Talk:Circumcision

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. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Wikipedia is not censored.
The images or details on this article may be graphic, offensive, or shocking to some readers. This makes sure this is a quality article and there is full coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer about possible objectionable content.

Images

Just discussing here, does anyone think the use of images (drawings/photos?) would be useful to illustrate the concept. If so, are there any we could use, without too much controversy (porn)? --Eptalon (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:CENSORED, it doesn't matter. Base it on the enWP article, but look for alternatives at Commons (one of our target audiences is children). Griffinofwales (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro circ

[1]

Magnolia (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision does not repress Appetite for Sex

London/Kampala (pte/09.01.2008/06:05) - A circumcision does not diminish sexual satisfaction and also does not repress the appetite for sex. A major study of John Hopkins University http://www.jhu.edu of 5000 Uganda men comes to this conclusion. In the opinion of experts one of the possibilities to prevent new infection with HIV lies in being circumcised. However, the fear of the consequences of circumcision let many shrink away from it, BBC-online reports.

Among the 5,000 examined approximately half were already circumcised, the other half declared to be ready to take this step, the scientists report in the latest issue of the medical journal of the British society for urological surgery, BJU http://www.bjui.org. The evaluation of questions regarding sex life and masturbation did not show any considerable aberration of both groups. 98.4 per cent of the circumcised interviewed declared to be sexually satisfied, with the un-circumcised ones the number was 99,9 per cent. Regarding the question of sexual intercourse 98.6 per cent of the circumcised indicated to have no problems. With the un-circumcised ones the number was at 99,4 per cent. However, 98.8 per cent of the un-circumcised indicated to have no pain during sexual intercourse. Among the circumcised it were 99.4 per cent.

Different studies come to the conclusion that male circumcision can reduce the risk of a HIV transmission substantially. One study even reports a decrease of up to 50 per cent. One of the reasons lies in the fact that certain cells living under the foreskin present a potential target for an HIV infection. However, after a circumcision there is a reduced sensitivity of the glans and thus a reduced risk of injury, which in turn leads to a smaller risk of infection. The authors would state however, that there is an aversion towards circumcision among the population - which mainly is based on the fear of losing sexual sensation. Previous investigations among circumcised men would have brought different results. The researchers at Johns Hopkins University however point out that the large-scale study clears up with these prejudices. "Our study makes clear that a circumcision does not have negative effects on the sex life of the concerned", says the head of the study Ronald Gray.

"The only concern we have, is the fact that the circumcised now believe to be protected against an HIV infection even without a condom", states Deborah Jack, CEO of the National AIDS Trust http://www.nat.org.uk . "The condom still remains the best protection from such an infection."

In Europe the topic circumcision aroused stark interest in the past years. For instance organizations like EURO CIRC http://www.eurocirc.org commited themselves to the topic. "The description of all prejudices against circumcision would fill a book", states Mr. Holzapfel of the educational campaign EURO CIRC in the pressetext interview. The clearest advantage of a circumcised penis would be the better and simpler hygiene. Even with regular washing residues collect under the foreskin. That is not the case with a circumcised penis. "The most frequent medical reason of a circumcision is the phimosis", says Holzapfel. With a phimosis withdrawing of the foreskin is difficult or even completely impossible. "In principle a circumcision can be accomplished at any age", writes EURO CIRC on their website. However, it is advantageous to perform it at an early age already, since the healing proceeds faster.

This page is for discussing our Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting adding this material to the article? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed

All what I have written is removed by Osiris...

217.248.168.136 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Statistic in USA

1.South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Hawaii... This States had the highest percentage of boys cut at birth (75-100%) in USA.

2.Wyoming, Maine, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maryland, New York, South Carloina, Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Minnesota, Colorado, New Jersey, Illinois...This States had (51-75%) percentage of boys cut at birth in USA.

3.Idaho, New Mexico, Alaska, Utah, Texas, Montana, Florida, D.C., Delaware, North Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi... This States had (26-50%) percentage of boys cut at birth in USA.

4.Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona... This States had the lowest (0-25%) percentage of boys cut at birth in USA.

This Statistic is from 2011.

Smegma

Accumulation of smegma beneath the foreskin may result in great discomfort and may serve as the source of a rather penetrating odour, if cleanliness and hygiene are not observed. Studies have indicated that uncircumcised men have a higher incidence of AIDS, syphilis, and other sexually transmitted diseases than circumcised men, and it has been speculated that the foreskin might allow viruses and other microorganisms to survive longer on the skin and thus give the organisms more time to enter the body. Moreover, cancer of the penis is rare in circumcised males and in uncircumcised males with high standards of hygiene.

