Talk:Circumcision: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

By /

Line 305: Line 305:

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2025 ==

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2025 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Circumcision|answered=no}}

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

Please revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1327812894 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=next&oldid=1327812894. The JC and IMDB are not reliable sources, as per [[WP:THEJC]] and [[WP:IMDB]]. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-41322-85|~2025-41322-85]] ([[User talk:~2025-41322-85|talk]]) 06:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Please revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1327812894 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=next&oldid=1327812894. The JC and IMDB are not reliable sources, as per [[WP:THEJC]] and [[WP:IMDB]]. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-41322-85|~2025-41322-85]] ([[User talk:~2025-41322-85|talk]]) 06:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

: THank you for pointing this out. I’ve removed the IMDB source entirely. It quoted Uinterview, which is blacklisted, so that won’t do at all. However the information is clearly ”true” and could be supported by the book itself (it’s a claim by Harry, so a primary source quoting Harry is okay). Indeed, the Jewish chronicle article says exactly the same thing, so the easiest solutionw as just to cite the while paragraph to the JC.{{pb}}But you point out issues with the JC. The JC is not an unreliable source per se. According to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] it is generally unreliable {{tq|regarding Palestine/Israel topics, and requires caution regarding related topics.}} This topic does not fall within that scope, so the source may be used. As such, I have not removed the paragraph altogether.{{pb}}There remains a question whether any of this is [[WP:DUE]] in this article. I already pared back the original additions, and I’m sceptical. If anyone were to argue the whole paragraph is UNDUE, and were to remove it, I would not object. But whilst sceptical, it’s a good faith addition, and I am not ”sufficiently” sceptical to revert it myself. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

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

routine infant circumcision is an increasingly controversial subject. it raises profound questions regarding human rights, medical ethics, religious freedom and consent. countries have considered bans on minors. none of this at all is reflected in your page on circumcision. please consider fixing this. 49.183.66.161 (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Circumcision controversies and Ethics of circumcision. Bon courage (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but these issues are not reflected in this article at all. This isn’t normal. Moving all the criticisms to other articles is, in essence, a form of hiding and censoring them (WP:POV forking).–Anonymous44 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we do need one introductory line. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one line, but many, and not just introductory ones, but a section or two sections. The contents of the articles Circumcision controversies and Ethics of circumcision need to be properly summarised in this article, too. Currently, there isn’t even a link to them in the text, not even in ‘See also’ – you have to look at the template at the bottom, which almost no reader will. Come on, this is as blatant POV forking as it gets. This turns the article into one giant advertisement for circumcision.–Anonymous44 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding there should at least be a small section that summarizes controversies & ethics and links to both of those articles. Covering social, ethical, and legal issues is standard for other articles of this size. GlowingLava (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I add, why does this page say “The accumulated data show circumcision does not have an adverse physiological effect on sexual pleasure, function” yet it is a well known fact that circumcision dries out the glans penis from a lack of coverage, of which the glans penis page says it is “the human male’s most sensitive erogenous zone and primary anatomical source of sexual pleasure”. How can you lose sensitivity in the “most sensitive erogenous zone and primary anatomical source of sexual pleasure” yet lose no sexual pleasure? Greetmurk (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia follows the reliable medical sources, and not unsourced rumors or ‘well known facts’. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly an unsourced rumor to say that cutting off nerve endings from the genitals that had the specific purpose of a gliding function to reduce friction and to protect the most sensitive part of the penis from exposure is in direct contradiction to stating that it has “no impact on sexual pleasure or function”. Not only is sexual pleasure reduce from the literal removal of nerve endings from the foreskin and frenulum, the foreskin is intended to glide around during sex, so it is objectively removing some of the function of the penis. What makes these medical sources reliable? Greetmurk (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look for the word “gliding” in the Foreskin article and was unable to find a single instance so it appears to be a fringe theory. You can also search the word “gliding” in the page archives and there are a few conversations about it you may find interesting. ~2025-34466-53 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer your question, 2A0A:A546:C812:0:8E4:63DA:92F5:94C6 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just read about Jake H waskett and gilgal society 2A0A:A546:C812:0:8E4:63DA:92F5:94C6 (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written as if the research showing there’s “no impact” is objectively true, as if there isn’t more studies that have to be done around this topic, while controversies relating to circumcision are left out. If the foreskin has no purpose, it wouldn’t exist. It’s a pretty big hit to Wikipedia’s credibility when inaccurate statements users have repeatedly opposed are kept up as if it’s a proven fact despite simple common sense contradicting it. It almost feels like they’re paid or it’s circumcised men in denial. Greetmurk (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of vestigial organs? Biological tissue can certainly exist without a clear purpose. Stevanus191909817 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevanus191909817 Are you implying not only an extension of mucosal and nervous tissue is a separate entity, but that it is also vestigial? Are you serious?
I’d bet $20 you are circumcised and American. Artemiser32 (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same guy, but I feel like it’s pretty obvious you are just a troll and here to provoke people 97.94.49.182 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@97.94.49.182 I’m a troll how exactly? You are replying to a talk page as an anonymous account.
If you want to say something substantial, then do it with something regarding the absolute horrid state of this article. Artemiser32 (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have trolled via accusing another commenter of being “American and circumcised” which provides nothing of use. I do not think the article is in a “horrid state”, it looks fine. If you have any issues, provide reliable sources supporting your beliefs 97.94.49.182 (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@97.94.49.182 Sure thing Mr. Minnesota, no bias at all in this article.
The issues have been listed throughout this thread, ranging from a dismissal of the harms of circumcision, the lack of benefits, and the plethora of issues in ethics and the quality of citations, etc. Compared to other articles of the same vein, this article is a sham and an embarrassment.
If you have trouble coming to terms with nervous and mucosal tissue having the functions and properties of nervous and mucosal tissue, feel free to consult your local library for anatomical guidance. Artemiser32 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources to support these claims, please provide them, and I’m sure someone will be happy to add them. They must be compliant with Wikipedia’s policy regarding reliable medical sources. 97.94.49.182 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vestigal organs is a bad argument. There is conclusive evidence of the purpose of foreskin. Most mammals have it. Greetmurk (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m assuming @Stevanus191909817 was just making the point biological tissue doesn’t need a clear/useful purpose to exist. Vestigial organs are just one example of that fact. ~2025-34466-53 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@49.183.66.161 I agree. This article is a sham and is obviously biased toward a favour of genital mutilation. It’s a disgrace to Wikipedia’s credibility. Artemiser32 (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors and sources have noted that the article underrepresents the experiences of men who express deep regret or psychological pain after circumcision.

