Talk:Circumcision

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)

In my opinion the actual POV-pushing is the fact that the article on female circumcision clearly labels this involuntary procedure as genital mutilation in the very first sentence while male circumcision is presented in a neutral tone with the ethical concerns stated in only two paragraphs of the article. If both procedures in both genders are mostly non-consenting, shouldn't they be labeled as such? ~2026-43949-50 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

No. See WP:NOR, WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's almost like we need a FAQ at the head of the page. O wait ... Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact the article does not reflect your view, and rather the view of reliable medical authorities, is not POV-pushing. Jamesmanvsmassifiovongino (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Not all branches of Judaism consider circumcision to be "obligatory"

In fact the largest branch, Reform Judaism, does not. Even the most traditional branches do not consider it to be an absolute requirement, allowing exceptions for health and less-comprehensive exceptions for political instability and or cultural assimilation. This is not accurately reflected in the article. What a religious text says is not always what a religious group does. Hoping to get consensus to change the text to be more accurate. Here are some sources:

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-small-but-growing-number-of-jews-are-questioning-the-ancient-ritual-of-circumcision/2013/12/25/d24c5a4e-6403-11e3-aa81-e1dab1360323_story.html

2. https://forward.com/news/11192/activists-up-efforts-to-cut-circumcision-out-of-br-00169/

3. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/u-s-circumcision-lawsuit-advances-as-doctors-behind-policy-backtrack/ GlowingLava (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

These are all terrible sources for this topic, and I'm not sure what you mean by "branch" of Judaism, but even so using a source which says "circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations" to imply it's some kind of fringe opt-in looks like blatant POV pushing. See our Brit milah article for further info on why the ritual is definitional for judaism, or use a proper academic source like doi:10.1093/acref/9780192800886.001.0001 which says:

... today all faithful Jews, Reform, Conservative, and Oxthodox, do have their sons circumcised, among other reasons because contemporary Reform Jews are less suspicious of particularism than were their nineteenth-century predecessors at a time when the call of the age was so strongly universalistic. Although in more recent years a few voices have been raised in opposition to circumcision because of the alleged harmful psychological effect it may have on the infant, very few Jews take this objection sufficiently seriously even to think of abolishing a rite of such importance to Judaism.

Bon courage (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Because of your particular passion for this topic I will only reply to you once to let other voices chime in. It is not POV-pushing to fix when an article is wrong. I do not claim that circumcision is fringe among Jews and I don't think the article should say that. While circumcision among Jews is "very common", maybe even "near-universal", even traditional denominations regularly affirm that Jewish people who are not circumcised are truly Jewish. The majority of Jews also do not need to undergo the ritual to freely participate in their particular denomination. GlowingLava (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Kindly do not personalise this discussion with stupid statements about other editors. Edit-warring content saying merely that circumcision "isconsidered [sic] obligatory by some branches" based on a misrepresentatin of poor sources is highly-problematic, especially for a WP:CTOP where editors are expected to adhere to the highest standards. Bon courage (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

One definition of 'Obligatory' is something 'expected by custom', and that is definitely still the case in Reform Judaism. See . MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

And carried out (according to the definition) "routinely". Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) ruled in 1982 that circumcision is not an absolute requirement for entry into the Jewish covenant. Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't find the definition you claim. Websters gives "binding in law or conscience" and "mandatory, required" as a definition. That's not how it is. The same scholar, Rabbi Mark Washofsky, Ph.D.. often uses much softer language such as: "A boy who is born Jewish is a Jew, even if his parents do not have him circumcised during infancy. While we would encourage him to become circumcised upon reach religious majority, we treat him as fully Jewish with respect to bar mitzvah and other community rites."

Source here: https://reformjudaism.org/learning/answers-jewish-questions/it-policy-men-must-be-circumcised-prior-conversion-my-8-year-old GlowingLava (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

If I say an action movie has an 'obligatory car chase', do you think I am saying that is mandated by some sort of law? MrOllie (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Naturally the word means something different if you use it sardonically. GlowingLava (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

This is something like the 10th time you've tried to shoehorn in a "circumcision isn't obligatory among Jews" edit in an article. As a matter fact, you have consistently tried to argue this point across several different pages. It's reached a point where multiple editors have raised questions about your behavior with regard to this subject. I urge you to talk before you edit on a controversial subject. Man-Man122 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, there you are, the third musketeer of preventing any improvement to this article that is marked as needing a lot of work. I happen to be interested in religious texts, religious practices, body modification, and making articles more accurate. I also edit other articles about taboo topics like nude sunbathing, partially because I notice the quality of those articles is lacking. When people refuse to look at a topic and make anyone who does out to be a wierdo, we get a lot of bad writing. I understand that religion and genitals are hush-hush topics, they deserve quality writing and accurate, contemporary sources. There are many articles on Wikipedia where the text will (as an exagerated example) say something like "Christians, however do not eat figs." and the source provided is the bible verse where Jesus curses a fig tree. This isn't how religions work. What the holy text says ≠ what the church says ≠ what the believers say ≠ what they always do. In this section the text says 4 different ways that circumcision is a fundamental and required part of Judaism. The truth is closer to it being very common, highly recommended, and core to its founding. GlowingLava (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

"Ah, there you are, the third musketeer of preventing any improvement to this article that is marked as needing a lot of work."

You seem to have this point of view that every edit you make is beneficial, and that anyone who disagrees with you is roadblock. That's not how Wikipedia works. Man-Man122 (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand my edits are not guaranteed to be accepted, I also understand the difference between collaboration, criticism, removing vandalism, having standards, and stonewalling. I'd prefer to stay on topic, the article currently quadruples down on language that isn't accurate, I think there's some room for improvement without "POV pushing" or "watering down". GlowingLava (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I do hope that you've read the message I left on your talk page, so we don't have argue that again.

On this, I'm just going to put it bluntly, the vast majority of reliable academic sources say otherwise. Therefore, this situation will likely not change, as we will continue to rely on those sources. Man-Man122 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Sentence in the second paragraph could be misinterpreted.

There is an issue with a run-on sentence in the second paragraph, this one: "The procedure is associated with reduced rates of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted infections including incidence of cancer-causing forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) and reducing HIV transmission among heterosexual men in high-risk populations by up to 60%; its prophylactic efficacy against HIV transmission in the developed world or among men who have sex with men is debated."

This can easily be read as claiming that circumcision reduces cancer-causing HPV by 60%, which the data does not support. Can this sentence be broken up or re-weritten in a manner that is easier to read and harder to misread? My attempt at doing this was called a POV-Push. I don't intend to put any spin on the data, I want to make sure that it isn't confusing or conflated. GlowingLava (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

It would be a strain so to misread it, but the solution in any case was not to water-down the known preventative effect by edit-warring a "Some studies have shown" qualification into the lede, which would look like POV-pushing. This is now clarified without that side-effect. Bon courage (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks the new edit flows better and is harder to misread. GlowingLava (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)