WP:SYNTH? Prcc27 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm just trying to work with KlayCax's proposals. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
This is fine. I don't have a preference about physiologically being in it. KlayCax (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

claim that country's stopped circumcision because of ethics

It was in the lead but there's no evidence for this. they're might be ethical concern but that is different from the reason it was stopped. PistachoCash (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that any country stopped circumcision, let alone due to ethical concerns. Please re-read. MrOllie (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The article said “variant medical, cultural, religious, and ethical views have led to a widely diverging incidence and prevalence within polities.” I think that is what OP is referring to. We had a sentence in the lead about bioethics, but a user decided to remove it, and replace it with the above quote. Does anyone oppose my proposed sentence “There are ethical concerns and debate regarding non-therapeutic circumcision of children”? We had a previous consensus to include ethics in the lead of the article. And PistachioCash did not say they oppose including ethics in the lead, they oppose the possible WP:OR claim that ethics lead to diverging prevalence. Prcc27 (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It works better as part of the list than as a standalone sentence, so yes, I oppose it. Ethics is still included in the lead of the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Where does the article talk about ethics in the lead? I would propose “Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy and ethics of the elective circumcision of minors” as an alternative. Prcc27 (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Where does the article talk about ethics in the lead? In the sentence you just quoted: 'variant medical, cultural, religious, and ethical views'. Adding unrelated stuff would only confuse the sentence about prophylactic efficacy and would be a mistake. MrOllie (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
My bad, I did not realize it was re-added to the article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Culture is a subset of ethics: so the word is somewhat reductant. @Prcc27: @MrOllie:.
For example, Lonchyna & Kelly & Angelos (2022) - ISBN: 9783030846251 - notes:
Finally, the culture of surgery includes ethics issues not often addressed within non-surgical ethics training.
It's already covered in the sentence. KlayCax (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Arguably everything is either part of culture or part of physics, but that doesn't mean that using more specific words isn't helpful. MrOllie (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Circumcision as one of the world's oldest and most common surgeries

Prcc27 removed the statement from the page without explanation. Why? 06:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PistachoCash (talk • contribs)

  • I already explained why it was removed. The claim did not seem to be backed by a source. If I am mistaken, you are welcome to demonstrate which source was used for the claim. Prcc27 (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
There was a citation in the version you just reverted. Given that this appears to be a simple misunderstanding, a self-revert would be a good idea. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate you assuming good faith. Nevertheless, I hope PistachoCash will explain their edits better moving forward. The first two edits were unsourced, so I incorrectly inferred the third edit was also unsourced, especially since it was not made clear in that edit summary that they were rectifying the concerns I had. Prcc27 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
"Circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide..."https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/jc1360_male_circumcision_en_0.pdf
@MrOllie @Prcc27. PistachoCash (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
It was also cited in my edit. PistachoCash (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023

In the grey disclaimer at the top of the page it says female circumcision when referring to female genital mutilation or FGM. FGM isn’t comparable to circumcision. Changing it to say ‘female genital mutilation sometimes incorrectly called female circumcision.’ would be most appropriate. VincentPama (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  •  Not done. We already had an RfC on this. I am open to “for female circumcision, please see female genital mutilation”. But your wording seems a little POV pushy. Prcc27 (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I've revised the hatnote, but without the "incorrectly" (although it's true, but too pushy). I read the RfC closure as requiring the hatnote to mention the term, but not exclusively so as the only term for it. As the female genital mutilation article makes clear, the term "female circumcision" is not accurate and creates a false equivalency. Crossroads -talk- 00:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I explained the RfC closure above - it doesn't mandate calling it "female circumcision" in our own voice. NOTBROKEN is not relevant here because the problem has nothing to do with it being a redirect, the problem is that the term is incorrect. Crossroads -talk- 20:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not "in our own voice". The hatnote is simply thus, {{Distinguish|female circumcision}}, which is entirely sufficient. Whether you like it or not, rightly or wrongly, it's still a term colloquially used in parts of the world even if it's inaccurate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute

Take behavioural issues elesewhere. Bon courage (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neveselbert was warned and topic-blocked in March 2023 about his behavior on circumcision-related articles. Unfortunately, he's begun to immediately resume this once again, including making attempts to provoke and troll multiple editors.

In response to my systematic bias tag that I submitted on this article, he has now begun to add "systematic bias" tags to articles surrounding FGM and the Wikipedia article on clitoridectomy, posting on them:

Christian, anti-theistic, White, Western. Islamic and Eastern perspectives on the matter are almost entirely absent

The same exact wording that I used yesterday. Before mockingly responding on my talk page that he is going to proceed to tag articles surrounding female genital mutilation with the "exact" wording that I used to be "consistent".

Would you say that "Intactivist" viewpoints are dramatically overrepresented in the Clitoridectomy article? If so, why not tag that article with systematic bias as well?

and:

I've tagged it to be consistent [obvious mockery/sarcasm], given that many of the same arguments you've given apply to that particular article as well.

Neveselbert has also begun to once again delete citations from researchers (including Brian Morris) and citations (including the WHO and Wolters-Kulwer) he dislikes in circumcision-related articles. This is despite @Bon courage:, @MrOllie:, and I repeatedly warning him about this a few months ago. (Also: see his conversation with @Man-Man122: here.) Presently, he's in edit wars with 3+ users surrounding this. (Me included) His behavior includes repeated statements that circumcised individuals have "mutilated" penises ("mutilation" meaning alterations that render something inferior, ugly, dysfunctional, or imperfect), repeatedly pushing the notion that they have "dramatically" reduced sexual pleasure, and concern-trolling editors, often resulting in time sinks that last weeks.

Unfortunately, WP:AGF is clearly no longer applicable here, and I believe that further discussion will only continue to feed the behavior.

I believe that an incident report on the administrators' noticeboard should be submitted. This behavior has gone on for a year and there's no evidence of a change. KlayCax (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Neveselbert was warned and topic-blocked in March 2023 about his behavior on circumcision-related articles. I was only blocked from editing this page, not all related pages. Unfortunately, he's begun to immediately resume this once again, including making attempts to provoke and troll multiple editors. I've done nothing of the kind, and your assumption of bad faith is entirely uncalled for. I have communicated with editors in the normal way, almost always on the relevant talkpage. In response to my systematic bias tag to his changes, he has now begun to add "systematic bias" tags to articles surrounding FGM and the Wikipedia article on clitoridectomy, because, as I explained to you, the same issues you highlighted here I found were applicable to that article as well. I did not make any other changes to any other article related to FGM. Also, to say that you added the tag solely because of my changes is obviously not true, as anyone who can view the edit history of this article will find. I've tagged it to be consistent [obvious mockery/sarcasm], given that many of the same arguments you've given apply to that particular article as well. No, I wasn't being "obviously mocking" or "sarcastic" at all, as I've explained. Neveselbert has begun to delete citations from researchers (including Brian Morris) and citations (including the WHO and Wolters-Kulwer) he dislikes in circumcision-related articles. I've never deleted anything without explaining exactly why the sourced text wasn't relevant or without discussing the issue thereafter with other editors. Your assumption that I "dislike" those citations is entirely your personal interpretation, which is simply not accurate at all. Presently, he's in edit wars with 3+ users surrounding this. (Me included) I'm not, I haven't reverted more than three times on a single page in the last 24 hours and have no plans to do so. Beyond this, he has repeatedly stated that circumcised individuals have "mutilated" penises (alterations that render something inferior, ugly, dysfunctional, or imperfect) I have never said this, this is a lie. attempted to repeatedly push the notion in articles that they have "dramatically" reduced sexual pleasure, another lie, I've never done this at all. and repeatedly concern-trolled both me and other editors surrounding circ-related topics. Nor have I done this either. Unfortunately, WP:AGF is clearly no longer applicable here, and I believe that further discussion will only continue to feed the behavior. No, the problem here is you refusing to discuss matters instead of reverting constantly whenever your WP:BOLD edits are challenged. I repeatedly told you to discuss your changes, but you decided to edit war instead. Likewise, I can no longer assume good faith on your part. I believe that an incident report on the administrators' noticeboard should be submitted. This behavior has gone on for a year and there's no evidence of a change. I haven't done anything untoward, and if anything I should be the one submitting a report on your behaviour but I won't because I actually don't want whatever this is. Just discuss this matter like a normal person instead of trying to shut other people down. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

Kaangny (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sensitivity Comparison

Sensitivity & Pleasure

The foreskin, a highly sensitive part of the male anatomy, comprises approximately 20,000 nerve endings, equivalent to those found on the palm of your hand. It plays a crucial role in sexual pleasure by stimulating the glans and providing unique sensations. Sadly, circumcision permanently deprives men of these experiences. Furthermore, the inner foreskin, rich in nerves, creates natural lubrication that enhances comfort during sexual intercourse. The removal of the foreskin and its intricate network of nerve endings and vascular structures, including the frenulum and the ridged band, can result in decreased sensitivity and potential discomfort for both partners.

