Talk:Circumcision

Should the article have a "See also" section?

I think so and I've gone and added a small one with short descriptions of why the topics might be of interest to readers. Another editor has repeatedly removed the section, meeting the criteria for an Edit War, then accused me of edit warring preemptively. Coming to the talk page to try to solve this. I like "See also" sections; I think they're quite valuable, especially for large, contentious, & taboo articles. What do y'all think? GlowingLava (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been reverted by more than one editor. We should not include a false equivalance with FGM in this article, not in the see also section nor anywhere else in the article. This has been discussed several times in the talk page archives and all variations on such an addition have been rejected each time. I have confidence that the outcome will be the same this time as well. MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I have now replied to your opinion on FGM being inappropriate to write about in an above section. Do you have an opinion on having a "See also" section regardless of that? GlowingLava (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no false equivalence to juxtapose (male) genital mutilation with (female) genital mutilation, especially when so much as a pinprick is recognized as FGM. ~2026-26814-19 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You have already made a false equivalence in your comment. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the discussion that established that the equivalence is false under all circumstances? The problem is that both operations have a spectrum of severity, and the two overlap. What is done in the field to girls in subSaharan Africa (horrendous) is very different from what doctors do to baby girls in the Middle East, and likewise how boys are cut in the field in Uganda (also horrendous) vs how doctors cut baby boys in the USA. Opponents of FGC of course point to subSaharan Africa, and supporters of infant male foreskin removal speak only of the USA. Those two are not equivalently severe. But that is only severity. On an ethical level, both remove what will in the adult be erogenous tissue from non-consenting minors, and it is the non-consent that creates an ethical equivalence. Hugh7 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision/Archive 86#False equivalence with Female genital mutilation

It seems this is the primary discussion establishing this consensus, though a search for “false equivalence” in the archives will also surely lead you to other mentions of it. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• The article could have a see also section, but not as a vehicle for POV-pushing (I reverted that). Note that the edit-warring editor has previously been notified about WP:CTOPs. Bon courage (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think the article is so bizarrely pro-circumcision that attempts to write neutrally on the topic or add very reasonable sources like recommendations from European medical organizations may look like a POV push. I would position this article as unusually pro-circumcision even for an entirely US audience. In other countries with high English reading rates like the UK or New Zealand or South Africa this article itself would read as biased and outdated. GlowingLava (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's an expression of strong POV without evidence. The article is built on sources, preferably the WP:BESTSOURCES. If they don't accord with certain US world views that is not our problem to fix. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Great job suppressing medical consensus on fluoride poisoning and promoting genital mutilation. I wonder how many babies have been mutilated because of your antiscientific obstructionism. Is that what you want? P. M., Cat Appreciator (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

  Please do not use this talk page if you are going to accuse other editors of “promoting genital mutilation”. You are the only person on this talk page using such bizarre and inflammatory language. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

You say: meeting the criteria for an Edit War. The edit warring is by you. If your addition is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus. Your addition was reverted by two editors and you still tried it again.

On the issue: I oppose a see also, since you note the danger of POV pushing. See also sections allow for editor curation of related articles without the requirement to demonstrate any criteria for that curation. They are often a vehicle of POV pushing, and are over-used. No page is required to have such a section, and the evidence from your edits is that such a curation would occur here if we allowed one. Let's strive for neutrality in presentation by rejecting the addition of such an unnecessary curation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

the start of the page has already a link with Not to be confused with fgm hence it is redundant to have it in see also. Avy42 (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Depends on what goes in it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Misleading comparison image

The second image (File:Uncircumcised and circumcised erect comparison.jpg) under technique section compares an uncircumcised erect penis to a circumcised one, however the uncircumcised one appears to have phimosis since the foreskin is not retracted. This is therefore misleading as the reader may think that uncircumcised penises still have the foreskin covering the glans when erect, which is usually not the case. I could not find an image to replace it however.

I suggest removing the image until a replacement can be found.

Alternatively it could express this in the caption, although I could not come up with a way to articulate all that without the caption being too long. Chattenoir (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The uncircumcised one doesn't have phimosis, the foreskin's just unretracted. I think there are photos in the Commons of the same penis with the foreskin retracted, but the comparison image file wasn't made with it, so you can look for that if you want. Man-Man122 (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Misleading name of article

By naming this article "Circumcision" one might say that this conveys a neutral stance on this procedure. However, circumcision is a very controversial topic because the procedure involves both consensual and non-consensual removal of the foreskin with the later being much more dominant around the world. The fact that the article on female circumcision is clearly labeled as genital mutilation due to it being also non-consensual shows a bias of unprecedented scale. I think that this article needs to be renamed to "Male Genital Mutilation and Consensual Circumcision" in order to show how important context is in such a topic. When people refer to this procedure in a typical conversation they almost always mean non-consensual and permanent modification of a child's body, where the decision is made by the child's parents and is always influenced by religion or culture. In almost all instances of bioethics only an adult person can consent to cosmetic elective surgery or else this violates their right to the integrity of their bodies thus falling under the category of body harm/mutilation. ~2026-40226-31 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Or we go for a short name, because this just adds words. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Then I suggest "Male Foreskin Removal" because "circumcision" has its origin in religion (specifically the first English editions of the Bible), is Latin because the rite/operation was unknown to English-speaking people until the 19th century, and is a euphemistic circumlocution, because it translates as "cutting around", specifying neither what is cut, nor what is cut off. Because of its religious origins, it carries a lot of cultural baggage, with "uncircumcised" being almost synonomous with "unclean" in the Bible (and in the USA). "Male foreskin removal" is what it is, no more, no less. Hugh7 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No one calls it that, though. Wikipedia articles should be titled with the common name in English, see WP:COMMONNAME. That happens to be the name it is already at. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, since the vast majority of people do not refer to male circumcision as “genital mutilation”, it would be unwise to title the article that, as well as potentially introducing POV-pushing. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)