Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:54, 7 April 2009 editTremello (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,999 edits →MgmBill etc ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:31, 5 January 2025 edit undoPrcc27 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,064 edits →This page is not even neutral: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn\|target=Talk:Circumcision/Archive index\|mask=Talk:Circumcision/Archive <#>\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{Talk header}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|gg\|long}}
			{{censor}}
			{{controversial}}
			{{Round in circles\|search=no\|archivelink=/Archive index}}
			{{Calm}}
			{{faq}}
			{{Article history\|action1=PR
			\| action1date=05:00, 3February 2013
			\| action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Circumcision/archive1
			\| action1result=reviewed
			\| action1oldid= 536112161
			\|action2=GAN
			\|action2date=10:39, 12 February 2013
			\|action2link=Talk:Circumcision/GA1
			\|action2result=listed
			\|action2oldid=537886384
			\|action3=GAR
			\|action3date=09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Circumcision/1
			\|action3result=delisted
			\|action3oldid=

			\|currentstatus=DGA
			\|topic=biology and medicine
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Men's Issues\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=Low\|translation=yes\|translation-imp=Top}}
			{{WikiProject Body Modification\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Human rights\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Skepticism\|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Old moves
			\| collapse = false
			\| title1 = Circumcision
			\| title2 = Male Circumcision
			\| list =
			* RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, '''No consensus''', 18 June 2008, ]
			* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''No consensus''', 13 August 2009, ]
			* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''Not moved''', 20 July 2010, ]
			* RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, '''Not moved''', 10 October 2022, ]
			}}
			{{Press \| subject = article \| title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed \| org = ] \| url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 \| date = 18 July 2013 \| archiveurl = \| archivedate = \| accessdate = 18 July 2013 }}
			{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
			<div style="font-size:170%; line-height: 1.5; font-weight: bold;"></div>
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{~~talkarchivenav~~}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = ~~100K~~		\|maxarchivesize = 300K
	\|counter = 54		\|counter = 85
	\|minthreadsleft = 2		\|minthreadsleft = 3
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
	\|algo = old(14d)
			\|algo = old(45d)
	\|archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Circumcision/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{Archive box\|index=/Archive index \|auto=yes \|search=yes \| bot=MiszaBot I \|age=30 \|units=days \|
	{{talkheader}}
	~~{{tmbox\|text=See also~~ ]}}		<center>''']'''<br/>
			''']'''</center>
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
	{{WP Sexuality\|nested=yes\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	{{WPMED\|class=B\|importance=High\|nested=yes}}
	{{philosophy\|importance=Low\|class=B\|ethics=yes\|nested=yes}}
	}}		}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
	{{censor}}
			\|target=Talk:Circumcision/Archive index \|mask=Talk:Circumcision/Archive <#>
	{{controversial}}
			\|leading_zeros=0\|indexhere=yes}}
	{{calm talk}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools}}

	__TOC__		__TOC__

			==Misinformed page. ==
	== Problematic addition to lead ==

	A problematic has been made to the lead. A similar was made previously; I it at the time to correct some of the most severe problems.

	Let's consider the two versions:
	*"Most circumcisions occur during adolescence for cultural reasons."
	*"Most circumcisions occur without anesthesia during adolescence for cultural reasons, and in these circumstances there is an increased chance of adverse effects."

	For comparison, it may help to examine the . It states:
	*"Globally, 30–34% of men are circumcised.3 Most of these circumcisions are performed for cultural or religious reasons during adolescence, outside formal health-care settings, without anaesthesia and in challenging traditional settings."

