Talk:Circumcision

User:Slatersteven, User:Sirfurboy, do you object to my changes to the article? P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Read WP:LEAD. The lead should summarise the main. You are attempting to make the first sentence something that does not summarise the main, which is why you added a citation to it too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

If I were to add the fact that circumcision is sometimes considered genital mutilation and referred to as male genital mutilation to some place in the main body of the article, would you oppose that? P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That would altogether depend on the quality of the secondary sources you used for such an edit, and where and how you worked it into the page context. What do you propose? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Before you answer read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's why I reverted it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

And for what reason? You never provided a reason. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did "not in the lede". Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what that is supposed to be, but it's not a reason.

If you go to court, you will find that 1) stating the opposite of your opponent's thesis or 2) directing him to some statute are not regarded as sufficient arguments. An argument is one or several premises used to support a conclusion. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

We are not a court, and wp:lede is clear, the lede is not a newspaper style leader but a summary of our article, so yes, it is a reason. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

where do you propose the alternate name should be added in that case? ~2025-43632-00 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

There should not be an alternate name. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

an article that doesn't list circumcision as genital mutilation is not properly summarizing the concept of circumcision ~2026-12751-45 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

circumcision is a minor surgery In clinical terms. Also the fact that circumcision is also used for medical benefit and not always purely ritualistic means that it doesn't meet the definition of mutilation(in the English language). Avy42 (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

That’s just incredibly biased. Just because the article does not list circumcision as genital mutilation (most reliable sources agree circumcision is not genital mutilation) does not mean it is “inaccurately summarizing circumcision”. We could put something in about the fact some consider it genital mutilation, but to state in the article it is genital mutilation is ridiculous and would violate NPOV massively. ~2026-12802-80 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but as others have pointed out it would be a violation of NPOV to list circumcision as genital mutilation. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Many attempts have been made over the years to rewrite portions of this article to make misleading comparisons or draw false equivalence between the subject of this article and FGM. They have been consistently rejected, and there is a long standing consensus on this article not to do such things (consult the talk page archives for details). Attempting to edit war about this as has been done recently will not work, and making slight variations on such edits does not mean that no one has objected. MrOllie (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, User:Sirfurboy,

you were active on this page recently in opposition to my changes in which I attempted to include in the article the common alternative designation for the subject 'male genital mutilation.'

I hope I am not wrong in assuming on this basis that you don't regard male circumcision as especially harmful, and also in noting that, being active on the article and talk page, had you objected to my recent edits, you could have reverted them.

So I would just like you to register whether you disapprove of any of the changes I have made. If you do, I could revise my edits, rather than revert entirely to the status quo lede which I am sure you will agree is objectively inferior in several respects (misinterprets sources, as I noted in revision comments, poorly sourced, structured, and written e.g. w.r.t. origins and prevalence of male circumcision), etc.

P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you not to block revert and have the page locked when you object to a small portion of recent changes. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I hope I am not wrong in assuming on this basis that you don't regard male circumcision as especially harmful. You are wrong to assume anything about my beliefs from my edits. That is not the way I edit on Wikipedia. Have a read of WP:INSCRUTABLE. But Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and MrOllie's response to you is correct. This page is about male circumcision and should not be making false equivalence with FGM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, suppose we remove "Like female genital mutilation" from my revision of the final paragraph of the lede. Is there anything else about my revision you find objectionable ? P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't like the fact that you are concentrating on the lead and adding novel information there and new sourcing, rather than concentrating on developing the main text. I made that point to you above on 27 December, but you went ahead and modified the lead only, adding new references and spending too long (for the lead) on the history. You also changed other wording in the paragraph without clear rationale. The map you added is visually appealing, but it should be in the main text, alongside prose that talks about prevalence. It also mentions the WHO as a source but doesn't actually provide the source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the map was copied from Prevalence of circumcision (without attribution, note that that is a violation of licensing requirements per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). It's great on that article but I don't think it should be in the lead section of this one. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The WHO source is cited within the text.

I think the prevalence of a mainly religious and traditional practice is an important fact about that practice.

What wording did I change without clear rationale?

Here is my revision

Like female genital mutilation, male circumcision is one of the world's oldest and most common medical procedures. An ancient ritual predating recorded history and first documented in ancient Egypt, it was first medicalized in England during the 19th century as a preventive measure against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and the practice of masturbation. It has in recent decades been promoted for adolescent and adult males in developing countries as a cost-effective means of reducing the spread of HIV. Beyond healthcare, circumcision is generally regarded as a religious obligation for Jewish, Muslim, and Coptic Christian men. It is widespread in the United States, the Muslim world, South Korea, Israel, and most of Africa. It is uncommon in Europe, Central and South America, East Asia, Australasia, and parts of southern Africa. The worldwide prevalence of male circumcision is estimated at 30% or 38.7%.

