Talk:Circumcision#Community reassessment

It should say "For adult medical circumcision, superficial wound healing takes up to a week, and complete healing 4 to 6 weeks." Not 4 to 6 months, it's never been months only weeks. Kunaiwastaken (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:there are different stages to healing. deeper healing process, the remodeling of scar tissue, and maturation of scar tissue, takes several months. Avy42 (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::Maybe this should be clarified further then? It sounds to be 3 distinct stages, 1 week of superficial wound healing, 4 - 6 weeks of deeper healing, then months after are the points you made. The reason I initially commented was due the fact that specifically *4 - 6* was used, as that is very bluntly what most sources use as a baseline for: stitches disolving, no sex or masturbation, etc. To me, using 4 - 6 here looks like a misinterpretation of what you'll find online. Kunaiwastaken (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The recent article's language stated: "It is widespread in Australia, Canada, the United States, South Korea, most of Africa, and parts of Asia." The statement references "WHO_2007_GTDPSA". The source text states: "Neonatal circumcision is common in Israel, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and in much of the Middle East, Central Asia and West Africa, but is uncommon in East and southern Africa, where median age at circumcision varies from boyhood to the late teens or twenties."

On May 13, {{u|Smurr7}} made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1290156773] that removed Australia from the list in article with the edit summary "26.8% of Australian males are estimated to have been circumcised. This is not what I would consider widespread." (On a side note, from a very brief literature search, I was not able to find the 26.8% figure given listed in a WP:RS, although it does appear plausible and an in-line with estimates from WP:RS for current newborn circumcision rates in Australia.) On May 20 at 6:44, I made an edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1291283411] which reverted the edit and restored Australia to the list with an edit summary "Undid revision 1290156773 by Smurr7 (talk) Given source does list Australia in addition to the other counties. (sic) The most recent circumcision rate in AU does not reflect the large number of males currently in AU who were born when rates were higher." At 7:02 that same day, {{u|Avy42}} reverted my edit, again removing Australia from the list with "the goal is to have up to date information regarding how common the procedure is currently, not how common it was in previous generations". They did not add any updated WP:RS to support this assertion. At 7:59, I reverted this edit, with an edit summary stating: "Undid revision 1291285082 by Avy42 (talk) Then it is on you to cite WP:RS, the current source given clearly list Australia along side the other counties(sic)."

The original wording, which I restored, appears to be based on the quote I gave from that 2007 WHO source. If someone wishes to update the wording to remove Austraila, then they need to remove the 2007 WHO source given and provide a separate WP:RS to support it. The current article wording is also open to interpretation of what is meant by "widespread." Widespread among the current population? Widespread as a current practice in newborns (although the WHO as of 2007 felt it was "common" in newborns in Australia)? The article is not explicit in what it means by "widespread." Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Source: https://pophealthmetrics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5/tables/1

:My apologies, I seem to have completely forgotten to add this to the edit I made. I’ll go ahead and add this and revert the edit back to what I had originally edited. Smurr7 (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::Never mind someone seems to have done that already :/ Smurr7 (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

In the past, when I and other editors have attempted to mention in this or other circumcision-related articles that the American Academy of Pediatrics' 2012 circumcision policy statement is expired, we've been informed that such information is an irrelevant "factoid" and that, if it were noteworthy, reliable secondary sources would have mentioned it. Here are five secondary sources published within the last 5 years (including two co-authored by Brian J. Morris, himself) that explicitly mention that the policy is expired. Are these citations sufficient to graduate that piece of information from a "factoid" to a noteworthy fact? I'd imagine that the editors who have opposed this information's inclusion in the past don't want to go down the path of arguing that Morris' work, recently published in two mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals, doesn't meet MEDRS, but I suppose we'll see.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-024-03190-8

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10889534/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14777509221104703

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341965054_Why_Was_the_US_Ban_on_Female_Genital_Mutilation_Ruled_Unconstitutional_and_What_Does_This_Have_to_Do_With_Male_Circumcision

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/jbsm/5/2/jbsm050206.xml DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:That it can be sourced properly is an improvement, but I'm not sure how we would mention it without running afoul of WP:SYN - we should not imply that the AAP's policy has actually changed - all we really know is that they're very behind on their paperwork. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, {{Tq|In the past, when I and other editors have attempted to mention in this or other circumcision-related articles}} when was that? This is the first time your account has commented on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Notice the use of the phrases "when I and other editors" and "or other circumcision-related articles." I started the current conversation on this page (as opposed to peripheral pages), as it's the primary article covering the topic and it seemed most appropriate to try to reach consensus here (a consensus that would presumably apply to all other related articles).

:::As for the discussion at hand, you're suggesting that mentioning that the policy is expired would violate a provision of Wikipedia's NOR policy. Just how would it do that when the secondary sources are simply noting what the primary source, itself, explicitly states? Take a look at the AAP circumcision policy statement page, which, since 2017, has stated the following verbatim.

:::• Expired - This policy automatically expired.

:::• All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

:::https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement

:::Making a simple statement, such as, "This policy statement automatically expired in 2017," and citing the above suggested sources is not the same as making a more speculative or biased statement, such as, "The AAP has changed its position." It's merely stating a simple and relevant fact (one that the primary source has explicitly stated and reliable, secondary sources have also explicitly stated).