	If we examine the first of these, we can see that it fits well in the context of the paragraph. If we examine the second version, we see that there are some serious problems:

	#The edits involve the second paragraph of the lead. The subject of this paragraph is the prevalence of and reasons for circumcision: in short, "how many?" and "why?". The relevance of the particular method of circumcision (ie whether anaesthesia is or isn't used) and the consequences (if any) in terms of adverse effects is unclear. I don't mean to suggest that these issues don't matter, but it is unclear why they belong in this paragraph. Their only apparent function seems to be to say "look how awful most circumcisions are." And because it is unclear why they belong, the effect is that the paragraph seems to act as a ].
	#There are ] problems. On the plus side, the source ''does'' suggest that most circumcisions are performed without anaesthesia, and it ''does'' suggest that they occur during adolescence. However, from there it is downhill. It ''does'' suggest that most circumcisions are performed for cultural or religious reasons, but this is different from saying (as in both versions) that they're performed for cultural reasons. Worryingly, it doesn't directly support the claim that the items mentioned (adolescence, lack of anaesthesia, and cultural reasons) increase the probability of adverse effects.

	For these reasons, I'm reverting to the shorter version. I am also changing "cultural reasons" to "cultural or religious reasons". ] (]) 10:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

	:I disagree with your edit. I believe the fact that most circumcisions are committed without anaesthesia to be extremely relevant, and much more relevant than much other information in the lead, especially the ] paragraph that emphasizes its antiquity and the religions that encourage the act, while omitting mention of religions that discourage it or have discouraged it. We should at the very least cite this source in "circumcision procedures," and specifically mention that most circumcisions are done in adolescence, without anaesthesia. ] (]) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

	::Sorry, Blackworm. When I said "I don't mean to suggest that these issues don't matter, but it is unclear why they belong in this paragraph", I was trying to stress that I was discussing relevance to that particular paragraph rather than, say, relevance to circumcision. I guess that wasn't as clear as I intended.
	::I think it would be reasonable to include something in "Modern circumcision procedures". ] (]) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::If you think so, why don't you add it? Removing something wholesale, rather than moving it, is discouraged on Misplaced Pages. If you think it doesn't belong in that particular paragraph, move it to another (in the lead). Don't remove it. The third paragraph, which discusses pros and cons, is so focused on neonatal circumcision that I feel it would be misleading to put it there, although if nothing else I will put it there. I don't understand how cultural cannot be used to summarize "cultural and religious" -- a religious reason is a cultural reason. Please restore the language or at least move it elsewhere. As far as adverse effects, I guess you didn't see this sentence:<blockquote>That the adverse event rate of 35.2% in traditional settings was twice the rate of 17.7% in medical settings is scarcely comforting.1</blockquote> Or can adverse event not be summarized as adverse effects? Also, why is there no mention of possible complications of the lead, when there is a good summary in the body? The lead looks pretty soapboxy to me, in the positive vein -- coming from someone who really doesn't have a strong opinion about neonatal circumcision. ] \| (] - ]) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
	::::Regarding "cultural and religious", if you examine the previous sentence ("The prevalence of circumcision varies mostly with religious affiliation, and sometimes culture"), you'll see that it makes a distinction between religion and culture. Having made such a distinction, we cannot reasonably use "culture" in a very broad sense, and expect that the reader will understand that this more inclusive sense is intended. In another context it might be more acceptable to use less precise language, though personally I would prefer to be precise.
	::::Regarding adverse effects, the sentence you quote compares the adverse event rate in traditional settings with that in medical settings. It might support a statement such as: "circumcisions performed in traditional settings are associated with a greater risk of adverse effects than those in medical settings." However, the claim attributed to the source was that circumcisions performed a) without anesthesia, b) during adolescence, and c) for cultural reasons were associated with increased risk of adverse events. That claim is not made by the source, and should not be attributed to it.
	::::I agree it would be inappropriate to include this material in the third paragraph. It doesn't seem to belong in any paragraph in the lead. ] (]) 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::::Ah, yes. Circumcisions performed in adolescence without anesthesia for cultural reasons is not equivalent to circumcisions performed in traditional. I apologize for not picking that up. Since you seem to be heavily-invested in this article, why not summarize the medical effects in the lead? ] \| (] - ]) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

	:::::: Because we don't want to acknowledge any negative effects associated with circumcision. This is the purpose of the article, didn't you know? ] (]) 12:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

	== Effect of circumcision on HIV infection & other STD's ==

	There's a large new randomized prospective trial that was published in the latest New England Journal of Medicine on male circumcision and its effects on prevention of HSV-2, HPV and syphilis in Uganda. I'll post the link as soon as the site posts what's already been printed on paper.