The frenulum, also known as the frenum, serves as an anchor between the foreskin and the ridge on the underside of the glans. Adjacent to the frenulum, the ridged band is often the most sensitive area for men, intensifying sexual pleasure. Additionally, the rest of the foreskin possesses heightened sensitivity compared to the glans. It is important to note that the circumcision scar becomes the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

Beneath the surface of the skin lies the dermis, a highly elastic layer containing larger nerve branches, connective tissue, and blood vessels. This layer enables mobility and facilitates the foreskin's ability to return to its natural position after erection or retraction. Within the dermis, the Meissner Corpuscles, which are highly sensitive nerve endings, further contribute to the overall sensory experience. Notably, Meissner Corpuscles are also present on the palm of the hands, highlighting their significance in human tactile sensitivity.

Keritinization

The glans of the penis undergoes changes that reduce sensitivity as it is consistently exposed to friction and abrasion, such as from contact with clothing. However, the presence of the foreskin plays a crucial role in maintaining the sensitivity and moisture of the glans. Without the protective covering of the foreskin, the glans becomes thicker and less sensitive due to a process known as keratinization.

Illustrating Sensitivity Differences: A Color Depiction of the Circumcised and Uncircumcised States of the Human Penis

• Several places on the foreskin are considerably more sensitive than anywhere on the circumcised penis (points 3, 4, 13, 14 below)

• The glans is not the most sensitive part of the penis, but rather, among the least sensitive (points 8, 9, 10, 11)

• The most sensitive part of a circumcised penis is the foreskin’s remnant and scar (point 19)

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/sorrellsvsmandj-poster.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.bundleborn.com/bundlebornblog/2016/2/21/why-does-a-midwife-with-3-daughters-care-about-infant-male-circumcision
 Not done Junk sources. Bon courage (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
What does Junk sources mean? I've added the sources I used. Kaangny (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
They are junk. See WP:MEDRS for what is needed. Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Do I need to add ideal sources? I searched for the word Junk on the page you directed, but there is no such word. Please explain my mistake instead of just saying junk. Kaangny (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You need to write based on sources that meet WP:MEDRS, not self published 'intactivist' sites that share false medical information. - MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
okay, i think i understand. Kaangny (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
false medical information such as? ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Quite ironic given that this wiki page is itself packed with false medical information 194.80.168.100 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Incredible to see Wikipedia deriding scientific studies as "junk" and dismissing them with no other explanation. This article is astoundingly biased toward a nonmedical perspective and the editors seem bent on removing any medical evidence to the contrary of the viewpoint this article is pushing (that removal of multiple sections of the genitals does not impact sexuality at all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stistrash (talk • contribs) 15:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps it is equally incredible to see someone claiming that a website run by advocates and another for a midwife's practice are "scientific studies"? Proper review articles in reputable, peer-reviewed, non-predatory medical journals are welcome. A list of claimed and cherry-picked studies on someone's self-published website is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism

Does the “Gressgård, Randi (2012). Multicultural Dialogue: Dilemmas, Paradoxes, Conflicts. Berghahn Books. pp. 7, 94. ISBN 9780857456489” source mention ethnocentrism? If yes, why does the quote in the citation not match what is said in our article; the citation needs to be fixed? If not, this is original research and the ethnocentrism claim should be removed. Also, why are we referring to circumcision proponents as “opponents”..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Prcc27, the exact word ethnocentrism appears twice on page 7, and the word ethnocentric appears once on page 94. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I fixed the article. The source actually only says that the debate surrounding Norway’s proposed ban was rooted in ethnocentrism, not circumcision ban proposals as a whole. I did not see anything about “Christian privilege” either. Consequently, I revised the sentence. Prcc27 (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Did you read page 94? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The quote in the citation did not mention “ethnocentrism” and has been removed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Prcc27, does your reply mean "No, I did not read the cited source myself. I am editing the article based solely on the contents of the |quote= parameter, which might – or might not – reflect what the source said"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
It's in the citation. I restored it. KlayCax (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Medical focus = ethnocentrism

WP:SOAP. This page is for discussion about improving the article. Bon courage (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only in the Anglophone world (Britain and British settler societies) has circumcision ever been considered a medical procedure; and that, on the flimsiest of evidence, in accordance with the most outlandish medical theories imaginable. The Wikipedia requirement for some "gold standard" of medical research, in relation to male circumcision, is therefore patently absurd -- as anyone familiar with its history can attest.

Cultural anthropology, sociology, comparative anatomy, psychoanalysis and even theology would be more germane to the topic at hand. I submit that Wikipedia's handling of circumcision -- as primarily a medical phenomenon -- smacks of (white, Anglo) ethnocentrism, cultural bias, and the influence of professional elites with vested interests in perpetuating this form of (medically unnecessary, and indeed, counter-therapeutic) surgery.

Bioethics, together with the human, civil and common-law rights of the child, are of utmost importance, yet are effectively negated by the spurious medical focus of this article's belligerent custodians. The sanitisation of genital mutilation is unconscionable, irrespective of the victim's gender. The amputation of functional, healthy tissue is inherently harmful, and it is a disgrace for biomedical elites to pretend otherwise. Such behaviour is a discredit and disservice not only to Wikipedia and the medical profession, but to male survivors of non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital surgery.

Arguably, Wikipedia has an obligation to the public good, which is in no way served by self-interested promotion (for vested psychological, political, or financial reasons) of genital mutilation, that most heinous form of gender-based violence. Prunella Vulgaris (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

I want to edit the page Circumcision Ryanjaden (talk) 10:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Any request needs to be specific. Bon courage (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"Circumcision does not have a physiological affect on sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility."

Uhhh, what? A tightly circumcised male cannot move his foreskin the same way an uncircumcised male can. This greatly changes the way circumcised men masturbate, namely, instead of using the friction of the foreskin, they usually use moisturizing agents such as spit or skin-sensitive lube.

This is, by definition, a "physiological affect on sexual pleasure", and will throw off readers who are tightly circumcised. AnonFilly12 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The current text seems to reflect accurately what the source says. Bon courage (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Neonatal circumcision promotion Article

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

A biased and false article designed to promote the cutting of male babies 84.109.51.26 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@84.109.51.26 Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of penile cancer 😡 84.109.51.26 (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
It’s probably WP:UNDUE in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@84.109.51.26 sure, preventive efficacy: except death in old age, it prevents all diseases for both male and female. 84.109.51.26 (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ref 21 about Circumcision decreasing penile cancer...article abstract no mention of circumcision

Ref 21 is just an article about penile squamous cell carcinoma, not about circumcision. Just proving they have higher rates of cancer in Africa doesn't mean you can claim causality with circumcision rates.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33574340/

Thomas A, Necchi A, Muneer A, Tobias-Machado M, Tran AT, et al. (February 2021). "Penile cancer". Nat Rev Dis Primers (Review). 7 (1): 11. 66.108.9.25 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

We usually do not cite the abstract, so it would depend on if it’s in the body paragraphs. If not, that would clearly be a case of WP:OR. Prcc27 (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
From the source:

Penile circumcision in childhood is considered a strong protective factor against developing invasive PSCC.

Bon courage (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"racially insensitive lower casing"

[4] What? Has huge ramifications for the Black people article! Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

But that article actually addresses the controversy of using lowercase for “black [sic]”, our article does not. Would probably be best to capitalize it to be on the safe side. Prcc27 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why? That's not required by the MOS. And where did 'racially insensitive' come from? Bon courage (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see.. I guess that explains why I’ve also seen lower casing of “Black” on other articles, (which I fixed).. 😆 Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Just keep it consistent within an article, don't change established consistent usage, and don't play the 'racially insensitive' card in edit summaries. Bon courage (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
No. The edit summary was not inappropriate. Prcc27 (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at this, the content was never subject to "lower casing" so should not have been changed. The content was added many years ago by Spaully[5]. You're saying this was 'racially insensitive' (though in line with Wikipedia's style requirements)? How is that okay? Bon courage (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I never accused anyone of being racially insensitive; especially not intentionally. I just fell like the wording is insensitive, and many other non-Wikipedia writing styles agree. Not sure if MoS even addresses the issue at all. But perhaps that talk page would be a better starting point for me to bring my concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
When you describe an action ("lower casing") and describe that as "racially insensisitve" WP:AGF is indeed relevant, just not how might think. It's been discussed at huge length and MOS:RACECAPS is where it's now at. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I was not aware of MOS:RACECAPS. I’ll keep this in mind moving forward. Prcc27 (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image relevance and change suggestions

Currently, the infobox image is old, black and white photo of circumcision being performed on a young child, this picture does not describe or demonstrate the contents of said procedure itself.