:::You seem to be suggesting that including that fact (even in a neutral, non-speculative way) would potentially mislead readers of this and related articles into believing that the AAP has formally changed its stance. It does nothing of the sort. Again, it merely states a fact confirmed by both the primary source and reliable, secondary sources. If the AAP was so concerned with people misinterpreting or debating their current stance on this topic, maybe they should have issued a new policy statement (or reaffirmed/retired this one) in the 13 years since the last one was released. It's up to editors on Wikipedia to compile the most current and accurate information, not to keep the bench warm until the AAP decides to act again (assuming it ever does). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I am suggesting that including that fact in that manner would mislead readers. 'Merely' stating facts next to each other to get readers to draw a false conclusion is what WP:SYN is all about. MrOllie (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There is more than one way to bias an article. One way is to insert biased content (which I disagree that my proposed change is). The other is to exclude relevant content and context.

:::::Again, you haven't explained exactly how including a fact explicitly stated by both the primary source and multiple secondary sources would bias the article in this particular case. As stated above, the AAP, itself, explicitly stamps the policy statement in question "expired," so it's not a matter of trying to join two unrelated facts to draw an original conclusion.

:::::Further, you appear to be ignoring the fact that the AAP deliberately set a 5-year automatic expiration date for all its policy statements. If it intended for all official, public-facing guidance to be current until such time as it was replaced or rescinded, then the organization would not have implemented the automatic expiration policy.

:::::Including my proposed sentence in this and related articles would not unfairly mark the 2012 statement as not current, as that's exactly what is by AAP's own admission (and further noted by the suggested secondary sources). You seem to be of the opinion that we should override the AAP's own policy and treat the statement as current indefinitely for no other reason than, hypothetically, AAP leadership might still feel the same way as they did in 2012. How is that not injecting bias into the article? DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't know the exact wording in the article, but reviewing this discussion, perhaps a compromise would be to state something like "In 2012 the AAP created a policy statement that...". This would indicate that the statement was not made recently without necessarily implying that the AAP had changed its position. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We refer to the AAP a few times, usually through a secondary source. I imagine DoItFastDoItUrgent has this one in mind: {{Tq|The American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that the potential benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.}} The other mentions are for some stuff about insurance coverage and pain management. I wouldn't be opposed to adding years to the text I've quoted here, but I suppose we'd have to add them to all three to keep the sentence structure sensible. MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I would recommend the following changes, at bare minimum. When referring to the 2012 policy statement, we should avoid using contemporaneous language (e.g., "states" or "recommends"). While we're at it, we should also make the use of the AAP's acronym more consistent and make any other necessary minor corrections.

::::::::Original passages

::::::::• The American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that the potential benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

::::::::• For infants, non-pharmacological methods such as the use of a comfortable, padded chair and a sucrose or non-sucrose pacifier are more effective at reducing pain than a placebo, but the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states that such methods are insufficient alone and should be used to supplement more effective techniques.

::::::::• 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.

::::::::Proposed changes

::::::::• In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that the potential benefits of circumcision outweighed the risks.

::::::::• For infants, non-pharmacological methods, such as the use of a comfortable, padded chair and a sucrose or non-sucrose pacifier, are more effective at reducing pain than a placebo, but the AAP stated in 2012 that such methods were insufficient alone and should be used to supplement more effective techniques.

::::::::• In 2012, the AAP recommended that neonatal circumcision in the United States be covered by third-party payers, such as Medicaid and other insurers. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::See, that's what I meant about keeping the sentence sensible. Your version reads like all three stated that in 2012, and that is not correct. MrOllie (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I believe ACOG contemporaneously endorsed AAP's 2012 statement. If the CDC didn't endorse it during the same year, we could specify the year that they did. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} We should definitely try to use more recent sources from the United States (like CDC) than the older AAP source, whenever possible. Prcc27 (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The article currently gives the impression that circumcision never has a negative impact on sexual pleasure or function. I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the extant research on the topic. There are numerous studies that report that a certain number of patients experience adverse sexual effects after circumcision, usually about 20%-40%: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17155977/] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21672947/] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11956453/]. In another study, 22 out of 38 participants reported that intercourse post-circumcision was worse. [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-4011-0_4] Also, masturbatory difficulty as reported in many studies is not mentioned at all. Also not mentioned: " The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/]. The article also claims that the data show that "circumcision does not have an adverse physiological effect". Many reviews and meta analyses are much more cautiuos, e.g., stating that "there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction" [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37085961/] or that circumcision is "unlikely" to adversely affect male sexual functions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3881635/].

As I read the article right now, I get the impression that extant research suggests that circumcision never has negative effects on sexual pleasure and function. So if 1.000.000 people are circumcised would not a single one of them experience adverse effects? That's preposterous given the overwhelming evidence that the foreskin is highly sensitive and innervated erogenous tissue. Of course, there will be people whose sexual experience deteriorates after circumcision as detailed in studies in case reports, some cited above.

It should also be mentioned that people circumcised as children have no way of evaluating if their sexual pleasure would be higher without circumcision. For illustration purposes: If someone cuts my little finger off at birth, I might conclude today that stroking a cat feels good, but it would still feel better had my finger not been cut. So "sexual satisfaction" in adulthood can't establish that there was no negative effect on people circumcised as children.

