Wikipedia - the circumphiles' paradise (revision 2024-04-13 04:22) == The circumphiles' paradise == [image: https://encyclopediadramatica.online/File:Wikipedia_circumcision_2004_2022.png ] It is safe to assume that Wikipedia is one of the most heavily manipulated sources of information on the Internet when it comes to the topic of circumcision. The history of the "Circumcision" article is a rabbit hole in itself, littered with drama. Between its inception in November 2001 and as of writing in April 2024, it has been [edited over 15.000 times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision?action=info) and has [a discussion archive that spans eighty-five (85) pages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Circumcision). Explaining it in its entirety would take all day, so here is a summary. If you browsed Wikipedia on a summer day in 2004 and [stumbled upon its "Circumcision" article](http://web.archive.org/web/20040605200550/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision), you would encounter lots of criticism of circumcision. So much so that even the first phrase mentions that circumcision removes "a highly sensitive part of the penis". > Circumcision is the surgical removal of some or all of the prepuce or foreskin (including the ridged band), a highly sensitive part of the penis. It is hard to believe that this comes from a publication that later became known for aggressively promoting circumcision. We find lots of criticism and negative information about circumcision in the 2004 version, such as: > some circumcised males retain a significant proportion of their nerve-rich penile skin and have an amount of mobile skin remaining on the erect penis, while others do not > The glans slowly becomes desensitized during the following month. > Many medical claims have been made to justify circumcision. These included the prevention of epilepsy, penile cancer and phimosis. Circumcision advocates today claim that it reduces urinary tract infections and HIV infection, but these claims are strongly disputed and argued against. At the bottom ["External links" section](http://web.archive.org/web/20040605200550/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#External_links) contained many sites criticial of circumcision, far outweighing those in favour. There was even a separate article about the most sensitive part of the foreskin, the [ridged band](http://web.archive.org/web/20040122211244/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridged_band). > The ridged band is a band of highly innervated and vascularised tissue that is located just inside the tip of the foreskin of the human male near the mucocutaneous boundary > The ridged band is invariably excised when a male is circumcised. One might as well call it the "rich band", given how rich of nerve endings it is. There was even a separate article about the movement of the foreskin, "[Gliding action](http://web.archive.org/web/20040622211015/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliding_action)". > The gliding action greatly reduces friction during intromission and coitus, thereby reducing chafing and irritation. There was even an entire article titled "[Sexual effects of circumcision](http://web.archive.org/web/20111019115010/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision)". These separate articles were redirected to the manipulated main articles "Circumcision" and "Foreskin". It's almost like they don't want anyone to know a concept like "gliding action" exists. All this criticism of circumcision has largely been purged over time. Instead, we get blatant glorification such as: > Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe, low-risk procedure when done by an experienced practitioner.[73][74][75] So what happened inbetween all those years? === The circumphile takeover === Circumphiles worked their way up to administratorship using bait-and-switch techniques. The first major circumcision promoter to gain administratorship was the user "Jayjg". Jayjg started editing Wikipedia in June of 2004 and [was promoted to administator](http://archive.today/2023.03.10-121035/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jayjg) in September that year. Less than 48 hours after becoming an administrator, [he touched the circumcision article for the first time](http://archive.today/2022.08.13-161256/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&action=history&dir=prev&limit=1000). What a co-incidence! It couldn't possibly be related, right? A year later, in July 2005, he was [appointed as an arbitrator](http://web.archive.org/web/20231213141522/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Election#2005_(January_2006)) by no one less than founder Jimmy Wales. Arbitrators are members of the "Arbitration Committee", a virtual supreme court that Jimmy Wales originally established to solve disputes between editors on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee is the highest authority on the site, being able to revoke administrator rights and change policies, in addition to the usual administrator abilities of blocking and otherwise restricting users. Over the following years, several circumcision promoters were promoted into positions of authority, notably the users Avraham, Doc James (originally "Jmh649"), and Zad68. Avraham was promoted to administrator in 2006 and bureaucrat in 2009. Bureaucrats are able to add and remove administrators. When Avraham became less active, Doc James (James Heilman, MD) took over his role in maintaining the circumcision advertisement disguised as an encyclopaedia article throughout the 2010s. Heilman even was a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, the organization that hosts Wikipedia. The board named itself the "Board of Trustees". Whether Heilman is trustworthy shall be your judgement. Their strategies are as usual, blocking or scrutinizing undesirable editors to report any minor mistake they make to the [Administrators' Noticeboards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents) at any opportunity with the aim to get them expelled from the project. === From article to advertisement === Let's see what we find on the article today: > Neonatal circumcision is generally a safe, low-risk procedure when done by an experienced practitioner. As of April 2024, the "Sexual effects" section reads: > "The accumulated data show circumcision does not have an adverse physiological effect on sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility." It is more carefully worded than [it used to be in 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20221101/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision): > Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure.[93][94][95][96][97][98] Behind this phrase, there are six "scientific" studies. So desperately did they want to convince us of that. One of those studies is by Australian Professor Brian Morris, a man who believes [circumcision should be required by law](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdGbXdEo93U), and member of the "Gilgal Society", a circumphile organization. This fraudulent study from 2013 stood in the article for around a decade before being removed. But never mind, five studies he directed still stand in the references as of April 2024. This is what happens when people who own no foreskins are tasked with documenting the functionality of the foreskin. And don't just take our word for it. Even [the German-language Wikipedia says so!](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkumzision#Einfluss_auf_die_Sensibilit%C3%A4t_des_Penis) > Die Vorhaut enthält zahlreiche Meissnersche Tastkörperchen, die durch Dehnung stimuliert werden. Auf diese Weise spielt die Vorhaut eine Rolle für die Sexualität des Mannes.[111][112] Durch die Entfernung der Vorhaut ist die Eichel nicht mehr permanent bedeckt; sie kann durch den ständigen Kontakt mit der Luft sowie Reiben an der Kleidung an Empfindlichkeit verlieren. Auch durch Entfernen von Vorhaut und Frenulum selbst kann die Sensibilität herabgesetzt werden, da beide über zahlreiche Nervenenden verfügen.[113] Nach einer belgischen Studie mit Befragung von 1.059 unbeschnittenen und 310 beschnittenen Männern wirkte sich eine Zirkumzision deutlich negativ auf den sexuellen Genuss und die Orgasmusintensität bei Reizung der Eichel aus.[114][115] Translation: > The foreskin contains lots of Meissners corpuscles which are stimulated when stretched. This way, the foreskin plays a role for the sexuality of a man. Due to the removal of the foreskin, the glans is no longer covered and can lose sensitivity through the constant contact with air and rubbing against clothing. Additionally, the removal of the foreskin and frenulum can reduce sensitivity, given that both contain many nerve endings. According to a belgian study that surveyed 1059 intact and 310 circumcised men, circumcision had clearly negatively affected sexual enjoyment and orgasm intensity when the glans was stimulated. If one language of Wikipedia contradicts another, you know something is going seriously wrong. === Failed attempts at adding criticism of circumcision === There have been attempts to add the study by Sorrels from 2007 to the English article, a study critical of circumcision, but any mention of that study would not survive for long. [image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sorrells.gif ] One such attempt took place [in February 2008](http://web.archive.org/web/20230304230254/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=191054297). > In 2007, Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. did a sensitivity study using nylon filaments on healthy men with both intact and modified genitals. The circumcised men lost some sensation in the nonablated areas and genital cutting removed sensitive areas. As one would expect, this addition was unwelcome. When Jake Waskett, a circumphile editor and close friend of Avraham, woke up the next morning, he went to his computer and looked at the recent edits to the circumcision article. Without further ado, he [reverted the addition](http://web.archive.org/web/20230211144601/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=next&oldid=191054297), with the following comment: > rv. we discuss individual studies in the sub-article. in the WP:SUMMARY, we need to ... well, summarise Oh, really? First of all, which sub article is meant? The one that was later redirected to the main article ("Sexual effects of circumcision")? Good luck finding one occurance of him using this argument to remove a manipulated circumphile study. In August 2009, there were two attempts to mention the suicide of David Reimer as a result of a botched circumcision in the article. As one would expect, it did not survive long in the article. The attempts were [reverted by Jake Waskett](http://web.archive.org/web/20230704134058/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=306063434) and [reverted by Avraham](http://web.archive.org/web/20230704133433/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=306096847) respectively. === Attitude magic… or not. === From [April](http://web.archive.org/web/20230422175643/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) to [October](http://web.archive.org/web/20231019201803/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision) 2023, the article would have you believe the following: > According to Bañuelos Marco & García Heil (2021) there is now "enough literature supporting the fact that childhood circumcision has no negative influence in sexual function per se" for it to be considered a settled matter. However, the authors also write that an individual's body image and self-esteem surrounding their own circumcision status may lead to a subjective improvement or adverse change in these metrics, although this would not be caused by "objective histological or physiological reasons". A similar statement was made by Bossio & Pukall (2018), which concluded that an individual's attitude toward their own circumcision status is more important than their actual circumcision status in matters of sexual functioning. Let me summarize: If you have a positive attitude towards having had a body part cut off from your defenseless infant self without you being able to consent, it magically happens to improve your sexual function? What a load of crap. === The Simple English garbage dump === The Simple English Wikipedia is even stronger in favour of circumcision. Given its lower visibility, it can even get away with outright referencing circumphile websites "CircList" and "Circumcision Choice" as if they were credible sources. If the main English Wikipedia did that, it would severely embarrass itself. It would be too obvious that it is trying to advertise circumcision. Let's see what we find on this garbage dump: > People disagree about whether circumcision is a good for health and sexual pleasure. People who think circumcision is a good idea may point to health reasons. And what about the people who believe otherwise, Mr. Neutral Wikipedia? > Many people think a penis looks better if it is circumcised. A study done in the United States found that the women prefer a circumcised penis, to look at and in sexual activity, especially if they are going to put their mouth on the penis.[9] The source: > Williamson, Marvel L.; Williamson, Paul S. "Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision in Sexual Partners". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. http://www.circlist.com/surveys/williamson-01.html Let's see what else we find on the same page. Hint: Highly perverted nonsense. > the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect > circumcision at puberty in nonliterate cultures is in some ways a sexual recognition of the emerging man > The permanent exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool. No, sir. What renders the penis a sexual tool is the movement of the foreskin. > In countries where most boys are circumcised as babies, parents sometimes think that uncircumcised boys will be teased. Some boys are mean to a boy if his penis looks different. Oh, really? And how about the countries where the majority is intact as nature intended? Those countries are not hard to find, they are the majority of the world outside your 'Murica. > Some myths about medical male circumcision:[11] > […] The source: > "Medical Male Circumcision Services". www.uwc.ac.za. Retrieved 2018-08-25. Wait, did they link a "circumcision services" website as a source for their "neutral" article? So much for "Wikipedia is ad-free". The advertisement is in plain sight in the center. There is even an entire section titled "[Reasons for circumcision](http://web.archive.org/web/20240412145421/https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Reasons_for_circumcision)". Notice the absence of a counterpart, "Reasons against circumcision". The Simple English Wikipedia is not even trying to hide that it is blatantly advertising circumcision. Normally, such an article would [qualify for deletion](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#G11). > Pages that were created only to say good things about a person, company, item, group or service and which would need to be written again so that they can be encyclopedic. ---- Surprisingly, the "Foreskin" article is less manipulated, even occasionally contradicting the "Circumcision" article. For example: > During the physical act of sex, the foreskin reduces friction, which can reduce the need for additional sources of lubrication. Oh, really? Then how come the "Circumcision" article claims the opposite? Only one can be true. [In 2004](http://web.archive.org/web/20040427092709/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin), the article succinctly summarized the core functionality of the foreskin in its lead section: > " It serves a protective function for the ridged band, the frenulum and glans penis, keeping these sexual tissues moist, lubricated and protected from abrasion and injury. " Also notice how the article started with "In mammals", where as today it reads "In male human anatomy" - as if humans are the only species to posess a foreskin. Well, humans are the only species dumb enough to cut it off. The first section after the lead section contained: > " Unlike the skin on the rest of the body which is attached to the underlying tissue, the prepuce and shaft skin are free to glide along the shaft of the penis, which reduces friction, abrasion and loss of lubricating fluid during sexual intercourse, frottage or masturbation. " This is nowhere to be found on the current version. Surprisingly, a few benefits of the foreskin have still survived because they are too obvious to deny, but they are mostly buried deep in the article: > And the foreskin helps prevent the glans from getting abrasions and trauma throughout life. > The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia has written that the foreskin is "composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue"." ---- Since Wikipedia is based in the United States, where circumcision is commonly performed, one can safely assume that many of the site administrators, the people who get to decide who is allowed to edit, are circumcised themselves. For a circumcised man, to acknowledge that circumcision is damaging means acknowledging that oneself is permanently damaged, which is difficult. Too difficult to some. So the easy way out of this horrror is to outright deny the harm, no matter how obvious it is. "I am not a permanently damaged person." If one can't live with the thought of being a permanently damaged person, one might as well try to pretend there is no damage. "It can't be harmful. Otherwise, it means I am damaged for life." No man wants to think of himself as a sexually defective person. Wikipedia administrator Jayjg wants to believe he is good in bed. Avraham wants to believe he feels his partner's vagina (if he has a partner) in its full glory. James Heilman wants to believe he is a sexually functional being. Likewise, Jimmy Wales appointed Jayjg as an arbitrator at a time he was already known to be a circumphile. Mr. Wales would only give this level of authority to users he approves of, and he gave this authority to a circumcision promoter. Why would that be? Perhaps because he wants circumcision to be glorified to justify his own circumcision, but he wants to let unpaid workers take over the dirty work? Unfortunately, the only way for a circumcised man to avoid acknowledging being sexually defective is to deny that circumcision is harmful. Even scientists are not superhumans, as some would believe. Those "scientists" who perform circumcision-related studies are people with feelings and private lives. Any scientist who is circumcised themselves would be reluctant to acknowledge that he is sexually damaged. A person who has deluded themselves into thinking that circumcision is harmless might want to enforce this belief onto their male offspring. How? By getting him circumcised too. If circumcision were not harmful, there would be nothing wrong about getting ones son circumcised as well, right? And as such, the vicious cycle continues. ---- In a [2004 essay](http://web.archive.org/web/20230106191454/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UninvitedCompany/Essay2004), one of the early administrators and bureaucrats of Wikipedia said: > "Seasoned, trained, well-paid marketeers, lobbyists, and political operatives are going to come here, with the benefit of the experience of others in subverting Wikipedia for personal gain. Don’t let them get away with it. So far, there are only a few, and they are poorly organized. That will change when the stakes become higher." And this is precisely what happened. A site with the publicity of Wikipedia will inevitably become the target of people with shady intentions. And it failed to defend itself against circumphiles. ---- I, the author of this document, hereby release this text into the public domain. The quotes from Wikipedia are licensed [under Creative Commons or GFDL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Licensing) to their respective authors, depending on the date they were posted.