	Also, I was looking at the intro paragraph to the HIV:

	''"The origin of the theory that circumcision can lower the risk of a man contracting HIV is disputed. Since the idea was first mooted, over 40 epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection. Reviews of these studies have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV."''

	At this point, with several well-designed experimental studies published, the epidemiologic data seem less relevant. Any objections to condensing the paragraph to the following?

	''"Over 40 epidemiological studies, with contradictory conclusions, have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection."'' ] (]) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

	:I agree with the basic idea, Wawot1, but not with the proposed edit. I think it would be misleading to say that these studies have had "contradictory conclusions", which might be interpreted as meaning that the results of these studies were highly inconsistent. Observational studies generally find a negative association between circumcision and HIV infection. With the exception of Van Howe, authors of meta-analyses were generally in agreement on this, but disagreed about whether observational data alone were sufficient to support a recommendation of circumcision as intervention.
	:How about this instead: "Over 40 epidemiological studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between circumcision and HIV infection; reviews have reached differing conclusions about whether circumcision could be used as a prevention method against HIV." ] (]) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


	Fair enough. ] (]) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


	In at least 7 African countries circumcised males have higher AIDS rates than uncircumcised males. The U.S. has the highest AIDS rate and highest STD rates of any indutrailized country in the world, although in most industrailized countries near 0% of males are circumcised. Dozens of studies show that circumcisions do not reduce the risk of males getting AIDS. So especially outside of the U.S. many medical organizations state that there are conflicting evidences if circumcisions help protect against AIDS and STD's or not. I think it is very misleading to cherry-pick evidences and claim that circumcisions help protect against AIDS and STD's when there are so many conflicting evidences. You guys are doing a good job] (]) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	Can you please cite some reliable sources for your claims?] (]) 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	Gladly, Rwandan men are more likely to have HIV if they've been circumcised: 3.5% of intact Rwandan men have HIV 2.1% of circumcised Rwandan men have HIV (figures from http://www.measuredhs.com/hivdata/reports/start.cfm) Other countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV+ are Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Tanzania. That's at least seven African countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised, and yet we see health organizations promoting circumcision to prevent HIV. What will it take to stop this madness? I'm mot an epidemiologist, but I am a doctor and incomplete justifications are nothing more than guessing and often lead to misdiagnoses. I don't know why this bias exists, but for once there are a lot of those of the Judaic faith in medicine, especially in the U.S. As a member of the Judaic faith myself, I can attest bias may be at hand. Ambiguity is the only safe argument ] (]) 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
	:"As a member of the Judaic faith myself"? LOL! Nice try. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


	Great website. I couldn't find your statistics about circumcision on it though. Regardless, all of the data there are from sample surveys and are ''observational''. Those kind of data can only demonstrate ''correlation'', but not ''causality''. The three randomized studies showing that circumcision reduces HIV incidence were randomized ''prospective'' trials and this type of study can say something about causality. ] (]) 21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

	==Navbox discussion==
	Readers of this page may be interested in an ongoing ] about the navigation box that was recently added. ] (]) 10:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

	== New African study conclusive, unless we turn against science itself ==

	The new African study is so conclusive that people who questioned circumcision can take pride in having demanded scientific data in support of circumcision's health benefits. That data has been supplied. At this point, the only way to deny circumcision's health benefits is to deny the scientific method, or to impute deceit by our most respected news organizations. "When reason is against a man, a man will soon be against reason." Well, let's hope not.] (]) 02:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

	: "March 25, 2009 — Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HIV and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection and the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, suggesting potential public health benefits, according to the results of a randomized controlled trial reported in the March 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine."