This part of the article needs a comprehensive revision to better reflect the actual evidence and research on the topic. Chaptagai (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:Please have a look at WP:MEDRS. We can't do anything with single studies such as you have cited here. We have to stick with systematic reviews and statements from major medical organizations. MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::Of course, individual studies can be cited when they are numerous - as is the case here - and when they contradict earlier reviews. Especially when the depiction of these reviews in the article is inaccurate. Many of the reviews are much more cautious and to not state that there is no effect. Instead, they state that a negative effect cannot be proven. That's a very different statement. Chaptagai (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Tq|Of course, individual studies can be cited when they are numerous}}. No. That's the opposite of what WP:MEDRS requires. MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I disagree with that, but this question aside: All the systematic reviews acknowledge that there are conflicting data and that many studies find negative effect. They do note that the studies that find negative effects tend to be of lower quality, but it is uncontroversial that numerous studies do find negative effects. One cannot totally ignore these studies just because the reviews say they tend to be of lower quality, which doesn't mean low quality. They are still peer-reviewed and discussed in the media. [https://www.reuters.com/article/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/male-circumcision-tied-to-less-sexual-pleasure-idUSBRE91D1CP/] [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50813329] Chaptagai (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{Tq|One cannot totally ignore these studies just because the reviews say they tend to be of lower quality}} Ignoring low quality studies is indeed what one is supposed to do, given the ongoing replication crisis in medical research. This is largely why the WP:MEDRS guideline exists in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Absolutely not, what one is supposed to do is mentioning the results of these studies and that they are considered to be of lower quality by some authors. You don't just completely ignore the fact that there are studies that show negative effects of circumcision. Chaptagai (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::And especially, you don't inaccurately report the results of the reviews. The article currently says that the data shows that "circumcision does not have an adverse physiological effect on sexual pleasure". This is not what the authors of the reviews conclude. They don't contend that their reviews prove that there is no negative effect. Instead they say that "there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction" or that circumcision is "unlikely" to negatively affect sexual pleasure and function. Sources cited above. The cite source (Marco & Heil 2020) state that "Although many authors support the hypothesis that circumcision status has an impact on sexual functioning, a negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven." A negative outcome "has not yet been entirely proven" is a far cry from "does not have an adverse effect" as the article states right now. The article in its current form is just plain wrong. Chaptagai (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You clearly feel strongly about this, but that is not a reason to ignore our sourcing policies by cherry picking primary sources, nor is it a reason to ignore the other 7 cited sources, which are correctly reflected in the language of the article, nor is it a reason to cherry pick particular sentences from Marco and Heil, which I will note also says {{Tq|There is consistent data supporting that no objective histological or physiological reasons lead to an increased risk on sexual dysfunction, as there is also data on adults showing that not only it does not adversely impact functioning e.g., Kigozi et al.; Laumann, Masi, Zuckerman, 1997; Payne et al. but it might improve it}} MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Oh, you seem to feel just as strongly about this, but this is irrelevant and I don't know why you are even bringing this up, I can only assume as a provocation of some sort, so I won't engage with it any further. As for your quote, there are numerous studies that prove that the foreskin is a highly errogenous part of the penis and that it is highly innervated, so a removal of it would, according to these studies, definitely be a physiological reason for lower sexual pleasure. And none of this justifies pretending that the numerous studies that find an impaired sexual satisfaction don't exist and blatantly misrepresenting the systematic reviews on the topic, which clearly do NOT state that there is no adverse effect, but are much more nuanced in what they say about a potential effect on sexual pleasure and function (sources and quotes above). Chaptagai (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You're not going to get anywhere arguing that the sources are wrong (that is, the ones which meet WP:MEDRS requirements) - on Wikipedia we follow the sources and not the opinions of anonymous folks on a talk page. MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17155977/ There are clear studies that indicate the adverse effect of circumcision. The current article does not include these finding and is biased. 2600:4041:7992:5A00:29E3:1206:4F74:3437 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17155977/ There are clear studies that indicate the adverse effect of circumcision. The current article does not include these finding and is biased. Uniquesuprise (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::See WP:MEDRS, already pointed out above. Wikipedia doesn't cherry pick primary source studies for medical content. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::"Results: There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. ", Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Please post the rest of the entirely of the results which include Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.

