Talk:Circumcision/Archive 28

message: I would like to ask a hypothetical question.  Say some hypothetical religion clearly prohibited "surgery."  Would you require a specific reference to circumcision before concluding that the religion prohibits it? Blackworm 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a Wikipedia article, yes. The fundamental principle of NOR and sister policies is that we don't write about something unless others have done so already. So we would require a source including a specific discussion of circumcision and that faith. If such a source did not exist, then nobody had written about the subject previously, and so we shouldn't either. Jakew 18:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly so. For all we know, that particular religion could have a definition of "surgery" that differed significantly from the common understanding, or had various other religious rulings that came into play as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are making a fundemental error. You are creating an equivalence between religious texts and medical texts. "Surgery", as used in the lead of this article, is the medical term. Surgery as used in your hypothetical religious text depends on how the interpretators of that religion do so. As someone whose religious legal texts go back around 3000 years, I can tell you that religious texts (especially when written in a dead foreign language) are not as clear as a modern textbook. So, your syllogism between religion and medicine unfortunately suffers from the fallacy of the over-broad definition. -- Avi 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hypothetical

message: There is also the matter of the AAP's recommendation that analgesia should always be used, which we have omitted here for some undiscussed reason.  In fact, although the AMA, AAP, AAFP, CPS, and BMA all say essentially the same thing, the only mention of it in the article comes under "Australia," giving the impression that it is the exception rather than a general trend.  Is the section a "biased misrepresentation" because it omits this information?  Perhaps, but I'm satisfied with Jtpaladin's edit for now, in the interest of brevity.  Blackworm 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point. I combined my thoughts with Avi's and added your concern in the section right above. Please check it out. Jtpaladin 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pain control (analgesia/anaesthetic) in policy section

message: Shouldn't we mention this in the article? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11948269&dopt=Abstract and this site too sees avoidance of cervical cancer in female sexual partners as a reason to circumcise: http://www.med.nyu.edu/patientcare/library/article.html?ChunkIID=14792 --134.155.99.41 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anybody be so kind? Thank you. --Validside 16:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision avoids cervix carcinoma 

message: I am modifying the introduction to include the policy statements of the major western medical organizations.
Edwardsville 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Shouldn't this article be called "Male Genital Cutting" since the article on female circumcision is called "Female Genital Cutting"? It would certainly be a more neutral title (the word circumcision has a negative connotation outside of the US and could be offensive for some), more dictionary-like and, most importantly, sexually equal. The word "circumcision" might even be unknown for non-native English speakers, while "Male Genital Cutting" surely describes the contents of the article precisely right. I might be stirring up the hornet's nest here, but I feel that this change is necessary if not mandatory. maraz 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are applying logic to what is not a logical system.  The word "circumcision" is widely known in English, and it is the correct term.  There is some debate as to the name of the FGC article, since it is much more widely known as "female circumcision" -- in that case, political correctness and a pro-male circumcision agenda (attempting to separate male and female circumcision in order to promote one while opposing the other without the appearance of a sexist double-standard) seem to have won over the more widely used term.  This is so extremely prevalent that the term "female circumcision" is described as a euphemism in the FGC article -- when clearly the reverse is true.  Blackworm 05:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I had a post here, and my central complaint turned out totally wrong.  I should learn to read diffs better.  My apologies to anyone who may have read it, for the waste of time.  Blackworm 09:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Deleted section)