For example, Hammond & Carmack (2017) surveyed men reporting long-term adverse outcomes; Hammond et al. (2023) found that a minority of circumcised men pursue foreskin restoration due to psychological or emotional reasons. Although the prevalence of regret is uncertain, its existence is well documented.

A balanced paragraph might note that:

  • Most men report no lasting distress;
  • A minority express significant regret and describe their experiences in terms of loss or violation;
  • The medical literature has not quantified this minority, and more systematic study is needed.

References:
[1]
[2]
[3]

I think adding a brief, neutrally worded summary of these perspectives could improve balance and reflect the diversity of peer-reviewed literature.
Editor25319531 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Editor25319531 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage will this evidence be sufficient enough for you to add a brief summary of these findings to the article? Obesechingus (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To my brothers and sisters who read this. Final note before signing off. Apologies for those whose feathers I have already ruffled by not quite knowing the lay of the land here on wikipedia–it was never my intent to break your rules.
I am not misinformation. I am not an object to be kept clean. I am not an animal to be branded. I am a man. I have desires that make me capable of happiness and that make be vulnerable to the abuses of others.
I have suffered for decades because of my involuntary circumcision.
My suffering is mine and will not disappear if it is not represented in this article. But what will be lost is a connection we could have shared; a mutual recognition of our human condition. This life is so fleeting, and I don’t know what will happen tomorrow. But the thing I want more out of in the remaining days I have is compassion, both given and received. Your compassion towards me is a blessing we can both share. I want it, and our world needs it.
So I invite you to see me, deeply. And if not me, then your neighbor, or a friend you haven’t checked in on in a while. Be kind to yourself. You are doing better than you think. You are lovable. You are fundamentally good. And I am grateful to be on this planet with you, regardless of what this article ends up saying. Best of luck out there. Editor25319531 (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor25319531 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources are of no use, and are particularly not to be used to undercut WP:MEDRS, or support FRIN clichés. Bon courage (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bon courage, I appreciate your attention to MEDRS. I think the key point here is that psychological and identity-related outcomes fall partly outside the biomedical evidence hierarchy that MEDRS was designed for.
WP:MEDRS is excellent for evaluating clinical efficacy and physical risk, but studies on psychological well-being, regret, or identity are normally published in psychology, social-science, or human-rights journals rather than medical review venues. Under WP:RS and WP:NPOV, such peer-reviewed work can still be cited to document the existence of these perspectives, especially when biomedical reviews do not address them.
To illustrate the balance in the literature:
  • Morris & Krieger (2013), a systematic review concluding no significant sexual or psychological harm, has been cited roughly 200 times (≈16 per year), making it one of the most frequently referenced “no-adverse-effect” papers.
  • Maloney et al. (2022) similarly reports no significant difference in average satisfaction or regret at the population level.
  • Hammond & Carmack (2017), documenting self-reported long-term regret and distress, has about 77 citations (≈9.5 per year). In addition, Hammond et al. (2023) has been cited 8 times since publication and adds further peer-reviewed data on men pursuing foreskin restoration for emotional reasons.
All of these are peer-reviewed studies. None are Cochrane-type biomedical meta-analyses, but they are the principal sources cited across the literature when discussing psychosocial outcomes of circumcision, both for and against. The key point here is that both sides of the debate rely on comparable types of non-MEDRS literature, and that debate clearly exists within the scholarly record yet is not reflected in the article.
A concise, policy-aligned summary could read:
“Most large-scale or clinical reviews (e.g., Morris & Krieger 2013; Maloney et al. 2022) report no statistically significant group-level differences in satisfaction or sexual function. By contrast, self-reported and qualitative studies (e.g., Hammond & Carmack 2017; Hammond et al. 2023) describe lasting regret or psychological distress among a minority of men. Clinical research has focused primarily on population averages, while autonomy-oriented work has emphasized the significance of individual experiences.
That framing would acknowledge both the well-documented population-level findings and the well-documented minority experience, consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE without implying endorsement of any particular view.
Editor25319531 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same response. Bon courage (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up, Bon courage. Since this seems to be a genuine difference in how we interpret WP:MEDRS’s scope — specifically whether psychological and autonomy-related outcomes fall under its biomedical definition — I’ll open a brief note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and/or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get clarification from a wider group of editors. That way we can apply the correct sourcing standard consistently.
Editor25319531 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion opened at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scope of WP:MEDRS for psychological and autonomy-related outcomes in medical topics.
Editor25319531 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)•••••••••[reply]
Further clarification requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for broader input.
Editor25319531 (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the post on RSN. WP:YESBMI says Biomedical Information includes “Whether human health is affected by a particular substance, practice, environmental factor, or other variable; what those effects are, how and when they occur or how likely they are, at what levels they occur, and to what degree; whether the effects (or the original variables) are safe, nutritious, toxic, beneficial, detrimental, etc.” Circumcision is evidently a “particular practice”, and the content at question relates to the “affect” of that practice. Therefore, the crux of the issue is whether claims about psychological distress or regret are “human health”. (Claims about public perceptions of circumcision and medical ethics do not constitute biomedical information per WP:NOTBMI.)
According to the writing of the current policy, this suggests to me:
– We should avoid writing about psychological health using non-MEDRS sources. (depression, distress, quality of life measures)
– We should write about cultural psychology using both MEDRS and non-MEDRS sources (regret, loss, social movements, autonomy, etc.)
The sources being discussed above clearly straddle both types of claim, so I think User:Editor25319531‘s approach is fine – with word-smithing to de-emphasize psychological health claims.
Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: I glanced at the Talk page archives, and I see there are already 100,000 words of discussion about this exact issue, so I already regret making this comment. Best of luck to those who continue to engage. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are almost no circumstances writing Wikipedia where primary sources “should” be used, even more especially for research. All articles must be based on secondary sources and the goal is to summarise accepted knowledge. At most, primary sources are useful for touching-in non-controversial details. Bon courage (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After the last changes by Wikipedialuva we now read:

“Not being circumcised is the primary risk factor for penile cancer.[69][70][71] Alas, at the age of 18, only 1% of men have that condition. [57]”

The 1% is related to a non-retractable foreskin, of course not penile cancer which is very, very rare at that age.

Before the changes by Wikipedialuva it read: “Having a non-retractable foreskin is one of the primary risk factors for penile cancer. [69][70] Alas, at the age of 18, only 1% of men have that condition.”

And that is exactly the case. Not the retractable foreskin is a risk factor, just the non-retractable one.

As it was already written some lines below:

“This can be inferred from study results that show uncircumcised men with no history of phimosis are equally likely to have penile cancer as circumcised men.”

And it is not THE primary risk factor, but ONE of the primary risk factors. Smoking tobacco increases the risk in the same dimension.

“Not being circumcised is the primary risk factor for penile cancer.” is misleading, because it suggests that the foreskin is a risk factor. But this is only the case, if it is not retractable. Sambirano (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK (to both sides), provide a quote from the sources that supports your text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“…since there was no evidence of an association of circumcision with invasive disease when analyses were restricted to individuals with no history of phimosis”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3139859/ Sambirano (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“When we restricted our analysis to men who did not have phimosis, the risk of invasive penile cancer associated with not having been circumcised in childhood was not elevated (OR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.1–2.5). Cigarette smoking was associated with a 4.5-fold risk (95% CI 2.0–10.1) of invasive penile cancer.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ijc.21009 Sambirano (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now let’s wait for the other side. Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I invited Wikipedialuva to this discussion some hours ago.
I mean, Wikipedialuva was right to revert because I messed up with the sources. That was my fault.
But his revert left the text in state that made no sense. So I corrected my error with the references and made sense of the text.
Here are some additional sources:
“The presence of a foreskin do not increase the risk on penile cancer “
https://www.scielo.br/j/ibju/a/d5nTkF7zJmjZLhM4RhQKrvG/?lang=en
“Intact foreskin does not increase the risk of penile cancer. “
https://journals.lww.com/ijst/fulltext/2021/42010/male_circumcision_and_sexually_transmitted.1.aspx
“…and the observed association with invasive carcinoma was weakened appreciably when the analysis was restricted to subjects with no history of phimosis (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.29–2.6).”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011266405062Sambirano (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Sambirano (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be well into bedtime where they are, they are not required to respond immediately. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Then, good night! Sambirano (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been two days, with no counter claim, I think you can go ahead and make your change. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your OK! Sambirano (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sambirano @Slatersteven: I apologize as I have been away for several days and am just now getting to be able to respond.
To summarize what has happened. On October 30, Sambirano made 3 edits that changed the following: “Not being circumcised is the primary [[risk factor]] for [[penile cancer]].<ref name=tpc>{{cite book |vauthors=Ottenhof SR, Bleeker MC, Heideman, DA, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Horenblas S |chapter=Etiology of Penile Cancer |year=2016 |veditors=Muneer A, Horenblas S|title=Textbook of Penile Cancer |publisher=Springer |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-33220-8_2 |edition=2nd |pages=11–15 |isbn=978-3-319-33220-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[American Cancer Society]] |url=https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html |title=Risk Factors for Penile Cancer |date=25 June 2018 |access-date=25 January 2023 |archive-date=25 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220725193031/https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html |url-status=live }}</ref>”
to
“Having a non-retractable foreskin is one of the primary [[risk factor | risk factors]] for [[penile cancer]]. <ref name=tpc>{{cite book |vauthors=Ottenhof SR, Bleeker MC, Heideman, DA, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Horenblas S |chapter=Etiology of Penile Cancer |year=2016 |veditors=Muneer A, Horenblas S|title=Textbook of Penile Cancer |publisher=Springer |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-33220-8_2 |edition=2nd |pages=11–15 |isbn=978-3-319-33220-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[American Cancer Society]] |url=https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html |title=Risk Factors for Penile Cancer |date=25 June 2018 |access-date=25 January 2023 |archive-date=25 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220725193031/https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Alas, at the age of 18, only 1% of men have that condition. <ref name=”hayashi_2011″/>”
While they did not add the references to their claims in the article body, they mentioned “”A 30-Year Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” https://www.indonesianjournalofcancer.or.id/e-journal/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1123” in the edit summary.
I then did a partial revert several hours later and added a WP:MEDRS complaint source, with the edit summary: “manual undo rev 1319533040 (appears to be WP:OR and source does not state the above and instead explicitly states there are a multitude of reasons why circumcision is protective against penile cancer and does not state anywhere what was written)” to:
“Not being circumcised is the primary [[risk factor]] for [[penile cancer]].<ref name=”Giona 2022″>{{cite book |vauthors=Giona S |title=Urologic Cancers |chapter=The Epidemiology of Penile Cancer |publisher=Exon Publications |date=September 12, 2022 |isbn=978-0-6453320-5-6 |doi=10.36255/exon-publications-urologic-cancers-epidemiology-penile-cancer |doi-access=free |url=https://exonpublications.com/index.php/exon/article/download/epidemiology-of-penile-cancer/1143 |access-date=October 30, 2025 |page=131–139}}</ref>”
Sambirano then made another edit with the summary that “Penile cancer is not related to foreskin but to phimosis. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision#This_does_not_make_sense” which stated “Having a non-retractable foreskin is one of the primary risk factors for penile cancer. <ref name=AAP_2012/><ref name=larke_penile_cancer_2011/> Alas, at the age of 18, only 1% of men have that condition. <ref name=”hayashi_2011″/>”
At this point, SlaterSteven reverted to the last undisputed page revision. While I was gone and unable to respond, there was some back and forth. On November 2, SlaterSteven noted since I had not responded, letting Sambirano know they may go ahead and make the changes. Sambrino went beyond the original changes he attempted and removed a large body of the text Changing: “Not being circumcised is the primary [[risk factor]] for [[penile cancer]].<ref name=tpc>{{cite book |vauthors=Ottenhof SR, Bleeker MC, Heideman, DA, Snijders PJ, Meijer CJ, Horenblas S |chapter=Etiology of Penile Cancer |year=2016 |veditors=Muneer A, Horenblas S|title=Textbook of Penile Cancer |publisher=Springer |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-33220-8_2 |edition=2nd |pages=11–15 |isbn=978-3-319-33220-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |publisher=[[American Cancer Society]] |url=https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html |title=Risk Factors for Penile Cancer |date=25 June 2018 |access-date=25 January 2023 |archive-date=25 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220725193031/https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Pre-adolescent circumcision has a strong protective effect against penile cancer in later life.<ref name=”Thomas_2021″ /> Penile cancer is a rare disease in the [[developed world]] but much more prevalent in the [[developing world]].<ref name=”Thomas_2021″ /> The penile tissue removed during circumcision is a potential origin for penile cancer.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Hakenberg OW, Compérat EM, Minhas S, Necchi A, Protzel C, Watkin N | title = EAU guidelines on penile cancer: 2014 update | journal = European Urology | volume = 67 | issue = 1 | pages = 142–150 | date = January 2015 | pmid = 25457021 | doi = 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.017 | type = Practice guideline }}</ref> Risk-benefit considerations around the use of circumcision as a cancer-preventive measure are a source of debate.<ref name=”tpc” />”