:::::::::::as stated before wikipedia does not cherry pick. please include the entirely of the studies finding and results Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::No, we don't include primary sources or single studies for medical content, has been stated numerous times now. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There are multiple studies to state there is no adverse effect is a blatant lie and is not neutral at all Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The section with the expired cited source case been removed Uniquesuprise (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::You deleted an accurate sentence which was exceptionally well referenced with multiple sources. That was not an improvement to the article. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::The cited source is expired and newer research contradicts the statement information it is incorrect and misleading. Uniquesuprise (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::There are multiple sources in that citation. Even if you personally disagree with all of them, that isn't a good reason to delete the text. As explained many times, we cannot use lower quality sourcing - if it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS, it doesn't matter. We cannot include it, nor can it be used to undercut the policy compliant sourcing we do have. MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::This is why the POV has been attached to this article. the Royal Dutch Medical Association and the Council of Europe Major medical organizations agree that there is impaired sexual function. Uniquesuprise (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Could you please provide links to this so I can include it in the article? Chaptagai (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There isn't a single study, there are multiple studies that show that circumcision can negatively affect sexual pleasure, maybe not for everyone who undergoes it, but for a number of people who do so. The reviews discuss and weigh these studies. Not to even mention these studies in the article at all is a violation of WP principles. Chaptagai (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Studies that do not meet WP:MEDRS can't be used, even in combination. That violates both WP:MEDRS and WP:SYNTH. No number of unreliable sources adds up to a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Is there a scientific consensus that these studies are unreliable? All of them? Happy to see your sources for this. Chaptagai (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Btw, my updated version still strongly favors your point of view (which I grudgingly would accept). Maybe consider accepting it. Chaptagai (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::My source for this is WP:MEDRS, which I have linked for you many times already. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::My version doesn't violate WP:MEDRS in any way. Chaptagai (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I have explained many times how it does. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT never works around here. - MrOllie (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I have revised the article along the lines suggested above to reflect the reality that this isn't a settled research question and that there is a lively controversy and debate around it, which the previous article version completely ignored. It's in my view still way too favorable to the view that circumcision does no harm, but overall, it's at least more balanced now, so while I'm not entirely happy with it, I could live with this version. Chaptagai (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:I reverted the changes, since you completely ignored the policy requirements which have been pointed out several times on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::I reinstated the changes. If you have issues or critique or want to make amendments, you're welcome to propose them, please let me know, but we are not going back to the old version which doesn't even mention the ongoing scientific dabte on this topic. My version is balanced and even heavily favors the "no adverse effects" angle. A version that pretends that this is a settled question and doesn't even mention that studies showed conflicting results is totally unacceptable. Chaptagai (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Can everyone read WP:ONUS and wp:editwar. Please stop before PP is enacted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:The version you and MrOllie revert to is so blatantly biased and a misrepresentation of the evidence that it just cannot stand. You are welcome to amend my version if you don't like it or propose your own version, but reverting to a version that doesn't even mention that there is a scientific debate and numerous conflicting studies is completely unacceptable. Chaptagai (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::Then start an RFC, and get fresh eyes to look at it, do not edit war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Why don't you just propose an alternative version that acknowledges that there is a scientific debate and numerous conflicting studies? We simply CANNOT go back to a version that doesn't even mention this. Chaptagai (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::What we 'CANNOT' do is ignore sourcing guidelines such as WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::No sourcing guidelines are violated. The controversy in question is the very topic of the systematic reviews. These reviews discuss and weigh the evidence from both sides. The article cannot remain completely silent on studies that show impaired sexuality. My version is balanced and still heavily favors your viewpoint. If you don't like it, propose your own version instead of edit warring. Chaptagai (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Your sources are not useful here. There is really nothing more to say on the matter. Bon courage (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So you want to erase all traces of any debate of impaired sexuality after circumcision? Do you think this accurately reflects the state of scientific research on the topic? That there is no dissent whatsoever? Chaptagai (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Wikipedia reflects the WP:BESTSOURCES on the matter, not the views of editors. Bon courage (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The studies are discussed in the reviews. Your contention that we can't even state what the reviews are about and what two sides are being investigated by the reviews completely misrepresents WP:BESTSOURCES. My version outlines what the debate is and then reports the overall findings of the reviews. It does not take any specific point of view. Chaptagai (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Then cite the reviews; don't try and re-represent the material they use to create, in effect, your own personal review. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, based on secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::"No consensus exists about the role of the foreskin or the effect circumcision has on penile sensitivity and overall sexual satisfaction." [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16037710/] The current version suggests that a consensus exists and that the other side of the debate need not even be mentioned. This is ridiculous. Chaptagai (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This is another source that does not meet WP:MEDRS. The opinion of one author in a primary source does not override our other sources which actually do meet WP:MEDRS requirements. If you want to get anywhere with editing Wikipedia's medical articles, please accept that everything has to start with WP:MEDRS. MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The sources that are already cited all acknowledge that there is a debate and that conflicting studies exist. I do not intend (and my version did not) override the conclusions of these reviews. It is just inappropriate not to mention or elaborate on the very debate these reviews are dealing with. "Some authors argue the negative impact of MC on men psychology and sexual life, but objective data are lacking. ... An objective evaluation of the impact of circumcision on sexuality is still challenging" [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7985026/] "The debate on non-medical male circumcision has gaining momentum during the past few years." [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27399981/] "However, these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies." [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3881635/] These are all sources that are already cited. They all acknowledge that there is a debate, that the question isn't conclusively settled and that the data are conflicting. Chaptagai (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::You're reading things into those papers that aren't really there. 'Some authors argue' is a statement that there is a vocal minority. Every topic has a vocal minority, which is why Wikipedia rejects WP:FALSEBALANCE. If we applied the standard you're trying to use here across the Wikipedia articles like Climate change would give equal time to climate change deniers. MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Total nonsense, and you know it. I am not saying equal time and those who say circumcision negatively affects sexual outcomes are by no means comparable to climate deniers. There isn't nearly the samy 99% consensus in favor of "circumcision-does-no-harm" here as it is in climate science. It is also a principle in wikipedia that reasonable minority positions are to be heard. I am not saying the article should adopt the minority position and the version I proposed doesn't do that. Chaptagai (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::It's quite simple. Find high-quality, reliable sources{{snd}}then fairly summarise then. That's job done. What you seem to doing is WP:POVSOURCING, along with disruptive editing, for which you have been sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::All the information I based my edit of the article on are also included in the reviews. I could just have written basically the same thing (maybe without the quotes) and just used these same reviews as sources for the entire text. Chaptagai (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::Then cite the reviews; don't try and re-represent the material they use to create, in effect, your own personal review. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, based on secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::When the review states that a certain primary source found negative effects, it makes much more sense to cite the primary source to illustrate the conflicting findings, not to draw a conclusion than to cite the review. Chaptagai (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Wrong. Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::This doesn't mean tha the primary study must not be cited or appear anywhere in the article. WP:MEDRS is about drawing conclusions. At no point does it say that primary studies must never be cited or cannot appear in articles at all. Chaptagai (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::Well, except for the bold faced text at the top of WP:MEDRS that says exactly that: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::Or the whole subsection titled 'Avoid primary sources' MrOllie (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::You show no willingness whatsoever to engage in order to correct the blantant misrepresentation and complete absence of even a hint at the ongoing scientific debate on the topic among researchers. This is from a systematic review in the Journal of Sexual Medicine from a known pro-circumcision activist: "Whether circumcision impairs or improves male sexual function or pleasure is controversial." [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsm.12293] Shouldn't that at least be mentioned in the article? Chaptagai (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::I'm not opposed to changes in general, but I do have 'no willingness whatsoever' to cherry pick from primary sources or sentences from review articles to misrepresent the overall message of those review articles. MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::Ok, then the same question to you as to Bon Courage: Are you going to oppose every change to the article that would mention that there is a scientific controversy and that conflicting study results exist? Chaptagai (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Feel free to read the comment you're replying to over again, I decline to repeat myself any further. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I don't know how to interpret that response as your comment before didn't seem to clearly address my question, so if you do not oppose mentioning in the article that a scientific controversy and conflicting studies exist, please propose an edit you would find acceptable to include this in the article. Chaptagai (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::Some more info on the authors of this study: [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-14632-025] Even THEY acknowledg that there is a controversy and that there are conflicting studies. The article in Wikipedia currently doesn't even mention this. This is simply totally unacceptable. Chaptagai (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od|::::::::::::::::::::::::}}The review says nothing at all about controversy in its conclusion, as if a source froom 2013 could be used to demonstrate "ongoing scientific debate" in any case! It's rather the contrary with the review saying the matter will only become more settled: {{tq2|Based on available data to date, it is likely that such high-quality studies will further confirm that circumcision does not reduce any sexual function or sensation parameter, or diminish sexual pleasure.}}As ever, follow the sources. Bon courage (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:Where does WP guidelines state that only the conclusions of the reviews may be included in the article and not the starting point, i.e., the debate that caused the review to be conducted in the first place? This makes no sense. Btw, the review does conclude that 10 studies found negative outcomes of circumcision. It states that these studies may be of lower quality, but that doesn't mean that this finding of the review can just be totally ignored in the article. Chaptagai (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::It kind of does. Sources should be summarised to represent the knowledge they contain, not spun otherwise. That is why conclusions are so important, and WP:NOABSTRACT. Bon courage (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok, so is your position that you are going to oppose every change to the article that would mention that there is a scientific controversy and that conflicting study results exist? Chaptagai (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::On the specific question of "controversy", PMID:32994555. which we cite, has this to say:{{tq2|Although it may seem that this controversies make impossible to reach a consensus there is consistent data supporting that no objective histological or physiological reasons lead to an increased risk on sexual dysfunction, as there is also data on adults showing that not only it does not adversely impact functioning e.g., Kigozi et al.; Laumann, Masi, Zuckerman, 1997; Payne et al. but it might improve it ...}} Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::So they say there is a controversy. They also say "many authors support the hypothesis that circumcision status has an impact on sexual functioning". Not to even mention this in the article violates WP:NPOV. Chaptagai (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::And would you please address my question and clarify your position. Chaptagai (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yeah, some say circumcision lessens sexual function; others say it enhances it. Overall the evidence it clear that is doesn't lessen it. I'm not sure how you want to present this. Do you want to say there is a controversy over whether circumcision enhances sexual function? Bon courage (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The evidence is not nearly so clear and the phrasing is important here. The article currently says "The accumulated data show circumcision does not have an adverse physiological effect." This is the line of severely conflicted authors Brian Morris & his co-author(s). This is by no means the consensus of the reviews. Tian et al. say it is "unlikely" to adversely affect male sexual functions with the qualifier that "these results should be evaluated in light of the low quality of the existing evidence and the significant heterogeneity across the various studies". Bernaschina-Rivera et al. say "there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction" and Marco & Heil say "a negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven." Other than Morris & colleagues, no review says that, categorically, there is no effect, and not even Morris and Krieger say that. They say that "the highest-quality studies suggest" (emphasis added) that there is no negative effect. The article currently misrepresents the multiple qualifiers and disclaimers basically all reviews attach to their conclusion that there the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that their is an effect. Chaptagai (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Marco & Heil does in fact say that, when one isn't cherry picking a quote to misrepresent the rest of the review. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::They don't and they and even Morris and Krieger at least acknowledge that there are studies that find negative effects, which the WP article currently does not. The article in its current form blatantly misrepresents the reviews and reduces them to a false categorical statement while ignoring all nuance and the multiple qualifiers and disclaimers basically all the reviews attach to their conclusion that there the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that their is a negative effect. Chaptagai (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::"there is consistent data supporting that no objective histological or physiological reasons lead to an increased risk on sexual dysfunction" seems pretty clear. Bon courage (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::And elsewhere they say "a negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven", which means there is some evidence for it, too. Seems like their review itself is inconsistent. Btw, the quote you provided does not mean that there "is no effect". They say there is no objective reason to expect a physiological effect. There could still be such an effect, or there could be psychological reasons, which aren't covered by the quote at all. However you look at it, Marco & Heil (and no other review) do NOT state that "there is no adverse effect" as the article claims right now. Chaptagai (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::That you have cherry picked a sentence from the abstract is not going to make us forget what the rest of the paper says - anyone who reads the whole thing can clearly see that your summary of it on this talk page is incorrect. MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You're the one cherrypicking a quote that doesn't even mean what you purport it means. Your quote doesn't state that the review concludes that that there are no effects. It says the data suggest that there are no "objective histological or physiological reasons lead to an increased risk", i.e, studies that provide objective measurements of penile sensitivity overall suggest no adverse effect should be expected. This is a statement about what should be "objective(ly)" expected, not one about what circumcised men actually report. Reasons can also be subjective or psychological. Nowhere does this review categorically state that "there is no adverse effect". It just doesn't. Chaptagai (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::And again, I ask you, are you willing to accept that we mention in the article that there is a controversy and that there are conflicting studies? If so, please propose a revision of the article that would be acceptable to you. If not, then please clearly say so, then we're all on the same page. Please clarify if you oppose every edit that would mention a controversy or conflicting studes so we can avoid going through repetitve discussion cycles. Chaptagai (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Why notng