As such, it would better serve the article to have the diagram that is currently under the "Technique" subheading as the Infobox image, and move the current picture under the "History" subheading. Amahlaka (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Support. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Amahlakla Support Man-Man122 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Rare penile cancer revisited

There was a previous dispute on this talk page about whether or not to say that penile cancer is “rare” or “relatively rare”. The dispute ended when I added a collapsible footnote as a compromise, which was longstanding until Bon Courage removed it just now. What do others think of the footnote which read “Penile cancer is a rare disease in the developed world, but much more prevalent in the developing world.”? We may need to go to a noticeboard, and perhaps eventually an RfC since this issue seems to be unresolved and keeps coming up. Prcc27 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why is a side-discussion of the epidemiology of penile cancer relevant? Please explain. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Why is one of the least justifiable reasons for circumcision even in the lead at all? I think the footnote was a fair compromise. It seemed to keep the peace for as long as it did. But if the compromise is insufficient, then surely would should resolve this once and for all. Prcc27 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry what source is talking about "justifications" and what source is assessing anything about "least justifiable"? This seems like an POV activist framing. Bon courage (talk) 05:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
We do not need a long laundry list in the lead about diseases circumcision treats, especially rare diseases like penile cancer. Prcc27 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't treat the disease, it's a preventative. We have an entire 5-paragraph section on it in the article, so some summary is due. Your position seems illogical, since your edit was adding extra material about penile cancer to the lede, in a note. Make your mind up! Bon courage (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The paragraph in the article is WP:UNDUE, and should be shortened IMO. Yes, the footnote was added to balance things out and differentiate it from diseases which are actually common. I prefer to keep rare diseases out to avoid making the distinction in the first place. Prcc27 (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I ask again, where's all this stuff about "actually common" and "differentiating it" coming from? Not sources, that I can see. We have material in the body; we summarize it in the lede. Job done. Bon courage (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Uh-huh. Well we have material in the body which says it is rare, so why wouldn’t we summarize it in the lead? It happens to be one of the first things our source says in the abstract. Prcc27 (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
We should focus on circumcision in the lede, and not be distracted into discussion of penile cancer itself. We don't discuss prevalence for other diseases. What we have is fine. Looking back I see the prior 'dispute' was driven by a problem editor (now TBAN'd). Figures. Bon courage (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
We don’t discuss prevalence for other diseases because other diseases are actually common. Prcc27 (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at our penile cancer article, 'rarity' doesn't even make it into the lede there. Here, it would be ultra-pov. It's a facet of penile cancer and not of circumcision, other than the preventative effect. Bon courage (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
That’s pretty strange given there’s an entire section in that article dedicated to Epidemiology. Prcc27 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that, the wider world, it seems to be a circumcision activist tactic to try and play down the protective effect of circumcision wrt cancer by either denying the effect or ensuring a 'rare' or 'very rare' qualifier whenever it is mentioned, to try and give a subtle nudge that it's not worth doing for this reason. In fact although not common, penile cancer is listed among the most common cancers in the world,[6] and not that rare (like, for example, heart cancer), especially outside the West. More particularly, it is not Wikipedia's job to give (or hint at) medical advice, or to buy into any activist agendas. Keep it plain and simple without the POV undercurrents; we can (and do) cover the details in the body of the article. Bon courage (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Circumcision for penile cancer reasons is controversial, hence the sentence in the body which says “Ethical and risk-benefit considerations around the use of circumcision as a cancer-preventative measure are a source of controversy.” The reason why there are risk-benefit concerns is due to how rare cancer, especially penile cancer, is. At the very least, we should clarify in the lead that circumcision for cancer prevention reasons is controversial. The current wording could be perceived as implying that the benefits of preventing penile cancer outweigh the risks of complications (they don’t). Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah. I just added that. The current words in the lede just state some plain knowledge: you'd need to be looking at it through a particular lens to get triggered into thinking it implied "get circumcised"! And that would make an awful lot of presumptions. Also your "they don't" is purely your POV. I'd be open to just saying "not being circumcised in the principal risk factor for penile cancer" which takes the whole "prevention" thing off the table. Bon courage (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    I’m looking at it through the lens of WP:DUE. We state the main benefits and main risks of circumcision in the lead, but somehow penile cancer gets lumped in there too. Prcc27 (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Follow the sources. For example The handbook of penile cancer, a medical textbook, (as cited) mentions circumcision literally hundreds of times, and we have a substantial section in the body. The lede follows the body. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    This is an article about circumcision, not penile cancer. Circumcision may play a significant role in penile cancer, but that doesn’t mean penile cancer plays a significant role in circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Err, yes. Causality is a thing. All the more reason not to cram the lede with more than a brief mention. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Adding “rare” or a collapsible footnote does not clutter the lead. The sentence I just added to the lead that was reverted “circumcision as a cancer-preventative measure is a source of controversy” is about cancer in general (penile & prostate). I think it’s fair to include something along those lines if we are going to keep a rare disease in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Prostate cancer is very much not rare, and nobody ever (so far as I know) has suggested circumcision as a preventative. So in addition to clutter, this would also be very confusing. Basically, you have given no reason why any of these weird changes might be needed. Bon courage (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, prostate cancer is mich more common, but the evidence of circumcision for preventing it is obviously weaker than for penile cancer. It is not clutter, the lead follows the body, and this sentence is in the body. Prcc27 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    Hmm, well the lead must summarise the body. If you are putting references as textual footnotes into the lead, it doesn't look like a summary. But then, this lead is hardly a model for good lead style. It has 40 references, including a run of 9 just to say where circumcision is prevalent. There is significant WP:OVERCITE here. This lead needs attention, but adding more footnotes would not be an improvement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, my original proposal was to just add one word: “Neonatal circumcision also decreases the risk of rare penile cancer.” I also do not like footnotes, but it kept the peace for a while. If clutter is an issue, I guess we should rehash whether or not to add “rare”. Prcc27 (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    You seem to have had 5 or 6 contradictory proposals now, but never an explanation of why just simply summarizing the body in the lede is wrong. I think we're done now. Bon courage (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    I already explained why the status quo is problematic. Seeking compromise will bring us closer to consensus, but if none of the compromise proposals are acceptable, then I really think we should revisit the original issue. Prcc27 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I started a discussion at WT:MED Prcc27 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits today

On my Talk page Prcc27 has said my edits today (mostly to the sexual effects and ethics sections) constitute 'edit warring' and multiple 'reverts' (I think that's wrong) and has asked for a unspecified self-revert. Prcc27: do you see anything wrong with the current article and what do you want to revert? Bon courage (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, for some reason it looks like a lot of the content in the ethics section was in our general circumcision article, but not the ethics of circumcision one. So for starters, we want to make sure that if a lot of that content is removed from our general article, that we add it to the main ethics of circumcision page if it isn’t there already. I think “Generally, circumcision on a minor is not ethically controversial or legally questionable when there is a clear and pressing medical indication for which it is the accepted best practice to resolve” should be re-added or added to the legal section below. Now the ethics section only implicitly mentions consent, not explicitly, I would suggest fixing that. I also would add “the ethics of circumcision in neonates and children is a source of much controversy” from the ethics of circumcision lead. Finally, I think the nuances between FGM and circumcision are important, so I think the KNMG’s viewpoint on the ethics between the two should be re-added to the ethics section as well. Or maybe we could have a small section which compares and contrasts circumcision with other forms of genital cutting, same as what we do on the FGM page. Prcc27 (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The important point is that this article needs to be in WP:SYNC with the main (i.e. ethics) article. So the thing to do is edit there, and provide a brief summary of that article here (usually very similar to the main article's lede). What we don't want is novel content here which isn't over there. Bon courage (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
“There are popular misconceptions that circumcision benefits or adversely impacts the sexual pleasure of the circumcised person. As of 2021 there was some evidence that sexual functioning in adults might be enhanced by circumcision, although contrary evidence also exists.” Seems like a contradictory paragraph to me. If the most recent evidence suggests that circumcision may actually enhance or reduce sexual pleasure, the first sentence would be superseded or would need clarification. Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Is there not a difference between sexual pleasure and sexual functioning? Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Sexual "benefits" of circumcision being mentioned in the article

Around a week ago these two problematic sentences were added into the article. Both of which seem to present to me obvious, significant WP: Weight problems.