	: "Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of...HIV infection among men in three clinical trials," write Aaron A.R. Tobian, MD, PhD, from Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues. "We assessed the efficacy of male circumcision for the prevention of...HSV-2 and...HPV infections and syphilis in HIV-negative adolescent boys and men." ...

	: "Male circumcision has now been shown to decrease the rates of HIV, HSV-2, and HPV infections in men and of trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis in their female partners," the study authors conclude. "Circumcision also reduces symptomatic ulceration in HIV-negative men and women and HIV-positive men. Thus, male circumcision reduces the risk of several sexually transmitted infections in both sexes, and these benefits should guide public health policies for neonatal, adolescent, and adult male circumcision programs."

	: Circumcision May Reduce Incidence of HIV, HSV-2, HPV Infection CME
	: News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
	: CME Author: Charles Vega, MD, FAAFP
	: Disclosures
	: Release Date: March 25, 2009; Valid for credit through March 25, 2010
	: http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/590110?src=cmemp
	: -- ] (]) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

	== Who's the one turning against science? ==

	Your claims regarding the scientific method and reason are classically mistaken. First, the countries with the lowest HIV rates in the world do not practice circumcision. This alone is scientific proof (a la scientific method) that circumcision is entirely unnecessary to achieve the lowest rates of HIV infection. It would thus be completely folly to suggest that men in countries with low HIV rates (European countries, for example) should cut the tips off their penises based on the evidence you've presented. Further, the studies you cite could actually lead young people towards the FALSE belief that they could avoid HIV infection by circumcision with the result being that young circumcised males might not use condoms. Or perhaps an HIV positive man who is circumcised would be less likely to tell a partner with the FALSE hope that there is a low(er) risk of spreading infection. This could lead to an increase in HIV. Again, the lowest HIV rates in the world are in countries that do not circumcise.

	Having said that, I'm curious why the issue of cleanliness and access to fresh water is not discussed in this article. The nations that circumcise all arise from relatively arid cultures (israel and Palestine, arab countries, and sub-saharan africa) where regular bathing was not always possible in ancient times. This may explain the historic practice. After all, the scientific consensus appears to be that circumcision is unnecessary and thus not recommended so long as you practice good basic hygiene (and have access to the fresh water that is necessary).

	== Catholic Church view on circumcision ==

	Reading the section on the Catholic's view on circumcision, I checked the source material for the cited sentence. However, from what I can understand from the source, what is said on the Wiki page is not the same as what is said in the source. The page currently states that anyone who observes the act of circumcision commits mortal sin, yet the source says that anyone who observes it ''as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally.''. I believe the two sentences are worded differently and should be changed to reflect the intent in the source. ] (]) 04:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

	No this is not a correct reading of the cited text, "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.". This is a clear prohibition on circumcision for those who hope for (Catholic) salvation.

	However a source more recent than the fifteeth century would be desirable! Circumcision is currently requested by many Catholics for their children for the secular reasons of health, tradition and culture and it would be desirable to include this point with a reference. I will see if I can find one.
	] (]) 09:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

	:As is so often the case, multiple interpretations exist; for a couple of sources see ]. ] (]) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

	::Circumcision is also currently rejected by many Catholics on the grounds that it is an unnecessary infliction of great pain and mutilation upon a helpless infant. It would be desirable to include this point with a reference. I will see if I can find one. ] (]) 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

			source:
	I'm reverting , which has several problems:

			https://www.cirp.org/news/1997/1997-12-01_Mothering.php ] (]) 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
	*''A bill known as the Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act seeks to amend the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 so that boys, intersex individuals, and nonconsenting adults may also be protected from genital mutilation.<nowiki><ref>{{cite web \|url = http://mgmbill.org/usmgmbill2009.pdf \|format=PDF\|title = Genital Mutilation Prohibition Act}}</ref></nowiki>''

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

			== Content not uploaded ==
	#]. MgmBill.org is a ], and hence is unsuitable for use as a source.
	#Accuracy. It's questionable whether the word "bill" can accurately be used. Until adopted and sponsored by a legislator, it is merely something that a private individual would like to see as a bill.
	#Questionable notability. The existence of a pdf file, purporting to be a "bill", on a privately held website is not a good reason for it to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages. We would need evidence that this bill is ''notable'', and sufficiently so to warrant inclusion.
	#Lack of neutrality. The phrase "may also be protected from genital mutilation" implies that circumcision is a form of mutilation. Some hold this opinion. Others do not.