"There is some controversy over the impact of circumcision on sexual pleasure; however, most experts agree it has no meaningful effect."? Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:“There is some controversy over the impact of circumcision on sexual pleasure; most experts agree it has no meaningful effect however, some studies have shown a reduction in sensation in the head of the penis.” This is more balanced if you are stating it is controversy it is best to include both cited sources. Uniquesuprise (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::We don't do 'balance', see WP:FALSEBALANCE. I have linked this for you before, do read it this time. MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There is no consensus. The linked area states that “Including an opposite view may well be appropriate” in this case it is appropriate. We have cited numerous studies and articles that state it is so. To exclude them is you pushing your POV constantly and continually. Notice how I and other editors are asking for accurate and well cited sources to give a full understanding of the topic. This is a serious matter and I am once again asking for this page to be fully locked. Uniquesuprise (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If there is 'no consensus', that means that we would leave the article as it is. See WP:CONSENSUS. One (or even two) users don't get to force in their preferred changes by claiming a lack of consensus. If you really think this article should be fully protected, you can certainly take that request to the admin boards, but the chance of them acceding to your request is near zero - and even if they did, the article would be locked as it is, not as you would like it to be. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Might be a case for WP:ECP given the disruption this topic attracts. Bon courage (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The following is an excerpt from the 2020 review of pro-circumcision crusader Brian Morris [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2050116120301240]:

"In response to the Bossio study, Frisch, Rotta, and Van Howe et al. published letters disagreeing with the findings. Their arguments were rebutted by Bossio et al, who explained that their data had been misconstrued.68 In responding to Frisch and Van Howe et al, who claimed the foreskin has greater tactile sensitivity than other parts of the penis, Bossio et al pointed out that fine touch pressure activates nerve fibers less relevant for sexual pleasure. In disagreeing with Rotta,66 who was concerned that only flaccid penises and a dorsal unretracted foreskin site were studied rather than the internal foreskin surface exposed during erection, Bossio et al stated that their study was not “an exploration of the biomechanics of the foreskin during intercourse”, which they pointed out would be “incredibly difficult to measure”. As requested in the letter by Van Howe et al, Bossio et al presented, in their reply, data for touch, pain, warmth and heat thresholds for forearm, glans, midline shaft, proximal to midline shaft, and foreskin (when present) for their circumcised and uncircumcised subjects. Those data showed that the tactile sensitivity of the foreskin was similar to that of the forearm but was significantly less than glans and shaft sites, consistent with data from Payne et al suggesting that decreased penile sensitivity was necessary for vaginal penetration. In a general comment, Bossio et al pointed to the critics' overreliance on weak studies supporting a particular agenda. They further stated that their study should “serve as a ‘call to arms’ for researchers interested in examining the sexual correlates of circumcision” by conducting scientifically rigorous studies. In a different journal, Earp criticized the Bossio study for providing objective assessments while ignoring subjective sexual experience and satisfaction, as well as psychological and contextual mediators.69 Just as Van Howe et al, Earp noted that the oldest subject was aged 37 years, whereas sexual dysfunction increases in older ages. He also objected to Bossio et al having excluding men with sexual dysfunction. Much of Earp's commentary merely repeated what Frisch, Rotta, and Van Howe et al. had stated and misrepresented the findings by Bossio et al."

Do you seriously want to argue that there is a consensus among scientists that there is no adverse effect? That there is no ongoing debate on the question? That there are no conflicting study results? That none of this should be discussed or even be mentioned in the article? This is preposterous. Chaptagai (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The following statement regarding HIV are irrelevant political discussion that does not adhere to the content of the page and should be deleted. It violates "Wikipedia:UNDUE" policy it only the message of one country one president and one party completely undue weight to policy across the entire globe especially when most studies took place in Africa. the policy of an entirely different and singular government is biased and should be deleted.

"Misinformation about circumcision has been spread by United States President Donald Trump, many members of the Republican Party, and other Western right-wing populists and national conservatives, who have falsely alleged that it is ineffective in reducing HIV transmission, portrayed it as a threat to masculinity, and government waste. This contradicts the scientific consensus and position of major medical organizations, including the World Health Organization, who state that circumcision is one of the most effective methods of preventing HIV transmission in high-risk locations." Uniquesuprise (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:The cited sources clearly think it is relevant (and that is how we figure out WP:DUE weight), and it is directly on topic. - MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::Politics are not relevant. Please keep the article to relevant scientific data and studios anecdotal politics have no place in this section and if anything should be moved to economics section of this article. the cited sources are about the spending of money for circumcision in Africa. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Nah. We have no reason to conform to your personal idea of what is relevant or not. That misinformation has been spread about HIV transmission obviously belongs in the section on HIV. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::the statement threat to masculinity is totally irrelevant and reads like a personal statement. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Circumcision|answered=yes}}

Remove the following text it is biased and irrelevant "Misinformation about circumcision has been spread by United States President Donald Trump, many members of the Republican Party, and other Western right-wing populists and national conservatives, who have falsely alleged that it is ineffective in reducing HIV transmission, portrayed it as a threat to masculinity, and government waste. This contradicts the scientific consensus and position of major medical organizations, including the World Health Organization, who state that circumcision is one of the most effective methods of preventing HIV transmission in high-risk locations.[54][55][56][57][58]" Uniquesuprise (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} - Relevant content from reliable sources. One would need to establish a firm consensus for removal before lodging an edit request for something like this. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::The content is irrelevant Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It was transcluded from another article, Circumcision and HIV, because it was in the lead of that article. It should not have been as it is WP:UNDUE for that topic's WP:LEAD EvergreenFir (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|No need to bother with this AI slop. Bon courage (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)}}

Areas Often Seen as Biased:

1.