The first is a study from Morris et al., 2019 which states:

Surveys have found that women tend to prefer male sexual partners to have circumcised penises because of perceived "better appearance, improved hygiene, reduced risk of infection, and more pleasurable sexual activity”.[76]

Seeing as how the paper only took studies from the Anglosphere, Africa, Mexico, and Denmark, this seems like a remarkably strong statement to draw, and it seems like a WP: Weight issue to present this in Wikivoice.

  • Women in the United States (which has a ~75% circumcision incidence rate as of 2021 and a 82-84% prevalence rate) strongly prefer circumcised penises. A similar process seems to at least occur in countries with VMMC programs. This shouldn't be surprising.
  • Australia, Canada, and Mexico are relatively neutral on circumcision. (With an apparent slight preference towards circumcised penises on most metrics; none of these preferences have anything more than a slight plurality.)
  • Most women in Denmark prefer penises with a foreskin on it. (Again, not surprising. Most Danish women have likely never even interacted with a circumcised penis in the first place.)

I'm reading the data. I'm just not sure how the conclusion seems to imply that it is a cultural universal. I'm aware we can't do original research, and have to take metastudies as is, but this definitely seems like a statement that is way too confident to draw from the data presented.

and:

As of 2021 there was some evidence that sexual functioning in adults might be enhanced by circumcision, although contrary evidence also exists.

This also seems to be a remarkably small percentage of studies. It also is in my mind another question of weight.

Tagging @Prcc27: and @Bon Courage:. KlayCax (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If stuff is mentioned in high-quality WP:SECONDARY sources some mention is normally due, no? It's not like this article is over-long. Bon courage (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
If there is a more neutral way to word the female preference sentence, maybe we could include it? We should avoid generalizations though. And don't get me started about the heteronormativity issue. As for the 2021 content.. Is this really the mainstream viewpoint, or is it a minority viewpoint? I still think we are cherry picking from that source, "there was some evidence that sexual functioning in adults might be enhanced by circumcision, although contrary evidence also exists" is not the thesis of the source, the main point the source was trying to make, is that circumcision's effect on sexual function is unclear. We would be better off just saying that. Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
In Wikipedia "neutral" means accurately mirroring reliable sources. Saying unclear or contradictory would be fine. Bon courage (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The Morris source says “cultural differences in preference were evident among some of the studies examined.” When we make generalizations without recognizing cultural differences, that is WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I look forward to you re-inserting the content with added detail then. What you describe is not what WP:UNDUE means. In general, removing well sourced (systematic review) content is problematic. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I mostly agree with @Prcc27: here. Bon courage is correct to state that we're not allowed to do original research. Yet I'm not even sure what the Morris et al., 2019 citation is implying. Is he talking about the United States or Anglophonic world only? Maybe Africa to? I don't know how you extrapolate cultural norms as a universal from the studies in question. The Danish and a few other studies show an inverse preference in areas with low circumcision incidence/prevalence.
The conclusions within the study don't match the data he's collecting. European surveys of circumcision are almost entirely missing. The one that is present, Denmark, shows a preference for penises with foreskin.
  • A majority come from Anglophonic countries with a past (Australia) or continuing (United States, Canada) high incidence/prevalence of routine neonatal circumcision for believed prophylactic reasons.
  • The African ones come predominately from nations with VMMC programs. To say that this might have a cultural effect on the results is quite an understatement.
I'm aware we can't discredit good, high-quality published sources. But this seems - again - like an obvious WP: Weight issue. Has any other source stated this? KlayCax (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, the conclusion does start "The present systematic review has identified a wide range of opinions regarding women’s preference for circumcised penises in an extensive range of geographical and cultural settings". So one could say that: surveys have found differing opinions in different regions of the globe, with a numerical preference for those preferring circumcised penises, with the reasons given being etc etc. Bon courage (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
In cultures with high, long-term circumcision incidence or prevalence. Sure. But the present wording seems to suggest something far more broader than that. Extrapolating the provided studies into a cultural universal seems problematic to say the least. If we published everything on circumcision covered within a high-quality journal we'd have immediate WP: Weight problems. Prcc27 is not wrong - at least in my eyes - to suggest that the current form might be quite a bit WP: Undue. The same problem occurs with the "circumcision complications" percentages (which seem to be a low ball estimate that discounts many reports of higher meatal stenosis incidence.
The final problem is with the "WHO, UNAIDS, and American v. European" framing. It implies that support for routine, prophylactic circumcision in developed countries is higher than it probably actually is. I don't know of any good solution to this. Any alternatives present similar problems. I removed it from the lead - but preserved it in the body - from now... But it probably should be reworded. KlayCax (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, the lede is another matter which needs its own thread (hint: this article used to be a GA - look at that lede). As to surveys there's surely some basic stuff to say: surveys happened; different views were expressed; where preference was expressed the reasons were X,Y, Z. Just leave out any totalising statement if that's controversial. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I do think something needs to be said. @Bon courage:. I'll ping both you and @Prcc27: (probably tmw) and see if it's satisfactory for both. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Benefit vs. risks lead (continued)

I don't disagree. I just don't think there's any quick way to summarize it (beyond "there's little consensus") without immediately running into WP: Weight issues.
If you reinstate the status quo:
  • It seems to imply that support for routine, prophylactic circumcision is the dominant perspective within various major medical organizations and the literature. (at least, benefits > risks.) As listing at least three major medical organizations - UN, UNAIDS, and American (3x) v. a singular "European" (1x) - would likely be interpreted by the average viewer. I certainly think it does this.
But if you use alternative wording, it raises a lot of questions and brings up alternative problems:
  • For instance, should positions of medical organizations be given WP: Weight by number of those taking a position (one way or another), influence in global medicine, or population of their respective countries?
  • Is (benefits > risks) or (risks > benefits) the same thing as implying that circumcision should/not be routinely performed? The 2012 AAP statement has been interpreted in radically different ways because of this. Some state that this was done to preserve the right of religious minorities to not circumcise while acting as a de facto endorsement. Others cite wording in it that seems to go against the notion it should be routinely done for anyone.
And so on and so forth. It's a tough nut to crack. Simply saying there's "variant" opinions seems the most WP: NPOV and WP: Weight conscious of any. Although I'm interested in other possible attempts at wording - and wouldn't be against it - assuming it could meet these standards. KlayCax (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Tagging. @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
As Bon courage said, the lead wording should be discussed in a separate section. This section is about sexual function. If you are confused about what the current consensus is, please feel free to peruse the archives. You have been reverting this sentence from the lead over a span of several months, it is disruptive. Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Saying that the "benefits outweigh the risks" is different than implying it should be routinely done. It introduces implicit bias into the article. (I assumed you agreed with me from this.)
I wasn't the only editor to object to the wording in the article for this reason. KlayCax (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The sources literally weigh the benefits vs. the risks. That’s not bias, that’s WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware. Yet the wording in the lead makes it seem like the American Academy of Pediatrics/other med orgs are endorsing routine circumcision. That's a disputable contention to state the least. The alternative proposed wording: 1.) Only focuses on the benefits > risk paradigm 2.) Is vague enough to simply be reductant. I want to clarify that I see an argument for including something there. It's just that both proposals present would reduce article quality. KlayCax (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
No. The paragraph literally did not mention “routine circumcision” (whatever that is). Your wording is vague as a standalone sentence: “Major medical organizations hold variant views on the strength of circumcision's prophylactic efficacy”. Ok, medical organizations could have varying views on the strength of efficacy while also all agreeing that the benefits outweigh the risks. My sentence clarifies where the organizations stand on benefit vs. risk; not redundant at all. Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware the paragraph doesn't state that.
My point was that readers — through the wording's implications — could get the impression that those (benefit > risk) major medical organizations held that routine circumcision for prophylactic reasons should be performed. That's a minority viewpoint in the literature. (In the context of industrialized, developed countries.) I'm writing a revised reversion of it today. I'll ping both you and Bon Courage tmw as mentioned above. KlayCax (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It’s a stretch to say that is the implication. But if you think there is confusion, we could add a sentence about routine circumcision. The Bolnick source says “Outside of strategic regions in sub-Saharan Africa, no call for routine circumcision has been made by any established medical organizations or governmental bodies”. Prcc27 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
That was true in 2011. I wouldn't say that this is the case anymore. KlayCax (talk) 03:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
May I suggest a third opinion noticeboard, or some other noticeboard, instead of this constant back and forth that has been going on for months? Prcc27 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
That's the measure of last resort. KlayCax (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
We’ve reached last resort. If you can’t respect consensus, then this needs to be resolved once and for all. Prcc27 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

“SYNC”