to
“Having a non-retractable foreskin is one of the primary [[risk factor | risk factors]] for [[penile cancer]].<ref name=larke_penile_cancer_2011/> Alas, at the age of 18, only 1% of men have that condition.<ref name=”hayashi_2011″/> Risk-benefit considerations around the use of circumcision as a cancer-preventive measure are a source of debate.<ref name=”tpc” />”
There are several issues with the edits. Including WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE. First, the material being discussed is undoubtedly biomedical content, and thus WP:MEDRS applies. WP:MEDRS states, in a nutshell: “Ideal sources for biomedical material include systematic and literature reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised, standard medical textbooks, or medical guidelines and position statements from reputable national or international expert bodies.” It goes on to state that “A primary source is one in which the authors directly participated in the research and documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or supervised those who did. Many papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made.” It also noted, “Per the Wikipedia policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, articles need to be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, the Wikipedia community relies on guidance contained in expert scientific reviews and textbooks, and in official statements published by major medical and scientific bodies. … Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable (any given primary source may be contradicted by another). Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis).”
To be clear, many of the current studies and articles in the article do not meet current WP:MEDRS standards (including the currently used “larke_penile_cancer_2011”); however, this does not excuse the fact that new edits with new claims still must use WP:MEDRS standards. This is why I added a MEDRS-compliant source to my edit. Of the (mostly non-WP:MEDRS) sources discussed by Sambirano, many cut against the very claim that is being made that the primary issue is non-retractable foreskin, rather than not being circumcised in general. For example, Mehta et al. (2021) state that circumcision “reduces the risk of men acquiring herpes simplex virus-2 and human papillomavirus (HPV) that can cause penile and other anogenital cancers, by 30%.” There are at most two MEDRS sources that Sambirano has offered: the above Mehta article and the Surya et al. (2024) article noted in their early edit summary. However, the Surya review seems to run into issues with WP:DUE.
WP:DUE states, in part: “Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a “see also” to an article about those specific views.”
The Surya review article (which is still not cited in the article text), while it would appear to meet the criteria for a normal WP:MEDRS reference, runs into issues with WP:DUE. The review concluded, “There was no significant relationship between circumcision and genitourinary cancer.” This flies in the face of the overwhelming current medical and scientific consensus of published material that circumcision does significantly reduce the risk of penile cancer. The Surya study further mentions that it even acknowledges that “Although the meta-analysis of the odds ratio for penile cancer is not significant, this study shows that the proportion of patients with penile cancer who have not undergone circumcision is much greater than those who have not undergone circumcision.” It also discusses numerous limitations with itself. “Meta-analysis of proportion studies themselves is still not popular. However, in discussions that cannot present information regarding the impact of an intervention due to the lack of comparative studies, a meta-analysis of proportions is quite useful to provide an overview of an intervention on a particular outcome [11]. This study has several limitations. Most of the studies included in this meta-analysis used data obtained through interviews, so it was subjective. This study only examined the association between circumcision and penile and prostate cancer. There was still not enough data on research about circumcision and its association with kidney, bladder, and testicular cancer. Also, there were no studies about the association between uncircumcised and the proportion of prostate cancer. Future research needs to be conducted to explore the association between circumcision and the proportion of prostate cancer.” The view that circumcision status is irrelevant unless phimosis is present is an outlier in the literature. WP:DUE requires the article to represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, and this opinion obviously exists; it is not one supported by the vast majority of the literature and is an outlier.
Any new revision to the text that contains biomedical information must adhere to WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE, and the current iteration does not. Sambirano’s change, which attributes the risk solely to phimosis and removes the broader risk factor status, appears to be out of compliance with WP:DUE by overemphasizing that it must be just the issues with foreskin retraction while excluding the current medical consensus that circumcision does have a protective effect and the other protective effects of circumcision, such as the reduced risk of HPV, a known cause of penile cancer. I would be fine updating the language to reflect that elimination of a non-retracting foreskin may be one of several reasons circumcision is protective against the risk of penile cancer. The current source is from 2011 and explicitly states: “Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis.” This goes against what is currently written and, in fact, cuts against the claim that it is purely related to phimosis reduction.
For the above reasons and for the time being, I am reverting back to the last rev before the dispute occurred, as SlaterSteven originally did. Assuming that WP:MEDRS sources are used and sources’ viewpoints noted are in association with WP:DUE, I have no problem engaging in discussion to update the article language to reflect this. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TEXTWALL. That’s 1721 words. Please try to keep discussion concise. I have obverted your revert. I think the case was made for the edit (albeit we may tweak the wording). Pertinent is that I do not believe Wikipedia should be saying something different from Cancer Research UK [1], the American Cancer Society [2] or MacMillan Cancer support [3] and many other health care professionals, all who seem to be in clear agreement that it is phimosis that is the risk factor, and not the mere existence of a foreskin. We would need a very clear consensus, based on WP:MEDRS that clearly demonstrate that they are incorrect, before writing our article in such a way as to oppose them. I do suggest, however, that we use their terminology. A tight foreskin or phimosis, rather than a non retractable foreskin. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add to my comment. In your TEXTWALL you reference Giona (2022) to support Not being circumcised is the primary risk factor for penile cancer. The abstract of that chapter actually says Human papilloma virus (HPV16-18) infection, phimosis, and smoking have been found to be the strongest risk factors for penile cancer, born out in the content. There is a bit of detail on page 132 regarding hygiene that should be considered (particularly since reducing risk of HPV will lower another primary risk) but Giona says clearly that phimosis is the risk (along with HPV and smoking). That is the headline. Indeed the three risk factors are discussed first and then the benefits of circumcision as an intervention are considered. It is fallacious to say that the lack of intervention is itself the primary risk. It is not, and the paper does not say that. See the conclusion, which again lists the risks, placing HPV first, and the only intervention that is named in the conclusion is HPV vaccination. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy
See WP:TEXTWALL. That’s 1721 words. Please try to keep discussion concise.
Much of the wording was direct quotes with nowiki to make clear what language was used and what was added and readded and when. When we are getting into a very technical discussion, specifically involving a number of different technical sources involving WP:MEDRS, along with revisions and reading, a lengthy discussion is often required to actually deal with the full topic. My response was not WP:COTD, nor was it WP:MWOT.
I have obverted your revert. I think the case was made for the edit (albeit we may tweak the wording).