Medical Framing and Emphasis

The article often highlights purported health benefits (e.g., HIV reduction, reduced UTI risk, lower penile cancer rates) without equally emphasizing:

The low baseline risk of these conditions.

The availability of non-surgical alternatives (e.g., condoms for HIV).

The fact that most developed countries don’t recommend routine circumcision.

2.

Lack of Human Rights Focus

The article generally avoids or minimizes:

Ethical concerns about infant bodily autonomy.

The perspective that circumcision is a form of non-consensual genital cutting.

Parallels to female genital cutting when done for cultural or non-therapeutic reasons.

3.

Language Choice

Terms like “removal of the foreskin” can sound clinical and neutral, yet:

They may gloss over what critics describe as amputation of erogenous tissue.

The term “uncircumcised” is used instead of “intact,” framing circumcision as the norm.

4.

Skewed Sources

Heavy reliance on U.S.-based institutions (like the AAP) that support circumcision.

Less attention to positions by international medical bodies (e.g., those in Europe or Canada) which often oppose routine circumcision of infants.

5.

Marginalization of Critics

Dismisses or downplays the growing intactivist movement, labeling it fringe or unscientific.

Foregoes serious discussion on loss of sexual function, despite increasing testimony and evidence from restored men and medical literature. Uniquesuprise (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:The condition to remove the tag have not been met. The tag will remain until they are. Uniquesuprise (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::A single editor doesn't get to force in a POV tag indefinitely because they disagree with the article. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Theirs is multiple editors and other threads discussing many of the inconsistencies and outdated cited sources. Additionally the article is missing large amounts of research on the negative effects of circumcision. Irrelevant information about the views of the trump administration and the Republican Party have also been removed. This article is not neutral and the most up to date and recent studies should be cited for the article. Uniquesuprise (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have added the POV tag because the current version of this article appears to lack balance in its treatment of controversial aspects of male circumcision. The article emphasizes proposed medical benefits—many of which are contested or context-dependent—while giving minimal space to significant ethical, human rights, and sexual function criticisms. The article also leans disproportionately on U.S.-based sources, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), while downplaying international and European consensus, which generally do not support routine infant circumcision.

::::Here are some concerns and supporting sources:

::::Ethics and Bodily Autonomy

::::Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG, 2010)

::::“There are good reasons for considering non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors a violation of children’s rights.”

::::Link to full report

::::Council of Europe (2013)

::::Resolution 1952 on children’s right to physical integrity raised concerns about medically unnecessary circumcision of minors.

::::Resolution text

::::Medical Benefit Claims vs. International Consensus

::::British Medical Association (2006)

::::“The BMA does not believe that routine circumcision is a justifiable preventative health measure.”

::::Archived source

::::Canadian Paediatric Society (2015)

::::“The CPS does not recommend routine circumcision of every newborn male.”

::::Source

::::Van Howe RS (2007)

::::“Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis.”

::::PubMed link

::::These organizations contradict the U.S.-based AAP, yet their views are underrepresented in the article.

::::Neglect of Critical and Intactivist Perspectives

::::The article currently omits or downplays perspectives from:

::::Intact America

::::Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)

::::Foreskin restoration communities

::::These voices represent a growing global movement advocating for bodily autonomy and genital integrity. Their complete exclusion compromises neutrality.

::::Recommendation

::::To restore NPOV, I recommend:

::::Expanding the ethics and human rights section significantly.

::::Including more coverage of non-U.S. medical positions.

::::Giving space to credible criticism of sexual function loss and erogenous tissue removal. Uniquesuprise (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::https://www.knmg.nl/advies-richtlijnen/knmg-publicaties/other-publications.htm

:::::https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=20174&lang=en

:::::https://web.archive.org/web/20130223010102/http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp

:::::https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision

:::::https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17233844/ Uniquesuprise (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia articles are specifically not supposed to be 'balanced' in the way you suggest, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::None of my statements or concerns are minority views fringe views or extraordinary claims. They are in fact the majority views in the most of the world. As stated in my complaint the sources are heavily by American citation and do not include global citations from other major medical sources especially in Europe. Uniquesuprise (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And yet you removed a sentence that carried a citation to the World Health Organization. Your actions don't match what you're saying here. MrOllie (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::the statement is contradictory. It is under the effects of section then it states that there is no benefits or adverse effects therefore there are no effects at all under that assumption. Therefore it should not be in the effects section. If there is no effect neither negative or positive why would such a statement be included in the effects section. Uniquesuprise (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Additionally the WHO statement is about Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision. There should be a distinction between VMMC and neonatal circumcision. All studies cited about HIV and STDs are VMMC not neonatal circumcision. Uniquesuprise (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::You appear to be confused, the sentence you removed had nothing to do with HIV. You should pay closer attention to what you're deleting. That there are no adverse effects is obviously highly relevant information to the section on potential effects. It is quite surprising that anyone would seriously argue otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