It is WP:UNDUE to only dedicate a small paragraph to ethics in our article, while we have mounds of paragraphs about the cultural aspects of circumcision. WP:SYNC is not a Wikipedia policy, and it does not even apply here. “Since the lead of any article should be the best summary of the article, it can be convenient to use the subarticle's lead as the content in the summary section. Except the Ethics of circumcision lead is not a summary of the article from what I can tell. So if we are going to sync articles, we should clean it up first. Although we are under no obligation to follow this guideline. We would probably want to clean up other sections’ main articles so that we could possibly sync them as well. The Circumcision and HIV article actually seems like the best candidate for syncing. Also, why am I constantly being reverted over the images being moved? We already received consensus for this. Prcc27 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're concerned about image placement, maybe redo that in a separate edit instead of reverting everything at once. MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I did the first time around, but KlayCax still reverted me for no reason. Prcc27 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I feel like we should take an all or nothing approach. Either we sync all sections or none of them. We should not cherrypick syncing the ethics section, that is not neutral. Prcc27 (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Is there something terribly wrong with the Ethics of circumcision lede? All sections here with a main template should be in SYNC with the referred-to article (not necessarily using the excerpt template, but that can work well). Proper syncing improives the article and improves the project, so long as the target articles are in good shape. As to "we are under no obligation to follow this guideline", well: editing against the grain of the WP:PAGs is problematic, especially on a controversial article. By your argument, WP:RS could be cast aside! Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
All I am saying is we should probably sync more sections if we are going to sync the ethics section.
Especially since our article is rather verbose. We should sync the HIV, prevalence, history, culture & religion, and legal sections. The history section in particular has gotten way out of hand. The culture & religion section also should probably be condensed. Prcc27 (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
If the article is ever going to return to WP:GA things will need to be in SYNC. In general the "parts of the article have problems, so THIS part should have a problem to, to be consistent" is not a winning approach on Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Cherrypicking which sections to sync is not a winning approach either. Especially when there has already been concern about us giving undue weight, because we give more attention to other aspects, but not enough to circumcision controversies. I do not understand why the ethics section was singled out, given this concern. Prcc27 (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
And no, false equivalency. My edits to the ethics section still kept the section concise. It was nowhere near being as verbose as other sections. But I digress. Prcc27 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Not really. It's impossible to improve an article all at once. Improvements are welcome and will necessarily take time. Going backwards is not welcome. I support further improvements. Bon courage (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that including a vast section of controversies surrounding the matter would be an instance of systematic bias towards individualistic Western cultures (Anglosphere, Europe, and Oceania) over the large majority of the world. This article already suffers from it. (e.g. It spends a disproportionate amount of time surrounding the practice of routine circumcision in the Anglosphere rather than Islamic and African views of the practice.)
The only area of the world where there's any form of substantive controversy surrounding the ethics of circumcision is the Nordics and several countries in Eastern Europe. No countries criminalize it. At best, majority opposition (in terms of criminalization) exists in countries that compromise around 10-15 million out of a global population of 8+ billion.
It would present disproportionate WP: Undue and WP: Weight problems to have the article discuss it in a matter to abortion, the death penalty, et al. The lead should also be reverted back to like this. The present article is clearly written with a focus on the Western World. Seeing as how this only encompasses a very, very small portion of the circumcisions performed - with only the United States and arguably Canada moving the needle at all - the wording needs revised.
The procedure is associated with reduced rates of sexually transmitted infections and urinary tract infections. This includes significantly reducing the incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV). Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer. Complication rates increase greatly with age. Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common acute complications, while meatal stenosis is long-term. Due to its ability to significantly reduce HIV transmission among heterosexual men in high-risk populations, there is a consensus among major medical organizations that circumcision should be promoted as prophylaxis in these areas. They hold variant views on its efficacy among men who have sex with men and in developed countries.
In summary:
  • The article needs to be way less centered on the Western World.
  • African and Islamic circumcision needs to be discussed more.
  • While a discussion of ethics belong in the article, it probably needs somewhat trimmed, as opposition on an institutional or societal scale (outside of "we don't do this") is presently predominately rate.
I'm open to discussions surrounding this. I just think Prcc27's proposal goes way too far in the direction of reflecting predominately Western-ideas of ethics. (e.g. Autonomy over duty/sacredness of the rite.) While he has mentioned FGC, it's important to note that a majority of Islamic thinkers are now increasingly rejecting it, and there's far more institutional opposition among members of the global community. KlayCax (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The controversy goes beyond Europe, as major medical organizations in North America also discuss ethics in their viewpoints. This has already been explained to you on this talk page, and the talk page for Foreskin. Either we sync all sections or none of the sections, you can’t have it both ways. The History section definitely needs to be condensed more than any other section, and arguably should have been the first section to be synced. Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
This has already been explained to you on this talk page Mostly related to exclusive conversations between me and you. Several editors, including MrOllie, would disagree with these proposed editions as well.
Reliable sources say there isn't substantive criticism in the large majority of the world.
I have no objection to condensing the history section. It's not necessarily an either/or thing. KlayCax (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
And Piccco on the foreskin article.. While MrOllie may agree with you, you seem to be the only user that thinks ethics is a Europe only issue, which just isn’t true. Prcc27 (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
In terms of main opposition, yes. It's predominately centered in the Nordic countries/Eastern Europe. KlayCax (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
You can find opposition (just like any topic) anywhere. However, significant societal opposition in limited to those areas. That's why it would be a case of systematic bias. KlayCax (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about “opposition”. You can support circumcision and also recognize that it is controversial. The AAP’s viewpoint is a good example of this. Prcc27 (talk) 01:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of removing mentions of ethics in the article. Just that having a 10,000 byte subsection on it is WP: Undue.
I believe that's Bon courage and other's position (without putting words in their mouth) as well. KlayCax (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Half the article is WP:UNDUE. We should not single out the ethics section only, that creates a POV issue. I am planning on syncing the history section soon, so in the meantime, we should start working on moving stuff from this article to the history article. Prcc27 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
That would be good; hopefully we can have a cascade of article improvement across the circumcision 'suite' this way. BTW, I just fixed the lede of the Ethics article where there was a bad WP:LEDEBOMB and OR. Bon courage (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Potential change to Female Genital Mutilation

Hey all. I want to bring up something that's been bothering me for quite some time. Overall this article is very good and both sides are represented well. However I dislike how above the opening paragraph it says Not to be confused with female circumcision. Shouldn't it say Not to be confused with Female Genital Mutilation? Given that the term female circumcision is no longer the accepted term? And that unlike male circumcision, this is actually genital mutilation and harmful to the female? Please don't attack me, I'm merely bringing up a concern that this wording could mislead readers. That's all. FrozenIcicle (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

People are unlikely to confuse 'circumcision' with 'female genital mutilation' because they are very different terms. But there is confusion with 'female circumcision' which is a legacy term but which is still used. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
We had an RfC about the hatnote earlier this year (here). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated images

Why do circumcision surgical procedure and circumcision share the same images? Isn't this article about circumcision culturally rather than medically? ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A better question is why is there an article for circumcision surgical procedure? Seems redundant. No, this is not a cultural article, it is largely supposed to be a medical article, with some information on culture, religion, ethics, history, etc. The history and religion sections are currently WP:UNDUE, and need to be condensed drastically. Prcc27 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

History

There's frankly no reason to change this strong paragraph that accurately explains the history behind the procedure as well as it's possible origins into a single sentence that doesn't properly explain darn near anything and only presents one hypothesis. Man-Man122 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We need to be syncing the history section. The section needs to be condensed as it is too verbose. No comment on the paragraph in question, for now. Prcc27 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Prcc27 I can see where you're coming from, but I think that this is 100% the wrong way to go about it. Man-Man122 (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't tell you anything about history, it's just baseless speculation from Victorian pseudohistorians like Grafton Elliot Smith, who was notorious for making up just-so stories about the origin of anything and everything in Egypt. If you want to restore this material, you must provide a reliable source. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
It may not be WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Glad this was all resolved with only mild annoyances Man-Man122 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Circumcision in Australia

This article claims that circumcision is common in Australia, but that is no longer the case. According to the Australian government, only about 10% of new borns go through the procedure https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/amp/article/circumcision 49.199.181.240 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to that, the Health Direct page links to https://raisingchildren.net.au/newborns/health-daily-care/health-concerns/circumcision, which paints a very different picture to what's written in this Wikipedia article:
"The only major western country where circumcision is very common is the United States. Circumcision is uncommon in the United Kingdom, most of Europe and Asia, South America and Central America." Sleepy.lion1668 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It’s “no longer the case” with regard to incidence — but very much the case as concerns prevalence, which is the claim made in the source cited in that passage. Foxmilder (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The source is a WHO report from 17 years ago. I couldn't find much data on prevalence, other than this article which gives a figure of 46% in 2011 (down from 59% in the 2007 WHO report). I'm sure the prevalence in 2024 has fallen significantly from what it was back then, and will continue to fall rapidly.
The reality in Australia is that there is a very low incidence of circumcision, and a low and rapidly falling prevalence. Medical authorities here recommend against it, and that advice has been accepted by most of the general population for decades.
In any case, incidence vs prevalence is a very subtle distinction. If the text of the article going to say that circumcision is "widespread" in Australia, then the paragraph at least needs to be explicit about the distinction between prevalence and incidence, otherwise it's misleading to those that read it. Sleepy.lion1668 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Lack of Consensus on HIV prevention