Save this Page

Please this Page should be save, there are so many Inactivists, People who are aginst male circumcision who made stupid comments on the page and changed so many time.

Thanks.

Constant disruptive editing and vandalism

Hello, I hope this is the right place to discuss this. I would like to pose a request for this page be at least semi-protected. My reasons being that I have lately been seeing a lot of heavy and persistent disruptive editing by unregistered or anonymous users, to the Islamic circumcision section of this article and I believe that it's verging on possible vandalism and leading up to an unnecessary edit war. If someone could hear me out and help fix this that would great because from what I can see, the disruptive editing is not ceasing and I believe that protecting this page is the only way to stop it. FrozenIcicle96 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had been thinking about this. We don't protect for long periods, so I've started off with a month. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ^^^. Good idea, we'll give it about a month. If the disruptive editing still does not cease by then, then more serious precautions will have to be undertaken. FrozenIcicle96 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Men are circumcised

I dint know why there is a person who always claimed muslim boys didnt circumcised?...what a Bullhsit is this? Muslim Boys are circumcised. The age is different from country to country. I can speak only for Turkey who the boys get circumcised with the age of 7-9 mostly.

Please save this Page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.135.59 (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In order for these changes to be accepted, they must have reliable sources supporting them. Otherwise, they cannot be properly verified and thus we have no way of knowing whether it is true or false. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joke?

You want to be say that Muslims Men arround the World are not circumcised? Oh man...any anti circ freak posted here false claims in this article and you belive him? Oh pleaaaaaase common.

Muslim Men arround the World are circumcised, event here live in europe, see the debate in Germany. If you have no knowledge about Male circumcision in the Islam, please be still. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.135.59 (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to call us "freaks", yet we asked for a citation to prove what you say is correct. You simply ignored us and continue to accuse us of inserting false information into the article. Perhaps I need to say this clearly:

Everything on Wikipedia must be credited with a citation/source to prove that it is correct. Any major changes done to Wikipedia must have a citation/source. All citations/sources must be reliable.

--I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the freak is this person who always said, Muslim Men are not circumcised...not me...That Muslim Men are circumcised you can see in so many Internet pages, or ask Muslim mens.

http://convertingtoislam.com/circum.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.135.59 (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Now, I'm not an expert on these sorts of topics, but this article reads as a pro-circumcision article. The whole article is naming the advantages and benefits (some of which are controversial), and the downsides are just 3 lines of text. Etoza (?) 21:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, and you as an opponent No-Circ, who is against circumcision, didnt like this Article, common @Etoza

This Article is not a PRO circumcision article, you can read under benefits and critisism, the Article have a neutral View, there is pro and contra about male circumcison, please be honest. But I know the critisism where is mentioned in this article is not enough for you, You want to be create this page as a NON Circ page, Isnt it? For your information, the majority of circumcised men have no problem with it.

But if you want, you can create a page who are against male circumcision only...not a problem. Or take your Anti-circ statements there in the chapter Benefits and Critisism.

--Nalanidil (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The critisism is written as "They believe that..." and it's only a couple of sentences (compared to a whole subsection of benefits). Circumcision does have benefits, but I think it's important to say that it's not a perfect/one-size-fits-all solution. Also, please don't talk in a rude way if you want to have a normal conversation. Etoza (?) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Etoza, just like I thought you are starting a pro versus anti circumcision debate. This was clear to me, as soon as i read your arguments, i knew exactly what your real concern is. The article is neutral, all is written in a neutral view, but what you chalk off with one phrase in the end of Benefits and Critisim section, shows what your problem is, but then just add your anti-circumcision statements, if it makes you happier.

Should I now, in your opinion, describe the same thing as non-neutral with the article foreskin? For example, one could argue that only advantages of the foreskin are listed there.

--Nalanidil (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The foreskin article has a whole section that debates whether or not foreskin is important. Etoza (?) 18:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do you think so?

@Etoza, then change it if you are so dissatisfied with this Article. What are you waiting for? delete the sentence or add what you think is not enough against circumcision on this page. But in my oppinion, the best thing is, to be write a pro and an anti article on circumcision on two pages. Because that will lead to constant deletion, restoration, again and again, etc.