The adverse effects section formatting is confusing. It is simply two large paragraphs. Its style should match the effects section formatting breaking out each adverse effect into its own heading. Uniquesuprise (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Most of the section is about adverse effects in general, so that proposal doesn't really make any sense. Since the sources consistently discuss these as a group we'd have a bunch of repeated content, and that really would be confusing to readers. MrOllie (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::As it is now it is confusing to readers I would expect each section to follow similar formatting for consistency. The effects section has sexually transmitted infections listed then every single type listed as a separate heading it is a bunch of repeat content and it is really confusing to readers. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not confusing to readers. Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::It is MOS:PARA " Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea." It is very confusing to reader not to have each point or idea in its own area. multiple adverse effects are lumped together. They should be separated as bullet points as per Wikipedias manual "Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article. They may be used in the body to break up a mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort to comprehend. Sometimes, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead of having a series of very short paragraphs." The current formatting violates wikipedias guidelines for manual of style and layout. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::When the sources lump them together, we have to do so as well, to avoid repeating content. That we might use bullet point lists 'sometimes' in other cases does not mean that not using them in this case is some sort of policy violation. MrOllie (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::The article should follow similar formatting to major medical institutions such as the following where each risk and benefit is separated by bullet point.

::https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/about/pac-20393550

::https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/procedures/circumcision

::https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/circumcision-in-men/

::https://medlineplus.gov/circumcision.html

::https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/the-circumcision-decision Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia's manual of style prefers that content is written in WP:PROSE, not bullet point lists. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedias manual "Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article. They may be used in the body to break up a mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort to comprehend. Sometimes, it may be preferable to use bullet points instead of having a series of very short paragraphs." This topic requires significant effort to comprehend. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's not the section I pointed you to, which clearly states that prose is preferred to lists. Given the overlapping nature of the statistics provided by the sources, refactoring this into a list would be more difficult to understand, not less. MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Then the effects section should be changed to prose. STIs overlap far more than each individual adverse effect. The goal is to have each section have similar formatting as to not confuse the reader. Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The effects section already is prose. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The adverse effects section should also include heading and sub headings Uniquesuprise (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It's not long enough to need them. Also it is not really possible to place statements which apply to multiple effects into multiple headings. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Great I will add more information from the already cited sources to expand on the section. As it is now there are multiple links in that section "buried penis, chordee, phimosis, skin bridges, urethral fistulas, and meatal stenosis" in this section. Adding additional information to each of these section will be beneficial to the article. Much like the effects section each effect has a brief paragraph to explain each finding. This will make the article much easier to understand so the reader does not have to jump to each complication. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::We should not duplicate content from other articles here, that is why we have links in the first place. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Then we should remove the information from the effects section. duplicating ever single study and STI is redundant and confusing to the reader. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::No, we're not going to cut parts of the article because you don't like section headings. MrOllie (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::The Adverse Effects doesn't have a single heading. It needs a few to organize the section better. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::No. We're also not going to break up the text we have because you have some urge for consistency here. The sections are organized differently because the sources and the context is different. There is no problem to be fixed here. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Context is exactly the same effects and adverse effects. Many cite the same sources. every section has headings except Contraindications. to maintain consistency readability and understanding headings should be added to this section. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The following segment should be removed it contradicts other cited sources such as https://web.archive.org/web/20200629155854/https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/

"There are popular misconceptions that circumcision benefits or adversely impacts the sexual pleasure of the circumcised person."

The cited source includes the following statement "permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex" Uniquesuprise (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Even if we ignore that the link you posted here does not meet WP:MEDRS, that is listed as a possible complication, not a universal effect, so there is no conflict. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::The statement reads as if there is no possibility of possible complication. when in fact there is. the article linked is cited in the article. Because of this contradictory nature it should be removed. the statement itself is also contradictory language it is effectively saying there is not benefits of adverse impacts. Then it has no effect at all why would such a statement be in the effect section. the statement basically says there is no effect. Uniquesuprise (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Already discussed above, that there are no expected adverse effects is plainly relevant to the section on effects. And right or wrong, medical literature treats universal, expected effects differently from rare complications. WP:OR on this talk page is not a reason for the article to confuse the two. MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The statement is contradictory. That is my main concern. Something that has neither benefits nor complications ultimately results in no effects. The statement is under the effects section. If it has no effects then it should not be included in that section. Uniquesuprise (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Follow the sources, not your own opinion. Bon courage (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is not an opinion. This is about the structure of the sentence. The sentence it self is contradictory. I have also linked cited sources already used in the article. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It really isn't contradictory. The sources do not draw the distinction that you are making. Also, you should really stop edit warring about this. Someone else has been blocked from the page already for doing more or less the same thing. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It is the phrase "benefits or adversely impacts" tries to cover both positive and negative claims at once. Additionally saying "there are misconceptions" misconception about what exactly? all claims or just some. additionally it is formatted incorrectly MOS:PARA

::::::::"Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read."

::::::::It is a single sentence at the end of the section this inhibits the flow of text. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No. You're not going to find some technicality that will let you cut this sentence, that isn't how Wikipedia works. See WP:LAWYER. Seek consensus rather than edit warring with flimsy justifications. MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes it is it violates MOS:PARA and has been removed. It is a hanging paragraph with no explanation of its subject matter. The previous reply is the last on this matter. Further issues on this matter will be through dispute resolution. Uniquesuprise (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I hope my edit addressed the PARA issue. I'm not sure why you're still edit warring. Is it the "no explanation of its subject matter" part? Wouldn't that be solved by expanding rather than removing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Correct the sentence does not further address the subject matter of misconceptions. The misconceptions must be expanded apon with cited sources for the misconceptions. Misconceptions of what exactly it is unclear. Uniquesuprise (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)