			Of course it is not updated, anything not in favour of circumcision you will try to ignore it at best, News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection.
	*''The US Federal Law states that whoever knowingly circumcises any part of a female who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined or imprisoned. No such law exists pertaining to male circumcision.<nowiki><ref>{{cite web \|url = http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC116 \|format=HTML\|title = U.S. Code Laws}}</ref></nowiki>''
			Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

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

			== Question because this place seems to be the most objective and scientific place for deep answers I will never have anywhere as I got one before and it was interesting and very informative. ==
	#This article is about circumcision of males, which the source ''does not even mention''. This violates ], which requires that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are '''directly related''' to the topic of the article, and that '''directly support''' the information as it is presented." (emph in original)
	#Since the source doesn't mention circumcision of males, it should be blatantly obvious that the source does not support the claim that "No such law exists pertaining to male circumcision". Again, this is ].

			Is it true that circumcision lightly alter the penis appearance? Because if we look at thousands of different penis picture we can see a tendency for uncircumcised penis to be on average slightly more pink in the thousands of penis pictures, I never seen a single circumcised penis being vivid pink or “purple” every individual are différents so it depends on the individual and it’s all relative but I’d say as example a circumcised men whom was supposed to have a “purple” glans will have it pink instead because circumcision seems to change the coloration a little bit. ] (]) 05:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 09:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

			== This page is not even neutral ==

			Who the fuck said circumcision affect cognitive ability?! You’re good to point out all obvious bullshit wrong that nearly nobody says BUT aren’t going to pointing out very popular pro-circumcision myths like the fact there’s no studies proving that circumcision is more hygienic, in this case you just don’t mention it, fuck you for not being neutral ] (]) 19:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	MGM Bill

			:Removing needless skin means more blood for the brain. ] (]) 22:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	#As the rules state, it must been previously published by reliable third-party publications. It has been re-published on the following reliable third-party publications.
			::This talk page is not a forum. ] (]) 00:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	#The bill has been adopted by numerous legislators as you can easily find here
	#See responses to one and two.
	#That is a direct quote from the bill itself. We can edit it, or you can censor what you don't want others to see. It appears you have chosen the later. Let's set bias aside please.

			==Bias==
	US LAW

			Problems with the article:
	#The law is regarding the bill, which pertains to male circumcision. Regardless of the fact that it was probably the most relevant entry under the section of Consent, and the most balanced and neutral of all views under this section by nature of it's inclusion of both sexes, unlike what is there now (which is besides the point, because it was pertaining to the bill which is about male circumcision).
	#We could edit it, or you can censor what you don't want others to see. It appears you have chosen the later. Let's set bias aside please.

			https://en.intactiwiki.org/Wikipedia_bias_on_circumcision
	--] (]) 10:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

			Thanks. ] (]) 17:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	:Instead of being helpful, Jake is being deliberately difficult trying to stop this information being put in. A quick google search shows that the MGM bill is real: . It is obviously relevant to the topic of male circumcision. ] (]) 10:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
			:Do you have an RS? ] (]) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			::They do not. Automation for humans is coming anyway, we won't allow these anomalous tips to exist. We have the technology. ] (]) 22:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:31, 5 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Circumcision article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

view · edit Frequently asked questions

Page name

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

Circumcision was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

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

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Men's Issues High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Translation Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Body Modification (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Body Modification, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Body ModificationWikipedia:WikiProject Body ModificationTemplate:WikiProject Body ModificationBody Modification

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: Circumcision
Male Circumcision

Discussions:

RM, Circumcision → Male Circumcision, No consensus, 18 June 2008, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, No consensus, 13 August 2009, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 20 July 2010, discussion
RM, Circumcision → Male circumcision, Not moved, 10 October 2022, discussion

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

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

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Circumcision.