As I stated in my original reply, I was trying to WP:AGF and attempting to try to reach a consensus on wording and was open to changes: “Assuming that WP:MEDRS sources are used and sources’ viewpoints noted are in association with WP:DUE, I have no problem engaging in discussion to update the article language to reflect this.” If the issue was whether circumcision was the “primary” risk factor or not, I would agree and be fine with removing the “primary” modifier.
“Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.” Consensus has not been established in this article because a single user made claims, and the reverting user was off-wiki for two days and unable to respond. This does not establish consensus, “nascent” or otherwise. The only reason why @Slatersteven, who reverted Sambirano’s edit, did so was precisely because there was NOT consensus on that wording. Slatersteven said it was okay to re-add if there was no counterclaim within two days when I was off-wiki, not because there was any consensus on the wording or the facts. The only other user besides Slatersteven was the user who made the change. However, as my above response and edit history demonstrate, I was absent for several days on other business and was not able to respond within the timeframe. To the extent there was any consensus that started to form, my response broke such consensus. Even assuming there was a consensus on the earlier wording, which again there was not, there was certainly no consensus for the ultimate edit that was made and that you restored.
Pertinent is that I do not believe Wikipedia should be saying something different from Cancer Research UK [1], the American Cancer Society [2] or MacMillan Cancer support [3] and many other health care professionals, all who seem to be in clear agreement that it is phimosis that is the risk factor, and not the mere existence of a foreskin.
All of the above sources are in clear agreement that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, and while all sources note that phimosis increases the risk of cancer, none of them say that it is the primary risk factor (and especially not the exclusion of circumcision in general). All of them also mention that other causes like HPV are risk factors as well, which circumcision is also protective against. For example, Cancer Research UL writes, “Around 6 out of 10 (60%) penile cancer cases are caused by HPV infection. HPV type 16 and 18 are the most common type in penile cancer.” As the MEDRS source I originally added (Giona 2022) states: “Human papilloma virus (HPV16-18) infection, phimosis, and smoking have been found to be the strongest risk factors for penile cancer, and they can significantly increase its incidence.” This makes it explicitly clear that while phimosis is a risk factor, it is far from the only one. As I discussed above, I am more than open to adding a statement that includes information that phimosis is a risk factor, but there is no information in anything you have supplied that would support the removal of the language that discussed the protective effects of circumcision.
We would need a very clear consensus, based on WP:MEDRS that clearly demonstrate that they are incorrect, before writing our article in such a way as to oppose them.
Again, I am not claiming those sources are incorrect; rather, I am stating they they do not claim phimosis is the sole risk that should be discussed in penile cancer to the exclusion of circumcision. In fact, they all do explicitly note that circumcision is protective and does decrease the risk of penile cancer. As your sources and the MEDRS source I added stated, phimosis is a risk factor; however, there is more than one risk factor that circumcision is protective against other than just preventing phimosis.
I do suggest, however, that we use their terminology. A tight foreskin or phimosis, rather than a non retractable foreskin.
I do not oppose the terminology change.
I’ll add to my comment. In your TEXTWALL you reference Giona (2022) to support Not being circumcised is the primary risk factor for penile cancer. The abstract of that chapter actually says Human papilloma virus (HPV16-18) infection, phimosis, and smoking have been found to be the strongest risk factors for penile cancer, born out in the content. There is a bit of detail on page 132 regarding hygiene that should be considered (particularly since reducing risk of HPV will lower another primary risk) but Giona says clearly that phimosis is the risk (along with HPV and smoking). That is the headline. Indeed the three risk factors are discussed first and then the benefits of circumcision as an intervention are considered.
The entire article explicitly lists under the “Risk Factors” section “Circumcision and hygiene.” This section states: “A recent consensus meeting in Brazil by The Brazilian Urology, Clinical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, and Pathology Societies (5) found evidence that circumcision of newborns (13) reduces the risk of penile cancer, in particular, the most invasive type (13). The European Urology guidelines support this evidence stating, “Neonatal circumcision reduces the incidence of penile cancer; however, it does not seem to reduce the risk of PeIN (Penile intra-epithelial neoplasia)” (14). This though do not apply to circumcision in adulthood (5). Circumcision does seem, however, to protect against penile HPV infection in adults, especially in HIV-positive patients (15) and helps to maintain adequate genital hygiene, which is also essential in reducing the risk of malignancy (16).”
It is fallacious to say that the lack of intervention is itself the primary risk. It is not, and the paper does not say that.
The article clearly states that circumcision is indeed a protective factor against penile cancer and that it reduces HPV, which is one of the key factors related to malignancy, along with the fact that circumcision is also protective due to the fact that it helps “maintain adequate genital hygiene.”
See the conclusion, which again lists the risks, placing HPV first, and the only intervention that is named in the conclusion is HPV vaccination.
The article dicusses several other risk factors in the conclusion, including smoking and hygiene, and prevention in general. It also does not list phimosis in the conclusion (while having listed it in the body, like circumcision), and while it does not explicitly name circumcision in the conclusion as an intervention, it does explicitly list hygiene as a prevention factor, and within the article body, the article does explicitly list circumcision as related to hygiene: “Circumcision and hygiene.”
The edit you restored shifts the primary focus from circumcision’s effect on penile cancer (the article’s topic and the section is about) to phimosis and its prevalence at age 18 and to the exclusion of other protective factors related to circumcsion. Simply put, this article is not about phimosis; it is about circumcision, and the section is “penile cancer”; the lead sentence should reflect this. The current article states in the heading (and is supported by a MEDRS source): “Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer.” This is what the overwhelming majority of research shows, including the articles you cited. The addition you reverted to makes claims that clearly MEDRS claims, but omits MEDRS references, and frankly appears to be POV pushing. For that reason, at least for the time being, I am going to copy current and standing language that is supported by WP:MEDRS that is definitely related to the topic at hand in the heading for the time being. Regarding the risk factors that may lead to circumcision protective effects, inasmuch as they are related to the topic of the article and supported by MEDRS sources (which would likely include HPV, hygiene, and phimosis), I am open to discussion and attempting to build consensus regarding wording. Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s another 1600 words, which I would suggest is unnecessary since your new formulation looks better. Simply: the chapter you quoted is clear. The main risk factors are HPV, phimosis and smoking. Circumcision is an intervention. Yes, I drew attention to the fact that it also reduces the risk of HPV (I used 26 words to say so). But what you fail to add when you mention HPV is that the single best intervention to reduce the risk of HPV is vaccination. Your text was incorrect, your new text is better, albeit I have joined it with the clearly related following sentence. Finally, just to say, you will not get much response from other editors if you keep writing TEXTWALLs, and WP:COTD and WP:MWOT are not an exhaustive taxonomy of the genus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I was warned by several users about “edit warring”? Did we achieve consensus about the last changes? Did we discuss them? No, it was just done. Do tons of words give right?