The article states that:

"There is a consensus among the world's major medical organizations and in the academic literature that circumcision is an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in high-risk populations if carried out by medical professionals under safe conditions." While this might be true for some time or for the world's major medical organization, there is certainly no consensus in the academic literature. Quite the contrary actually. The 3 studies used by the WHO are now highly controversials and have raised significant questions regarding methodology and ethics while one could easily find hundreds of literature stating that circumcision has little to no effects on HIV prevention :

Here is a very small list of research finding male genital surgery did not reduce HIV risk or even increased risk for heterosexual men and women. I could add dozens more:

Chao, 1994 - male circumcision significantly increased risk to women

Auvert, 2001 - 68% higher odds of HIV infection among men who were circumcised (just below statistical significance)

Thomas, 2004 - circumcision offered no protection to men in the Navy

Connelly, 2005 - circumcision offered no protection to black men, and only insignificant protection for white men

Wawer, 2009 - the only RCT on M-to-F HIV transmission found male circumcision increased risk to women by 60%

Westercamp, 2010 - circumcision offered no protection to men in Kenya

Darby, 2011 - circumcision offered no benefit in Australia

Brewer, 2011 - youth who were circumcised were at greater risk of HIV in Mozambique

Rodriguez-Diaz, 2012 - circumcision correlated with 27% increased risk of HIV (P = 0.02) and higher risks for other STIs in men visiting STI clinics in Puerto Rico

Nayan, 2021 - circumcision offers no protection to men in Ontario

Frisch, 2021 - in Denmark, a national cohort study reveals circumcision provided no protection against HIV or other STIs

It could be also useful to mention that the advertised promotion of VMMC for HIV prevention has also some contrary effects, leading men to have unprotected sexual relationships leaded by the beliefs that they would be protected thanks to their circumcision : Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour Nov. 2013: Zimbabwe: Circumcised men demand unprotected sex from HIV positive pregnant prostitute Sept. 2014: Uganda: Circumcision Promoting Risky Behaviour Oct. 2012: Malawi: Men more likely to practice unsafe sex after circumcision


This is definitely not what one could call a scientific consensus. Petrarco123 (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

While the cherry-picked lists made by anti-circumcision orgs like CIRP.org and 'circumsitionnews' (both of whom you have linked above) can be impressive to newcomers to the topic, they do not establish that there is not a consensus. And on Wikipedia we cannot conduct original research by counting sources to try to undercut the higher-tier sources that we do have, which are quite clear about the consensus. MrOllie (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's very frustrating that people aren't reading the page history, @MrOllie:. However I'm unsure if there's really anything we can do about the same topics being brought up again and again on this page. Most of it is because circumcision as become a significant issue along European right-wing nationalist/men's rights activists online. So editors keep trying to add stuff claiming sexual dysfunction, a supposed widespread controversy, and comparisons to FGM, far beyond the scientific evidence.
It's a broken record, but editors have the right to comment, so this is probably a condition that is unfortunately not changeable in relation to this page. KlayCax (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

If this continues again I'm handing out indefinite partial blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Bioethics of circumcision

Should we re-add ethics to the lead? We previously agreed in past discussions on having controversies like bioethics included in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We'd be scrapping the bottom of controversies if it was added. I don't think many healthy, psychologically normal people care about the subject matter to any serious extent. No one really cares if they're circumcised or not. As a Mexican, we sometimes jab Canadians and Americans about it in various comedy shows, but as a ranchy joke rather than a serious issue. I'm against the idea. I'm uncut and think it's stupid but that's hardly a controversy. A lot of people do a lot of stupid things. FootballRocker (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like you are basing this on your own anecdotal experiences..? Ethics is absolutely an important controversy. Major medical organizations tend to address the issue of ethics in their policy statements on circumcision. Also, pretty ridiculous for you to insinuate that caring about one’s circumcision status somehow makes you psychologically abnormal. Prcc27 (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Based on previous discussions, a concise reference to it might be warranted. Piccco (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Circumcision's not controversial enough for this to be added. Only abortion, female genital mutilation, and a few other topics have any mention of controversy in their leads.
Gender-affirming surgery, gender-affirming care, labiaplasty, pearling, and other articles (in my view) have set WP: PRECEDENT for this; none mention it in theirs. KlayCax (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi, @Prcc27:. Where are you getting the notion that there's a present consensus to include it in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There's currently no mention to the ethical views on circumcision in the lead, and there has to be one, since that has always been the standard. I don't have any specific wording in mind and I think any mention has to be concise. If I remember correctly there used to be a sentence saying that "there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision". That was decent. Piccco (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with using different wording if other users think the current wording is too vague. I would be open to the previously used “there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision” wording as a compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm mystified why "theologians" are being invoked anywhere. Bon courage (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bon courage: Theologians shouldn't be mentioned in the lead at all. Agreed.
@Piccco:/@Prcc27:. Wikipedia almost never lists ethical disputes/controversies in the articles of medical procedures and/or body modifications unless it is overwhelmingly notable. Even cases such as gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery make no mention of controversy as it's seen as "poisoning the well" against the topic in question. The same applies to articles surrounding tattoos, piercings, and other adornments, despite similar controversy in some cultures. Circumcision is nowhere near as controversial as a subject such as abortion. It's legal in every polity. At the very least, it should only be considered if neonatal circumcision is criminalized in at least one country or reaches some sort of widespread controversy.
Neither is presently the case. We also already talk about the debate in developed countries already. KlayCax (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
We do not have to use the “theologians” wording, and we have used different wording without that term in the past. Something can be legal yet controversial. Just this week, the U.S. state of New Hampshire debated whether or not it should be funded by taxpayers, and ethics was discussed in the debate. More importantly, major medical organizations mention ethics in their policy statements. A concise sentence in the lead is not WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The criteria is generally substantial controversy. Not merely "controversy has happened".
The New Hampshire bill was about Medicare funding. It wasn't about the ethics of the procedure. Many states in the United States already do not cover it.
Many people support defunding it (including me) but would also say that the actual consequences of the procedure are relatively neutral/non-impactful in developed countries. KlayCax (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Says who? That is not what any Wikipedia policy or guideline says. WP:WBA does say the lead should mention "consequential or significant criticism or controversies" in the lead. I already explained how the controversy is significant in my remarks above. Having "substantial" be the threshold would be WP:UNDUE. To answer your question about gender affirming care, I am not aware of any major medical organizations going into great detail about ethical controversies. Furthermore, that article does not have a section on ethics, this article does. The Lead should follow the body. Prcc27 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
How is controversy surrounding circumcision "consequential" or "significant"? KlayCax (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I would argue any consistently reported controversy regarding a medical procedure is probably significant enough to mention. RakdosWitch (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The problem with that is that including "controversies" in the lead inherently bias readers against the subject. For instance, there is at least an (implicit) consensus to exclude controversies surrounding gender-affirming healthcare and gender-affirming surgery from the leads of their pages, despite far more modern controversy than circumcision. This is because it was seen as being implicitly bias/prejudice against transgender people.
Not sure what the right thing is here, @RakdosWitch:. But I don't think circumcision is controversial (to a significant extent) outside of right-wing nationalists and anti-theists in Europe. Perhaps MRA's as well.
Is that notable enough to include as a subject in the lead? Not in my opinion. Of course the fact that major medical organizations disagree on its health effects is notable enough for inclusion.
What do you think? KlayCax (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
How is ethics a limited “controversy” when even the pro-circumcision major medical organizations acknowledge that it is an issue? Ultimately, those organizations believe the medical benefits justify the procedure being offered to parents, but that does not mean there is zero consideration on whether it is ethical or not. Major medical organizations do not really discuss ethics with regards to gender affirming care, so the comparison isn’t really all that valid. Prcc27 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
They certainly do discuss ethics. Whether from a individualist, autonomist viewpoint or a communitarian perspective. This isn't including religious controversies. (Such as Catholicism.)
Right-wingers in the United States and other countries have also restricted gender-affirming care. So I wouldn't say that the "comparison isn't really all that valid". (If anything it's far more.)
Understandably, we don't include this because it bias readers right off the bat, and I don't see why this is any different. KlayCax (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Wording