--Nalanidil (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in my opinion, needs more than adding or deleting sentences to make it neutral, so it's a lot of work. Also, Wikipedia can't have a "pro-circumcision" and "anti-circumcision" article, since Wikipedia has to be neutral on every topic. Controversial articles like circumcision have lots of fighting and deletion (as you mentioned), but that's why we are talking about it here, to resolve the problem and try to make a better article. There is no need for us to write separate articles and not listen to others. I didn't even make a single edit on this article (except for the NPOV template) because I wanted to ask other people's opinions about it first. Etoza (?) 18:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Etoza, This Article is neutral, it isn't only a Pro-Circumcision page as you claim, because the criticism of Circumcision is listed in the article. But what should I say? if two articles are not possible, then only one thing remains: delete all benefits, delete the religious reasons for circumcision, delete the Photos, and create an anti-circumcision page.

--Nalanidil (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. The critisisms are short and they talk about how people "think circumcision is bad", when circumcision can have actual complications and risks. What's wrong with pointing out that a surgery can have complications? The article also mentions that circumcision is common in Western countries as "Many men and teenage boys in Western countries ask for circumcision simply because they like the appearance.", when in fact, circumcision is unpopular outside of the USA, South Korea and Muslim/Jew-majority countries. About 37-39% of people are circumcised, so I wouldn't call that many. You are so busy with calling me anti-circumcision that you don't even realize I don't want to demonize circumcision, remove the benefits and create a anti-circumcision page, as I AM NOT AGAINST CIRCUMCISION. I think it's important to put out facts in a fair and neutral way, which the English Wikipedia does well. I want to have a normal, civil conversation, but you keep ignoring what I'm trying to say.

"then only one thing remains: delete all benefits, delete the religious reasons for circumcision, delete the Photos, and create an anti-circumcision page."

You're quickly assuming what I'm trying to say and not listening. When did I say these things? One of my replies literally said:

"Circumcision does have benefits, but I think it's important to say that it's not a perfect/one-size-fits-all solution."

You disagree with that? Great, please explain why, instead of just saying that the article is neutral and calling me "No-Circ". To me, you do not want to talk to me in a normal way and I will not respond to your passive-aggressive remarks. Etoza (?) 20:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here have a look how many men are cirumcised in % in different countrys:

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

But if you don't like this article: Then change it !!! I already told you, so why are you getting aggressive? You don't like the article, so do something instead of attacking me just because I don't agree with you. If people like you have no other worries and problems in the time of the covid pandemic and are upset about phrases in a circumcision article and behave like that, there is no point in discussing.

--Nalanidil (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That link proves nothing. Western countries are North America, Europe and Australia. Outside of Muslim-majority countries, the circumcision rates are low, so that sentence is still wrong. I find it funny that you're saying I'm attacking you. Let me repeat what I have said a couple of times.

"Also, please don't talk in a rude way if you want to have a normal conversation."

"There is no need for us to write separate articles and not listen to others. I didn't even make a single edit on this article (except for the NPOV template) because I wanted to ask other people's opinions about it first."

"I want to have a normal, civil conversation, but you keep ignoring what I'm trying to say."

"To me, you do not want to talk to me in a normal way and I will not respond to your passive-aggressive remarks."

Please read your own messages. You can't see your own faults. You have biases, and you do not want to admit that. I have biases too, but I'm trying to talk to someone about it. I have been trying to have a normal conversation, but talking with you is like talking to a brick wall. Etoza (?) 09:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Etoza, You shouldn't be offensive. I will not be offended by you. Notice yourself, your tone towards me. First you learn how a discussion should be conducted. Also majority of US American male are circumcised. So your only 39% totally in the world are nonsense.

There are also several pro and cons. pages in English wikipedia about circumcision. Look it.

--Nalanidil (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page in the English Wikipedia is different from this page. The issue with this page is that it acts as if there are a lot of benefits and barely mentions the negatives. Fixing26 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixing26, please see how many differen circumcision pages there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcision_debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Circumcision

--Nalanidil (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware there are pages there, but we're not the English Wikipedia. We're the Simple English Wikipedia, and a page here can have a problem and that page on the English Wikipedia might not. The issue is not with the subject, but the article on this Wikipedia. The NPOV tag warns users some of the information here is not neutral. Fixing26 (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fixing26, It's not about that at all. I always have the feeling you don't understand what I mean or you don't want to understand it. What I gave was an example.

The point is that several circumcision articles are more useful, also here in Simple English Wikipedia.

But as I said, your opinions are different, I find the article yet as it is as neutral.

But I fear that this page will be rewritten as an anti-circumcision article. The various opponents of male-circumcision are just waiting for it.

--Nalanidil (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you the page is lost, yet changes started without knowledge about the Topic.

--Nalanidil (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]