15,021
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Biased source material: Add citation.
While Wikipedia may profess to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), the use of adamantly pro-circumcision editors and their selection of so many sources biased in favor of circumcision and their omission of most of the functions of the foreskin drags the neutral point over into a pro-circumcision position.
The Circumcision article has been amended more than 15,000 times<ref name="circhistory2001" /> so it is an unstable source of information. If Wikipedia truly hopes to have an unbiased article, then Wikipedia needs to start over with a blank page and writers who are non-circumcised, because [[circumcision ]] induces [[bias]] in men.<ref name="lebourdais1995">{{REFjournal |last=LeBourdais |first=Eleanor |init= |author-link= |etal=no |title=Circumcision no longer a "routine" surgical procedure. |journal=Can Med Assoc J |location= |date=1995 |volume=152 |issue=11 |pages=1873-6 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1337997/pdf/cmaj00071-0145.pdf |quote= |pubmedID=7773907 |pubmedCID=1337997 |DOI= |accessdate=2021-07-30}}</ref>
The general public and parents in particular should be aware of these issues and seek information elsewhere.