There has still no evidence been shown that a retractable (that is different from “tight”, “tight” is something subjective) foreskin is a risk factor for penile cancer. But there is evidence for the opposite.
One should name the primary issue (non-retractable foreskin) and not the secondary (circumcision). Infant circumcision as a prophylactic measure against penile cancer does not make sense as it would mean the useless destruction of 99 foreskins to prevent a single case of an adult non-retractable one (that still would just increase the risk in the same order of smoking).
Every adult man with the condition non-retractable foreskin can decide for himself if he is willing to take the increased risk (as he is allowed to decide for himself to smoke or not) or to get circumcised or to undergo foreskin-saving surgery. And, as Sirfurboy mentioned, the by far best method to prevent both penile cancer and cervix cancer is HPV vaccination, which is more and more a standard procedure and paid for by social health insurance in more and more countries.

“Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer” – this statement is still misleading. Neonatal circumcision does not decrease the risk of penile cancer in the 99% of boys that would later have had a retractable foreskin without circumcision. Sambirano (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section still needs work. There is repetition, and things left unsaid. But let’s be clear: the errant suggestion that lack of circumcision is the highest risk factor has been removed and remains removed. That is a step forward. Your edit was also a step forward, but it did leave out the relevance of HPV, and it didn’t use the term “phimosis”. What we are looking for is a better section overall, so I didn’t revert Wikipedialuva’s bold edit, even though I was not especially impressed by the habit of coming in, posting a wall of text, and making a change without discussion. Again, we want the page to be better, so improving edits should be allowed.What remains wrong here, from what I can see, is the following:
  1. The new edit introduces repetition. We now have:

    Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer; however, risk-benefit considerations around the use of circumcision as a cancer-preventive measure are a source of debate.
    … Penile cancer has been observed to be nearly eliminated in populations of males circumcised neonatally.

    One or the other should probably go.

  2. The new edit removes the observation that circumcision as an intervention involves an invasive procedure on a whole population of neonates (who cannot consent) for the benefit of the small number who would otherwise develop cancer. All we now say of that is that it is a source of debate. That needs expanding.
  3. The third paragraph mentions HPV and phimosis, and circumcision as mitigating. That’s all very well, but as discussed above, HPV vaccination is the proposed intervention for HPV, not neonatal circumcision (Giona, 2022:137), and we should say so. This is confirmed in other sources too, although some mention circumcision. Nevertheless, it is clear that even when they do, they see vaccination as the best prevention where available since it is more effective, less invasive, and also protects women.[4] (sorry about mixed ref style. But hey, this is a talk page).
  4. I’d like someone familiar with WP:MEDRS to review the sentence about prostate cancer and the systematic review cited.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer” – to say so right at the start is similar like saying: “removing the gall bladder decreases the risk of cancer of the gall bladder”. This is obvious, but is also completely misleading. No one would remove a healthy, stone-free gall bladder as a prophylactic intervention.
“Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer” makes readers think that circumcision was a reasonable prophylactic measure against penile cancer. Which is not the case in about 99% of men.
Since penile cancer is a cancer of old men, every adult man can decide on his own if he (in nearly all cases erroneously) believes that his foreskin might put him in danger of PC. Sambirano (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is specifically in neo-natal circumcision where any such benefit accrues. Now, rather than debate the issue, see what I said in point 2. How should we expand “a source of debate” to capture the concerns and make the point about risk-benefit etc? What secondary sources discuss that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first cut is the deepest. And the first sentence in a paragraph sets the tone. Many people just read the first sentence of a paragraph and then skip to the next paragraph.
Cancer is a nightmare to most people, understandably. This line is playing with the “power of nightmares”. Parents read it and think: “Oh, we have to circumcise our little baby boy, otherwise we are guilty if he develops cancer when he is old!” – which is completely nonsense. Every adult is himself responsible for his health. If a young man has phimosis (just 1% of young men), he might decide for circumcision or foreskin-saving surgery (in most cases for the reason of painless sex and cleaning) – or he might chose to live with an increased risk (which is still small compared to the risk most common cancers like that of colon or lung). Or he might decide to stop smoking to reduce his risk in the same order.

“Except it is specifically in neo-natal circumcision where any such benefit accrues.”
Is that the case? The line “Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer” is double-misleading. 1. – as I wrote above, 2. the “decrease” is not restricted to “neonatal”.
See for example Larke et al. “There was a strong protective effect of childhood/adolescent circumcision on invasive penile cancer”.
So, the line must at least be changed to “childhood/adolescent circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer” but that would be still misleading.

Larke et al. state that: “In contrast, there was some evidence that circumcision in adulthood was associated with an increased risk of invasive penile cancer”
Yes, but they also explain why: “One possible reason for the increased risk of invasive penile cancer among men circumcised mostly as adults may be reverse causality: the surgery may have been performed as a treatment for penile cancer, a cancer precursor, or to treat an underlying medical condition known to be a risk factor for penile cancer (foreskin tightness, phimosis, or inflammation of the foreskin). Indeed in one study, all identified circumcisions were performed at older ages due to a medical indication, and although these were performed >5 years prior to the reference date [27], this may explain the significantly elevated risk for invasive cancer among circumcised men”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3139859/
Penile cancer is basically a cancer of old men. So this cancer needs a lot of time to develop. Long-time persistent inflammation under a phimotic foreskin can cause penile cancer when the man is old.
There is no reason to believe that a circumcision of a young man with phimosis would not have the same protective effect as in “adolescence”. There are no studies that show this. The latter would make sense, Circumcision of boys to protect against PC would be a huge waste of surgery and a huge waste of foreskins.
Beside that, comparing the large gap of penile cancer rates between Denmark and some regions in Brazil it should be clear that might be are other, stronger and not really known risk factors.