It appears we have a consensus that controversy/ethics should be included in the lead. We may need to get a stronger consensus on what that wording should actually be though. The theologian wording seems to not have much support. There used to be a sentence on bioethics (i.e. major medical organizations hold “widely variant perspectives on the bioethics” of circumcision) so that could be an option as well. If I am not mistaken, isn’t KlayCax the person that came up with “there are various ethical, cultural, etc. views on circumcision”? Seems like a reasonable compromise, unless/until we can expand on and improve the wording. Prcc27 (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ethics in lead RfC

There is consensus to include ethics in the lead. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should ethics be mentioned in the lead? Please see previous discussion for background on the dispute. Current wording in question: “There are various cultural, social, and ethical views on circumcision.” Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Include: major medical organizations like the AAP, the CPS, the KNMG, and the RACP address the ethics of the procedure in their policy statements. WP:WEIGHT says “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” It is clearly not WP:UNDUE to have a brief and concise sentence on ethics in the lead, when the major medical organizations also address ethics. Yes, the wording could be tweaked, but it is worth noting that (if I remember correctly), the wording was actually created by KlayCax, who is against including it in the lead. Seems like the wording could at least be a good compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Malformed RFC/Exclude: First of all, it's important to note that the "current wording" was only recently edit warred into the article, rather than being a longstanding part of the article's page. The page already includes much of what is being suggested.
For instance, the lead already states: "Major medical organizations hold variant views on the strength of circumcision's prophylactic efficacy in developed countries. Some medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh the risks, while other medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk". along with additionally stating that "Beyond use as a prophylactic or treatment option in healthcare, circumcision plays a major role in many of the world's cultures and religions, most prominently Judaism and Islam. Circumcision is among the most important commandments in Judaism." and so on. This is already covered significantly in depth.
Prcc27 cites discussion of ethics in the AAP, RACP, KNMG, and CPS policy papers to argue that the ethics of circumcision have been addressed in the literature. That's quite indisputable. However, the criteria for including controversies surrounding medical procedures is much more stringent, as it is quite normative (from someone who works in the field) to see these questions addressed in almost any procedure that medical professionals provide to their patients. The criteria for these types of pages is not "whether some controversy or questions of ethics have been raised by philosophers". The criteria is whether: 1.) The controversy is longlasting 2.) The controversy is significant, widespread, and prominent. 3.) Whether it is restricted/prohibited/banned.
Circumcision meets none of these. Even in Denmark, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the Nordics, where opposition to circumcision is likely the strongest, attempts to criminalize the procedure have been consistently voted down by overwhelming margins. It is true that within the past ten years or so there has been online controversy from Men's Rights Activists, right-wing nationalists (like StoneToss), and others in recent years, along with lesser opposition from "crunchy" liberals and anti-theists as well, but I wouldn't say that this is enough to merit the claim that it is a significant and prominent issue in global culture. (Outside of Northern and Eastern Europe.) Similarly, while there have been attempts at criminalization, these have predominantly come from far-right parties, likely in the context of Islamic immigration, and have been voted down by margins that surpass 5-1 in most European parliaments. Most of the controversy hasn't been about circumcision. It's about immigration of Muslims into Europe.
WP:AVERAGE and systematic bias is likely to skew responses. The average Wikipedian is white, male, technically inclined, formally educated, and English speaker, from a Christian or non-religious country, all of which likely to grow up in capitalistic, individualist, and autonomous cultures that are likely to see controversies surrounding circumcision more prominently than they actually are. A somewhat analogous situation has already been addressed on other articles surrounding body/genital modifications, including the pages on transgender health care, gender-affirming healthcare, gender-affirming surgery, and others, for the reason that their inclusion would inherently bias readers against the medical treatment in general. Despite the fact that there's been significantly more legal, political, religious, and cultural opposition to the practice in present day society. I agree that it should be excluded for this reason. Right off the bat, the proposed wording would - whether intended or not - bias readers. The same applies here.
Ethics shouldn't be mentioned in the lead for transgender healthcare pages, circumcision, and the vast majority of other body mods/medical treatments. The two big exceptions to this in my mind are abortion and female genital mutilation. But those are special cases where, as mentioned above: 1.) The controversy is longlasting 2.) The controversy is significant, widespread, and prominent. 3.) Whether it is restricted/prohibited/banned. All are lacking here. KlayCax (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
To give a quick overview of how it fails this:
  • 1.) Controversies around circumcision are almost always controversies about other subjects. (Religion, individualism, the role of sexuality, immigration, et al.) There's a lack of any significant protests/organizations against the procedure itself. There's definitely controversy surroundings its use in developed nations. However, we already go into detail about this in the lead, so a WP: DUE amount of WP: WEIGHT has already been given in reference to this.
  • 2.) According to reliable sources: significant opposition to the procedure itself is not a prominent part of most cultures, with movements against the procedure being "small". It is also very recent. Only developing to any significant extent in the past 10 years. Even in Europe: it appears that conversations and ethical controversies about circumcision are either in relation to #1. That is, it doesn't have to do with circumcision in of itself, but rather deeper questions surrounding the aforementioned.
  • 3.) Neonatal circumcision is legal in every polity. It appears that it will remain this way for the foreseeable future. Once again, it fails the criteria.
Maybe this will change in 10 or 20 years. But the idea that we should imply a significant controversy that - at least for now - doesn't exist goes against normative Wikipedia guidelines. KlayCax (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
”First of all, it's important to note that the ‘current wording’ was only recently edit warred into the article.”
No, I’m pretty sure it was added to the lead by you or another user a long time ago..? And it was recently reintroduced as a compromise.
”According to reliable sources: significant opposition to the procedure itself is not a prominent part of most cultures” is a strawman argument. The lead does not say anything about opposition to circumcision, but rather ethics in general. The literature may not give enough weight to the opposition, but they definitely do give weight to the ethical consideration of the procedure. Prcc27 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Medical organizations usually give an ethical perspective in policy statements to an extensive amount of body modifications, @Prcc27:. The criteria for including it in the lead of pages is much more stringent. Stuff like abortion, female genital mutilation, and a few other things clearly meet it, but we exclude discussion of the topic on other articles such as gender-affirming surgery. It's oftenseen as introducing bias against whatever's being mentioned. (Which I generally agree with.)
We already include cultural/other views in the lead. So this RFC is basically asking: "Is there substantial legal or ethical controversy over circumcision now?" And I would say in the vast majority of nations, no. KlayCax (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Include When discussing circumcision, there is no doubt that culture and societal norms are very significant, as they are the number one factor that determines its prevalence in a certain place. The lead is also meant to summarize the contents of the article. There is evidenttly substantial content within the article that would warrant the inclusion of such statement in the lead; in particular there is a section for Society and culture. Also, as already stated above, all of the major medical organizations will always include a section regarding ethical considerations in their policies. The proposed concise statement is meant to represent this whole section. The lead doesn't say what these views are (for example, in some cultures it plays a religious role, for others it's a cultural norm, in others it is uncommon etc.) the statement itself is neutral, simply stating the very fact that there are various views throughout the world, which is undeniable.
Regarding the above disagreement, I will not digress; 1) the sentence was not recently edit-warred into the article; this or a very similar brief sentence was always included somewhere in the lead as far back as I remember, and it was never edit-warred out of the article for the longest time. 2) Strawman; nowhere was the word "controversy-ies" added in the lead. This is not about controversies. Also, the various cultural/societal/ethical views are not equal to the various views on prophylactic efficiency of the medical organizations. Piccco (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that we already include differing cultural views into the article. The very next sentence states:

Major medical organizations hold variant views on the strength of circumcision's prophylactic efficacy in developed countries. Some medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh the risks, while other medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk

and then goes on to state:

Beyond use as a prophylactic or treatment option in healthcare, circumcision plays a major role in many of the world's cultures and religions, most prominently Judaism and Islam. Circumcision is among the most important commandments in Judaism.

