14,690
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{Construction Site}}
Remove Construction Site template.
'''Wikipedia bias on circumcision''' has been an issue from the very beginning of Wikipedia.
* Alex Brown appears to have taken over the duties of regulating the various circumcision related articles. He has not altered the bias found in the Wikipedia circumcision related articles.
==Biased source material== The [[AAP_Circumcision_Task_Force_2012#2012_Circumcision_Policy_Statement| 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement]] of the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] and the accompanying "technical report" was created to promote the practice of non-therapeutic male circumcision and third-party payment to physicians who execute circumcisions. As one would expect of such a statement, it is highly slanted and biased in favor of medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic male circumcision. It has suffered unrelenting scathing critical comment. The AAP chose not to re-affirm the Statement when it expired in 2017. The Wikipedia Circumcision article chooses to cite this highly defective source thirty times. The Wikipedia Circumcision article cites material from the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) several times. There are conflicts of interest at the WHO because [[David R. Tomlinson]], the chief circumcision expert at the WHO, also manufactures and sells circumcision devices. The WHO cite methodologically and statistically flawed articles to promote male circumcision (and of course, the sale of devices).
[[Brian J. Morris]] is a prominent and well-known Australian ardent promoter of male circumcision, producer of biased articles, and a member of the [[Gilgal Society]]. Morris has associates, such as [[John N. Krieger]] and others with a fetish for circumcision. He and his associates write highly biased articles for medical journals to promote male circumcision. No less than four of Morris' biased articles have been cited in the Wikipedia circumcision article.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Morris
|accessdate=2021-07-29
}}</ref>
While Wikipedia may profess to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), the use of adamantly pro-circumcision editors, their selection of so many sources biased in favor of circumcision, and their omission of most of the [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| functions of the foreskin]] drags the neutral point over into a pro-circumcision biased 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.
{{REF}}
[[Category:Database]]
[[Category:USA]]
[[Category:Parental information]]