Talk:Religion and circumcision

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Male genital mutilation[edit]

There is an article called "Female genital mutilation". The disambiguation page defines it as:

"... any procedure that involves injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."

The introductory paragraph states that it is *also* called "female circumcision".

For non-sexist consistency this article should, it would seem, follow the same standards. I.e. it should be called "Male genital mutilation" and mention that the practice is also called "male circumcision". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't invent terms on Wikipedia or publish original though. Instead we report on what names are used in reputable, reliable sources. You would need to find several such resources using the term "male genital mutilation" before that could be introduced into this article. Asterisk*Splat 01:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Which is why I deleted the sentence.

Moreover, there are several errors in the text, both grammatical & informational. AneGaarden (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits and reverts Reply Comment[edit]

@Hotpass105: and I have been involved in a recent series of edits and reverts. At first I though Hotpass105 was just a vandal and would leave if I reverted, but has not. I would like to get some opinions from other editors. What do you think? Should their edits stay? Editor2020 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claims that "Contemporary thought on circumcision is as follows", based on the website, and similar edits[1][2][3], are obvious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:V. It also shows a very narrow view of Christianity, as does the consistent removal of mention of Coptic Christians from the lede. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Editor2020,

First, your comments "At first I though Hotpass105 was just a vandal and would leave if I reverted, but has not." are both disrespectful and dismissive. I would ask you to refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism for instructions on making a proper claim.

Per Wikipedia rules, I have raised this issue on your talk page. You must respond according to Wikipedia rules, "Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page." This quote is from the Template:Uw-ewsoft.

You are obliged to

1) Address me in resolving apparent conflicts

2) Cease reverting this page until either a) Some consensus can be reached b) An administrator takes action to resolve this issue

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions." [[4]]

I will restore my changes, and advise you cease your errant behavior until some agreement can be reached. Otherwise, please feel free to contribute.


Dayton Hotpass105 (talk)hotpass105

Hotpass105, I think you have misunderstood Wikipedia's policies. I suggest you review WP:BRD, if you edit an article, and someone reverts your edits, you should not revert them back, but rather go to the article's talk page to discuss your proposed changes. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]



As @Editor2020: failed to raise the issue in talk, I assumed his changes were either in error, or it that the account was a bot. Ultimately, I made meaningful and significant changes to my contributions such that the earlier reverted edits are a separate issue. Nevertheless, the responsibility lies in the hands of the person raising the objection to 1) Clearly state their objection 2) Reference the contributions and explain how/why they are in violation of some rule. Simply disagreeing with the contributions are not justification for reverting.

Hotpass105 (talk)

Hi Hotpass105. On the issue of WP:BRD, clear objections have been raised to your edits; therefore you should not revert, but instead should discuss the edits here, and await for consensus to develop. This user is clearly not a bot; all bots have "bot" in their username. Regarding other issues, have you reviewed WP:RS to understand what a reliable source is, and WP:NPOV, to understand what "Neutral" means in a Wikipedia context? Jayjg (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate you taking time to clarify the formatting for talk pages. You might agree that it is not universally observed, and therefore not obvious. Nevertheless, I will attempt to do so moving forward. I do, however, fundamentally disagree with some of your points.
1) "On the issue of WP:BRD, clear objections have been raised to your edits; therefore you should not revert, but instead should discuss the edits here, and await for consensus to develop."
I have responded, and absent have yet to see my points addressed. I recognize and appreciate WP:BRD. I find this page requires important revisions and will do so, beginning with an emphasis on Wikipedia:Be_bold. With respect to the other interested parties, I will be offering proposed edits here for discussion prior to making another attempt, however; I will not be discouraged or dissuaded. From WP:BRD: "Cycle. To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns. You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring." 2) I will carefully review both WP:NPOV and WP:RS, although both are subjective measures and no amount of good faith effort could prevent a dissatisfied interloper raising some objection. I recognize your standing in the community and past contributions, therefore, I will make an earnest effort in future edits. Do keep in mind, however, you must be ready to revise contributions by others or grow the information yourself, rather than simply objecting. See Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Bad reasons to revert 1)Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. 2)Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. 3)Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. 4) Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes. Hotpass105 (talk)
User:Hotpass105, I appreciate your using more conventional formatting for your comments, it makes them much easier to read. Regarding your points:
  • While it is true that there is some subjectivity to all of Wikipedia's policies, in general they are reasonably well understood, especially by experienced editors. It is unlikely, for example, that a website like would qualify under WP:RS; nevertheless, if you feel strongly that it does, you can always take it to WP:RSN for clarification.
  • Similarly, any statement regarding Christian views that begins with "Contemporary thought on circumcision is as follows" is without doubt a violation of WP:NPOV; Christianity consists of dozens of denominations, and thousands of sects/churches, each with their own doctrines and beliefs. There is very little upon which they all agree, aside from the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, and even then they have differing views on what that means. If you feel your formulation meets NPOV, but other editors disagree, you can take your questions to WP:NPOVN for clarification.
  • Many new editors rely on WP:BOLD to justify their edits, but in practice this rarely works out well, because once their edits are reverted, they tend to ignore its advice "Don't be upset if your bold edits get reverted". BOLD is great to get started, but WP:BRD is much more important if your edits are contested. Editors who insist on the primacy of WP:BOLD usually end up blocked for violations of WP:EDITWAR.
  • Many new editors also get caught up in the specifics and minutiae of the wording of various policies, and attempt to show how their actions adhere more closely to those details than those of their opponents. This is usually (and correctly) referred to as Wikilawyering, and also rarely ends well.
The most important things to remember are to stick to WP:V (including WP:RS), WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and to discuss proposed edits on talk pages, rather than edit-warring. Use this talk page to ask specific questions about article content, and make proposals regarding article content, rather than discussing editor behavior or Wikipedia policies. Jayjg (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Lempert, A., Chegwidden, J., Steinfeld, R., & Earp, B. D. (in press). Non-therapeutic penile circumcision of minors: current controversies in UK law and medical ethics. Clinical Ethics, in press. Available online ahead of print at

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]