The only dispute is whether the lead should state that there is a substantial legal/ethical controversy. Judging by the landscape of 2024, I wouldn't say so, but if that changes then it could be added. Gender-affirming surgery is far more controversial in mainstream society. However, we wisely don't include controversies in the lead because it would bias readers' against it, and significant societal controversy surrounding it is relatively recent. I don't think many people here realize that in Europe "circumcision controversies" are generally about Islamic immigration (and on the fringe: Jews) into Europe. I don't see why we should blowhorn Men's Rights Activist and right-wing populist rhetoric into the article.
The consensus is clear: 1.) Circumcision works in areas of high HIV 2.) Circumcision is debatable/questionable in developed nations 3.) Circumcision is inconsequential in terms of sexual function.
It's also important that on questions of gender-affirming surgery, circumcision, and other issues, that Wikipedia understands WP:AVERAGE, and to not stigmatize bodily diversity of peoples. KlayCax (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel as though you are just repeating what you already said and are being verbose, which may inadvertently discourage other users from participating in this RfC. The lead neither says nor insinuates that there is an ethical controversy. We already explained that those other sentences do not address the ethics of circumcision. And since we have a section on ethics in the body, it should be addressed in the lead. I already explained why gender affirming surgery should not mention ethics in that article’s lead if medical organizations do not go out of their way to address it in their policy statements. Prcc27 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel like the points in the latest response have already been addressed and, as Prcc27 noted, are repeated. The views of medical organizations on prophylactic efficiency, as I said, are a different thing. The role of circumcision in Judaism is, of course, important, but that sentense alone does not cover the diversity of views from all over the world. See, for example, the lead of the article that you created in 2022, which concludes with "This has subsequently led to widely varying views related to the practice". Lastly, ethics is not a fringe discussion in medicine and is independent from the rhetorics mentioned above. It is true that all circumcision policies of major medical organizations dedicate a separate section to this subject. Please, do not equate the various cultural/societal/ethical views with "controversy" and keep in mind that the word itself is never used. Piccco (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm perfectly alright with This has subsequently led to widely varying views related to the practice in the lead. @Piccco:, @Prcc27:. But, yes. Discussions of ethics concern most issues in medicine and healthcare. The criteria for lead inclusion has traditionally been what I stated above. 1.) The controversy is longlasting 2.) The controversy is significant, widespread, and prominent. 3.) Whether it is restricted/prohibited/banned. All are lacking here. I don't think, like gender-affirming care, we can simply isolate it to that. I'm bringing up WP: AVERAGE because this is another example of editors attempting to push views into the article that are fringe globally. (But have significant currency among white individuals of European descendent.)
The ethics of circumcision article is problematic in of itself. Not the least, among other reasons, it was written by a "long-term sockpuppet" who was known for "inserting long anti-circumcision rants into articles".
To say that gender-affirming care hasn't been controversial ethically among the vast majority of the non-Western world or among conservatives in the West is a bit disingenuous.
(i.e. I'm non-religious/culturally liberal. But I realize that this isn't the predominant view globally. Should we include the ethical perspectives of the Catholic Church, Sunni Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and everything else?)
I think for topics such as this - body modifications are outright forbidden in certain major religions - it's best to only include it based on the three criteria listed above. No one's saying that differing viewpoints of circumcision shouldn't be added in this lead. (Indeed, a RFC on this will find that an overwhelming amount of editors agree.) It's how much it is WP: DUE in light of WP: AVERAGE and WP: WEIGHT.
Does This has subsequently led to widely varying views related to the practice work for you + self close? I'll support that. KlayCax (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I think part of the confusion here is the fact that ethics was previously seen as a “controversy” on this talk page. That was indeed a reason given by 1 user in the past to include ethics in the lead, which I echoed. But the current wording does not actually mention that circumcision is controversial or imply that. And that is not the main argument for inclusion anymore. Your arbitrary proposed criteria of a “controversy” being long-lasting, significant, widespread, and prominent, and for circumcision to be banned is not compatible with WP:DUE. The main reason for inclusion is simply because it is an important consideration made by parents and medical organizations, so WP:DUE is met. Circumcision does not have to be “controversial” for the ethics to be significant enough. The current wording is vague enough as it is (I believe BonCourage even said it was “nothing-y”). If anything, we should be expanding on the wording, not condensing it. Cultural views and ethical views are two different things, which is why we have separate articles for them. We should not conflate the two, so I oppose your proposed compromise. As for WP:AVERAGE.. that is not a Wikipedia policy, and as experienced Wikipedia users, we should be able to put our own bias aside and edit neutrally. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Your arbitrary proposed criteria of a “controversy” being long-lasting, significant, widespread, and prominent, and for circumcision to be banned is not compatible with WP:DUE. It's not arbitrary. It's been the working guideline on other pages surrounding body modifications. Tattoos, hair dying, circumcision, gender-affirming/transgender healthcare & body mods, breast argumentation and reduction, and other things all have had various forms of controversies surrounding them. We generally do not include any of these things in the leads of their pages. (A notable exception to this is body piercing.) As for length: it's already 1/4th of the introduction, @Prcc27:.
It's definitely not a silly question. Roman Catholics and Sunni Muslims have far more followers than there are individuals born in the Western World. KlayCax (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
And I already explained to you why we do not include ethics in those articles, and I’m not going to explain it again. Prcc27 (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Except major medical organizations do discuss it in the context of ethics. (I know this: as I'm a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics.) The same applies to the other medical treatments listed.
Even if this was the case — and it's not — one could also state that your suggested principles are also arbitrary. Why should that be the criteria chosen? KlayCax (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from expanding and improving those other articles.. Arguably, there should at the very least be a sentence or two in the body of the gender affirming surgery article about ethics. But I am still not sure if ethical consideration of affirming surgery is something most/all major medical organizations give consideration to for affirming surgery, unlike with circumcision where many (most?) do. If not, it could be WP:UNDUE for that article’s lead. We are only able to figure out what is WP:DUE based on its prominence in the sources; one source does not really tell us much with regards to this. In any case, we should be focusing on this article, not other articles. Echoing what the reliable sources say is not arbitrary whatsoever. As long as WP:ONUS is met, we let the sources speak for themselves. Prcc27 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Ethical consideration of affirming surgery is something most/all major medical organizations give consideration to for affirming surgery. They do. Most medical organizations have ethical statements — if at not least ethical analysis — on almost every medical intervention/procedure. (Including, say, the prophylactic benefits of vaccines against X disease.) Therefore, that's a bad criteria to weight it by, and subjective in of itself.
Therefore, 1.) Significant, widespread, long-lasting societal and political controversy 2.) Current legality are the best measures to look at. Both criteria fail here. KlayCax (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Gender-affirming surgery and circumcision do not really have much in common, besides both being surgical procedures. Compared to circumcision, gender-affirming is, in fact, a very rare procedure. It is also elected by the person themselves, it has no religious significance, nor is it a cultural norm in any society, it has not been widely practiced for millennia, it is not routinely performed on millions of children annually etc. This comparison is a bit arbitrary and continues to be wrongly based on the amount of controversy these procedures generate, even though we have long clarified that controversies are not the subject of this discussion. Piccco (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, @Piccco:. I don't think disputes/controversies belong in the lead of either article. (Or the majority of other pages for body modifications/medical procedures). The rare exceptions being the foreamentioned criteria. This would be abortion, female genital mutilation, conversion therapy, lobotomy, water fluoridation, embryonic stem cells, and a few other things with substantial public controversy.
Elected by the person themselves That's how someone who has a liberal, individualist viewpoint would see it. It's a view I hold too as well. However, this is exactly what I mean by WP: AVERAGE. Globally, the majority of people do not hold to individualist, autonomy-driven ethics. They hold a viewpoint much closer to virtue ethics/communitarianism. There's no WP: NPOV way for Wikipedia to side with one ethical viewpoint over the other. Why should we privilege the viewpoint of an individualist Westerner over that of a Roman Catholic, Sunni Muslim, or devout Jew? Is there a way to do this while maintaining neutrality? I doubt it.
We have long clarified that controversies are not the subject of this discussion Why should the lead not be WP: WEIGHT'ed by public controversy and legality? We're both arguably using a subjective sense of criteria to determine what belongs in it or not. I however believe that the criteria I'm suggesting is in line with WP: COMMONSENSE and WP: PRECEDENT on other articles. KlayCax (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Include per WP:DUE and MOS:LEAD - emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources ... including any prominent controversies. A search for ethical views on circumcision in scholarly/academic literature shows it is well-sourced, a prominent viewpoint, notable and controversial, so it is undoubtedly DUE for the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insurance

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) recommends that neonatal circumcision in the United States be covered by third-party payers such as Medicaid and insurance." But is it indeed covered? Benjamin (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Benjaminikuta: The coverage of neonatal circumcision depends on each insurer. In general, the procedure is covered by most commercial insurance; however, each state can set their own policies over whether that state's Medicaid program covers neonatal circumcision. This has resulted in a patchwork of coverage for the procedure. Some state Medicaid programs will stop covering it, only to reinstate coverage for it a few years later (such as Colorado). (source:[7]) Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks! Can we include this information? Benjamin (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

2012 AAP policy has expired

The AAP policy on circumcision published in 2012 expired automatically five years later in 2017. "Circumcision Policy Statement". Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics. September 2012. Retrieved September 17, 2024. It has not been revisited or renewed. So should it still be cited? --Hugh7 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would try to keep AAP sourcing to a minimum. We should use newer sources that have not expired in lieu of using AAP whenever possible. Prcc27 (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circumcision/Archive_85&oldid=1254763656"