Here is the older version

Circumcision is one of the world's most common and oldest medical procedures. Prophylactic usage originated in England during the 1850s and has since spread globally, becoming predominately established as a way to prevent sexually transmitted infections. Beyond use as a prophylactic or treatment option in healthcare, circumcision plays a major role in many of the world's cultures and religions, most prominently Judaism and Islam. Circumcision is among the most important commandments in Judaism and considered obligatory for men. In some African and Eastern Christian denominations male circumcision is an established practice, and require that their male members undergo circumcision. It is widespread in the United States, South Korea, Israel, Muslim-majority countries and most of Africa. It is relatively rare for non-religious reasons in parts of Southern Africa, Latin America, Europe, and most of Asia, as well as nowadays in Australia. The origin of circumcision is not known with certainty, but the oldest documentation comes from ancient Egypt.

(I only give the final paragraph of the lede, since only this material was blanket reverted by User:MrOllie.)

Do you not agree that the first is more concise, encyclopedic, and logically arranged? I gave justifications for my changes when making them: "plays a major role" in religions is unacademic and has no basis in sources. Also 'prophylactic usage originated in England' it should probably be noted what male circumcision was promoted as a prophylaxis for.

I didn't add novel information, since the figures on prevalence are drawn from Prevalence of circumcision and the information on promotion of circumcision to prevent masturbation (a source on which I restored from the main article) is in History of circumcision. But I certainly agree, if this is what you mean to imply, that at least mentions of the two should be made in the main article, since the two are seldom viewed by comparison

(see here ) P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This is not about what I believe, but what about what RS say. 11:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Is my revision not more in line with the sources? P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the whole objection is that, No they do not support most of your edits. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No, the only objections made were that I mentioned female genital mutilation, and copied material from a split article Prevalence of circumcision.

Also that I spent 'too long' on history, which is not really substantive. If the lede will mention history, it should give a comprehensive overview of the history of the practice, which I think I achieved in a few sentences. You will find that I summarized and abbreviated in other places also without loss of information, and that existing material was unacademic and not in line with sources. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The lede is not the place for that, it is only a summary. Now propse a new text here, and let's see what people object to. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

My revision was a summary of material in the article. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. For instance, read what we actually say in main text and then compare to your circumcision is generally regarded as a religious obligation for ... Coptic Christian men. That is not a proper summary of the position amongst Christians. And that's a for instance. I would strongly suggest leaving the lead alone and concentrating on main text. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

As it stands, it is flawed and misleading. P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The cited sources are clear that it is a cultural practice and not a religious obligation among Coptic Christians. Your version (which stated otherwise) would be the 'flawed and misleading' one. MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

In wiki's articles about the ridged band, the erogenous functions of the prepuce are included. ~2026-80006-8 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

There's no section on loss of sensitivity because the medical sources (several of which are already cited in the article) clearly state that in fact there is no loss of sensitivity. Wikipedia follows the medical sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This is blatantly false, wiki's own articles on anatomical parts of the foreskin that are removed during circumcision cite their highly erogenous nature. MANY studies cite the loss of sensation due to circumcision. ~2026-80006-8 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to think that is 'blatantly false', but the policy at Wikipedia:No Original Research requires the article to follow the medical sources and not the opinion of an anonymous person who disagrees on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

ridiculous, this is obviously part of wiki's feminist project. its disgusting to be honest, its so unbelievably obvious that circ reduces pleasure. i see you've also taken out mentions of the nerve endings in the frenulun and inner mucosa.

its so backwards and regressive. ~2026-80006-8 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Then provide an RS saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

“It’s so incredibly obvious that circ reduces pleasure” yet you haven’t given a single reliable source supporting that this entire discussion. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

holy hell, you guys have scrubbed all mention of erogenous tissue from the page on the frenulum and inner mucosa. and you removed the page for the ridged band. this is absolutely crazy, a few months ago the articles on circ was very difficult. why are you doing this? you're spreading harmful disinformation ~2026-80006-8 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea how etiquette on this site works. Screaming “HARMFUL DISINFORMATION” without any evidence is certainly no way to get a point across. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)