Active discussions
Circumcision has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
February 3, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Page name

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


What is your opinion on this source?
"Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction? - A systematic review. J Sex Med 2013;10:2644-2657"[1] Jas9777 (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are you asking our opinion of the source..? If there is an alternate source we can use on how circumcision affects sexual function that wasn't written by a fringe pro-circumcision activist, I think we should avoid this source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the consensus to only use Brian Morris (and other activists such as Morten Frisch) as a last resort..? Prcc27 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering whether the source was reliable or not. If it's written by someone biased then I suppose it is not reliable then... Jas9777 (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not to use Morris was discussed 6 months ago [1]. The consensus was that Morris sources could still be used. However, that doesn't mean we can't use alternate sources when possible. Prcc27 (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for alternate sources but can't find any reliable ones. I previously provided this source[2], which is reliable and has been used in this article. However, unfortunately the source has not made an association with the foreskin and sensation, even though there is. It is stated as one of the "possible complications" (outlier). I am waiting for this source to be reviewed and updated on 5 November 2021, so hopefully they make an association then. Jas9777 (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In general the way to use sources is to find the best ones (and, however much anti-circumcision activists might seek to cancel him, Morris is an author of many of these) -- and then summarize them. It is really not a good idea to arrive with a pre-conceived POV and then try to find a source to back it up. This tends to cause POV problems. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
A correct, but irrelevant observation. Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn: It is totally relevant. Your comment comes off as snide, condescending, and unprofessional. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't your intention to come off as condescending. Prcc27 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you're wrong. Circumcision activists need to know how things work around here, and it's best to be plain about that. Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Alexbrn: Sharing a cheesy meme that could easily be perceived as condescending, is not the same thing as informing Wikipedia users of our rules. It's not that hard to explain Wikipedia policy in a polite and productive manner. Prcc27 (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There isn't any incivility here, just discuss the sources, Alexbrn always seems perfectly willing to listen IMO. PainProf (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @PainProf: I absolutely agree that we should be discussing the sources. But I just think that if Alexbrn had WP:POV concerns, they should have stopped at linking to the relevant Wikipedia policy, rather than share a meme that can be seen as condescending. Prcc27 (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
      • It was apposite (as you will see below). In any case, going on about it here is getting disruptive. If you have concerns, please take them to an appropriate venue. Here, we should be focussed on improving the article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
After looking through these sources my feeling was it is generally reliable although look at the citations to find criticques. On occasion there is some hyperbole in discussion but as it's a systematic review the safest way is to make sure whatever element was in actual fact part of the systematic review section rather than a discussion point. The systematic review section has ethical rules and is harder to insert opinions into. Some of the discussion points aren't well sourced, this applies to many papers. The reality is the research on the topic is full of COI with limited independent research. My feeling was the field looks completely toxic - as a researcher you can't win. Conversely this means noone wants to wade in. My suggestion would in general to be check what medical textbooks say and general urology reviews say. They tend to have fewer opinions than papers as they are normally more medically focused. If Morris is the only source you can't change it but if there are multiple points of view you can. I doubt there'll be much on this topic though. Some or many of the medical sources might mention it in which case just suggest it and then say a systematic review by Morris et Al...... Suggests XYZ. PainProf (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I think if some surprising claim were made then it could be argued a WP:REDFLAG appears which makes us seek corroborating sourcing. But so far as I can see we don't use Morris reviews for anything startling. On its way to WP:GA this article went through some thorough probing of its sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for AmendmentsEdit

@Alexbrn: NHS Wales states the following, with regards to circumcision, at the bottom of their webpage[1]:

"The main risk is reduced sensation or a permanent change in the sensitivity of the head of your child's penis."
Because they have used the words "main risk" and not "complication", they have therefore made an association with the foreskin, sensation and sensitivity.
This webpage is reliable and was last updated on 12/02/2020.

Jas9777 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Based off my reading which encompassed authoritative urology textbooks, Meatal stenosis is the main long-term risk occasionally requiring corrective surgical procedures. PainProf (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jas9777: Regional NHS is not the greatest source - what precise change are you proposing? Alexbrn (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@Alexbrn: I am proposing the following amendments:
  1. To remove the last sentence on the 3rd paragraph ("Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function")
  2. In the sexual effects subsection, "The highest quality evidence indicates that circumcision does not decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction." should be replaced with "Circumcision will reduce sexual sensation or permanently change the sensitivity of the penis"
  3. Lastly, "The question of how circumcision affects penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction is controversial; some research has found a loss of sensation while other research has found enhanced sensation" should be removed because research that has found enhanced sensation has been disproven.

Jas9777 (talk) 06:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

  Not done All those things are very well-sourced. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're implying that the source, NHS Wales, is not as good. Why? The NHS is a top-tier source. It states on the bottom of the website that this regional NHS has had original content supplied by the NHS themselves. The NHS is a primary source of information and very reliable. Jas9777 (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Regional NHS is odd to use, and carries less authority than our usual NHS sources. But in any case, the source doesn't say anything different to what we already say, except their assessment that loss of sensitivity is the "main risk" (or complication) is contradicted by better sources. Even if their classification were correct, that is no reason to remove swathes of other, unrelated, content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
So... if I managed to find information from the usual NHS source, and it made an association with sensation and the foreskin, would you make my proposed amendments? Jas9777 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Impossible to say without seeing an exact source/proposal. WP:V is policy, and your proposal to remove content was to remove well-sourced content which satisfies WP:V and is due. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Draft:Willy surgery" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Willy surgery. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Draft:Willy surgery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 00:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Circumcision" page.