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

Archives

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

Archive guide
Sample PubMed

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

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Misinformed page.

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

source:

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

This precise topic over whether circumcision decreased pleasure during sex was debated last year (see Talk:Circumcision/Archive 85#"Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure."). After a prolonged and, at times, heated debate, it was decided to retain the statement involving pleasure.

To the topic of the specific reference you provided, the article was published in 1997 (so approaching 26 years old) and was authored by Paul M. Fleiss, an anti-circumcision activist and a person who is "known for his unconventional medical view(s)". Additionally, there has been a great deal of research on the topic of circumcision and pleasure since that article was published. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons. They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon. Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.

212.97.248.58 (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussions challenging the protective effects of male circumcision against HIV seem to come up every few months. The last one was in April to June of this year (see: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_85#Lack_of_Consensus_on_HIV_prevention).

Yes, it is grossly misinformed and obviously written in support of the US medical industry who support circumcision strongly for financial reasons.

Both US-based medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)), and international based medical organizations (including the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNAIDS) have all acknowledged that male circumcision offers a level of protection against acquiring HIV. The argument that circumcision is primarily supported by the U.S. medical industry for financial gain overlooks the substantial body of evidence that supports the claims of reducing the acquisition of HIV. The claims that "the US medical industry" strongly supports circumcision for financial reasons appear to be WP:FRINGE.

They write as if for example HIV prevention is functioning at a relevant level, and then only have a small added sentence at the end which mentions that it is not agreed upon.

As per policy. The Misplaced Pages policies WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE require that due weight and proper balance be considered when editing articles. Misplaced Pages does not give equal weight to all points of view; it gives weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."

Misplaced Pages has an article which includes HIV prevalence, and in many western European countries the HIV prevalence is far lower than in the US where people are circumcised. This is FACTUAL EVIDENCE against the effectiveness of circumcision in preventing HIV.

The comparison of HIV prevalence rates between countries must consider a multitude of factors, including but not limited to sexual behavior, access to healthcare, education, and public health initiatives. The casual claim that Western European countries exhibit lower HIV prevalence than the U.S. does not account for these variables. For instance, South Korea presents a counterexample to these claims: it has an HIV prevalence rate that is significantly lower than that of many European countries, despite having a higher circumcision rate than the United States. Regardless, without WP:reliable sources, your claims appear to be original research and not eligible for inclusion under the policy of Misplaced Pages:No original research. Even assuming you are able to locate sources to support this view, they would still need to be evaluated in conjunction with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE policies discussed above. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Circumcision obviously increase frictions making sexual activity such as masturbation less easy due to the lack of skin, many circumcised man use lub to reduce that friction their lack of skin create, and

circumcision obviously make the glans keratinized discoloured and the mucous dry while all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated the glans is obviously made to stay hydrated and covered, not uncovered and dry,

those are obvious and observable facts we can all do by making comparisons to circumcised and not circumcised penises by thousands of pictures we can find online and experience. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-84

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-85

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/Circoncision#cite_note-86 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Some circumcised men, like some uncircumcised men, use lubricants during sexual activity, but many circumcised men do not experience any issues without them. This point seems irrelevant to the article. If you are suggesting that circumcised men experience less sexual pleasure or decreased sexual function compared to uncircumcised men, the majority of studies indicate that circumcision does not lead to any decrease in sexual pleasure or cause sexual dysfunction, as referenced in the article. There has been extensive debate on this topic on this talk page.