The article “Penile Cancer” in WP puts it right: “Risk factors include phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin of the penis), chronic inflammation, smoking, HPV infection, condylomata acuminate, having multiple sexual partners, and early age of sexual intercourse” Sambirano (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to change that sentence to: “Phimosis of the foreskin increases the risk of penile cancer. Since circumcision removes the foreskin it decreases that risk in the small fraction of men that have a phimotic foreskin in adulthood.” Sambirano (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made some bold edits. My reasons are as follows:
1. The Problem
We had a cancer section in addition to an HPV section and phimosis section which was mixing together cancer risk information regarding HPV (which is best mitigated by vaccination) and phimosis (which is, in fact, best mitigated by circumcision). A problem: it is neo-natal circumcision that particularly is shown (in the evidence) to be protective against phimosis (which is nevertheless very rare). HPV risk is reduced by circumcision in adulthood, but this benefit does not accrue (in the data) for phimosis.
2. My solution
As we already have HPV and Phimosis sections, it really makes much more sense to discuss the cancer risks there, and contextualise the procedure for each case. Indeed, the HPV section already had some of this.
3. Side effect
The cancer section contains some information that cannot be moved, so I renamed it, cut it back, and provided it a new summary sentence from Giona (2022) saying what the 3 main cancer risks are, before retaining the other cancer risk information. This will signpost readers (who may only scan on the headings) to the related content.
I’ve put back your text in an appropriate place about the 1% of 18 year olds. I hope this deals with your concerns, and proves acceptable to all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not quite understand why you focus on “neonatal circumcision”, Sirfurboy. As I already wrote and studies show, circumcision in later childhood or adolescence also reduce the risk of PC. And thus, little doubt can there be that circumcision of young men aged, say 18-20 would reduce the risk just the same. Cancer needs a long time to develop. At an age, every man is able to decide for himself what he prefers or what kind of surgery he prefers.
Anyway, to keep the article consistent this sentence in the header section: “Neonatal circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer” should be changed, too. Many folks just read the top section and “aha!”, and they are gone.
The edits you made are in my view sure an improvement, some fine tuning might do good. Sambirano (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Apologies for the delay in my reply. You say, I do not quite understand why you focus on “neonatal circumcision” … circumcision in later childhood or adolescence also reduce the risk of PC. I’m following the sources. Giona (2022) says, talking about Phimosis,

A recent consensus meeting in Brazil … found evidence that circumcision of newborns (13) reduces the risk of penile cancer, in particular, the most invasive type (13)… This though do not apply to circumcision in adulthood (5).

Reference (5) there is to this [5], which verifies,

Circumcision of newborns, though not in adulthood (Larke et al. 2011), reduces the risk of penile cancer (LE: 3a), especially invasive penile cancer (Larke et al. 2011). Circumcision does, however, protect against penile HPV infection in adults, especially in HIV-positive patients (Yuan et al. 2019).

And that is what Giona and other sources are saying. For phimosis, the evidence is that it is neonatal circumcision that decreases the risk. I would have thought that there is no sudden cut off on this however. It seems likely to me that childhood circumcision is better (for some value of better invoplving efficacy against phimosis induced risk) than adult circumcision, and we might expect a benefit if the procedure were undertaken when phimosis was recognised. But the sources don’t say that, probably because there is insufficient data. If you do have sources on that, I’ll happily read them. But we must follow the sources.Per the sources, circumcision can be beneficial with adult patients, especially those who are HIV-positive, in reducing the risk of penile cancer from HPV. That belongs in the HPV section though, and my edit sought to remove the confusion of phimosis risks with HPV risks. Also worth noting that the consensus meeting was about circumcision in low and middle income countries, presumably especially because HPV vaccination programmes for men are less likely to be an option in these countries. Regarding the wording in the lead, yes, you are right that many people will only read the lead, and I am not convinced it is appropriately lead worthy, but I haven’t removed it yet. It is sourced to a nature review (although lead statements don’t actually need sourcing since it summarises Giona and other sources). It is undoubtedly true that one is at lower risk of (rare) penile cancer if circumcised as an infant. But it is also only true of those who would otherwise have phimosis and no HPV vaccination. It’s not wrong, per se. How would you suggest modifying it, whilst keeping the text brief and concise, to summarise what we say in the article body? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=1327812894 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=next&oldid=1327812894. The JC and IMDB are not reliable sources, as per WP:THEJC and WP:IMDB. ~2025-41322-85 (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THank you for pointing this out. I’ve removed the IMDB source entirely. It quoted Uinterview, which is blacklisted, so that won’t do at all. However the information is clearly true and could be supported by the book itself (it’s a claim by Harry, so a primary source quoting Harry is okay). Indeed, the Jewish chronicle article says exactly the same thing, so the easiest solutionw as just to cite the while paragraph to the JC.But you point out issues with the JC. The JC is not an unreliable source per se. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources it is generally unreliable regarding Palestine/Israel topics, and requires caution regarding related topics. This topic does not fall within that scope, so the source may be used. As such, I have not removed the paragraph altogether.There remains a question whether any of this is WP:DUE in this article. I already pared back the original additions, and I’m sceptical. If anyone were to argue the whole paragraph is UNDUE, and were to remove it, I would not object. But whilst sceptical, it’s a good faith addition, and I am not sufficiently sceptical to revert it myself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version