Regarding your claims about circumcised penises being "discolored" and the notion that they are "supposed" to have "mucous" (presumably referring to smegma), these views are not applicable to the article. Your personal opinion that penises "supposed" to be uncircumcised does not make it so and does not warrant inclusion in the article.

It is crucial to consider the quality and context of the research. The first study you mentioned is a retrospective cohort study, which is generally regarded as one of the lowest quality of studies available (especially compared to studies like randomized controlled trials). It's first author is the open anti-circumcision activist, Morten Frisch, and numerous researchers have voiced their concerns about a large number of methodological issues in that specific study (see: ).

Even if the study were conducted in a neutral and methodically sound manner, a handful of cherry-picked studies of questionable quality cannot substantiate biomedical claims in an article, as per WP:MEDRS. This is particularly true when there is a substantial body of evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials that contradicts those findings. Again, Misplaced Pages articles give weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

No I’m not talking about smegma, and that’s not an opinion, circumcision obviously alters the penis appearance because just looking at thousands of different penises pictures the not circumcised ones are always averagely significantly more colorful appearance than circumcised on average 104.163.174.55 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The foreskin has a "mucous membrane", but a healthy foreskin does not produce significant amounts of true "mucus". If someone is noticing a visible amount of "mucus" under their foreskin, it is likely smegma.

You did not merely claim that those circumcised penises were differently coloured or appeared different; you claimed they were "discoloured" and were "supposed" to look a different way. The Cambridge English dictionary defines discoloured as "something that has become a less attractive colour than it was originally." The colour difference between circumcised and uncircumcised is due to the exposure of structures that are covered by the foreskin in an uncircumcised penis. The belief that a penis is "supposed" be uncircumcised or a circumcised penis is a "less attractive colour than it was originally" are subjective opinions. Misplaced Pages articles are not places to post "opinion pieces", and all content must conform to Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So you are admitting that circumcision change the mucous color, to a paler color? And I meant mucous not mucus, and no a penis is supposed to have a foreskin this is part of the penis anatomy. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is literally discoloured since a penis is originally not circumcised and a circumcised penis is slightly of a paler color for the exact reason I thought, due to exposure like you said 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok so you all misunderstood my says, I just said that anatomically speaking a mucous is a special skin whom is supposed to stay hydrated not dry, like lips vulva anus or any other place that are mucous and special skin made to being permanently exposed to humidity, the gland and half of the shaft are not skin but mucous and are made to stay hydrated, I never mentioned smegma, I said that circumcision is not natural for a penis since it’s a modification, that’s just anatomical facts not opinions, and you confirmed that circumcision do alter the mucous color of the penis due to permanent exposure, and I suppose I’m right about the keratinized thing since you said nothing about it. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant uncircumcised have more skin making the shaft more mobile making mouvements easier for masturbation as example, I never said uncircumcised men never use lubricant, but COULD be more frequent with circumcised men due to the fact they have less skin mobility increasing friction. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said circumcision decrease sexual pleasure. I know what we think about me, that I’m an idiot what rely on my personal opinions and trying to confirm my beliefs which is an idiot in my definition, that’s extremely delusional unrealistic and weak mentality strength 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Does not affect functions at all? Foreskin provide more skin which make the shaft mobile and make back and forth movement easier like masturbation. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Content not uploaded

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

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

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

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

This page is not even neutral

Who the fuck said circumcision affect cognitive ability?! You’re good to point out all obvious bullshit wrong that nearly nobody says BUT aren’t going to pointing out very popular pro-circumcision myths like the fact there’s no studies proving that circumcision is more hygienic, in this case you just don’t mention it, fuck you for not being neutral 104.163.174.55 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Removing needless skin means more blood for the brain. Automatic Unit Slicer (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum. Prcc27 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias

Problems with the article:

https://en.intactiwiki.org/Wikipedia_bias_on_circumcision

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

Do you have an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

They do not. Automation for humans is coming anyway, we won't allow these anomalous tips to exist. We have the technology. Automatic Unit Slicer (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: