Talk:Mutilation

message: Tomyumgoong,
I'm temporarily removing the following contested sentence, since we seem unable to agree on it.
* Many view female genital cutting as mutilation with respect to what they perceive as deprivation of the function of the excised tissue and the often involuntary nature of the procedures, and some have made similar arguments concerning circumcision, though others disagree.
Your version:
* Female genital cutting  and circumcision may be viewed as mutilation due to the often involuntary excision of functional tissue, though some cultures and individuals view the practices as natural or beneficial. 
There are several problems with your version:
# "[Female genital cutting]]  and circumcision may be viewed" - this implies that the two are only considered together: that a given individual either regards both as mutilation, or neither. In fact, FGC is commonly referred to as 'mutilation', but the term is rarely applied to male circumcision, and only then by anti-circumcision activists.
# the term perceived is lost, thus arbitrarily endorsing this belief and consequently violating WP:NPOV.
# "though some cultures and individuals view the practices as natural or beneficial. ." - this claim is not supported by the source cited. In fact, this article addresses the issue of male circumcision as mutilation, noting, for example, "Denniston, Hodges, and Milos (1999) note that Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines mutilation as "[d]isfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body." Male circumcision, they say, is the injurious and appearance-altering removal of a conspicuous body part and thus unquestionably constitutes mutilation. But this sort of argument begs the question. It assumes that circumcision disfigures and injures. Yet this is exactly what is in dispute in debates about whether circumcision constitutes mutilation."
Jakew 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision + FGC

message: I do not know where this should be but am placing it here for easy retrieval by interested persons.  This was removed from docking, when it clearly didn't belong.  Merge here or at a more appropriate article?  Quill 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  material moved from [[docking]] 

message: I have reverted the following addition to the article's second paragraph:
* Involuntary genital modification such as female genital cutting and male circumcision are also sometimes viewed as mutilation
There are several problems with this addition.
While it is doubtless true that some people view FGC and circumcision as mutilation, the article is not an exhaustive list of procedures that at least one person views as mutilation. Indeed, such a list might constitute undue weight in cases where we concentrate on the few who view procedure X as mutilation rather than those who do not. This article is about the concept of mutilation, and specific procedures are valuable when they help explain this concept, but it is not essential to include them all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and there is no particular reason why Wikipedia needs to note the fact that some people hold this view. We need to consider two things: a) does inclusion benefit the reader's understanding of the concept, and b) is it compatible with WP:NPOV?
Another problem is the implication that the world can be divided into two groups: those who view FGC and circumcision as mutilation, and those who view neither as mutilation. But of course many people regard FGC as mutilation but do not consider circumcision to be mutilation. The fact that both are given as examples of "involuntary genital modification" adds to this problem, reinforcing the idea that these are members of an indivisible class, and oddly suggesting that whether a procedure is voluntary or not is a critical factor. Jakew (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to assert that entire cultures view circumcision as mutilation, I hope you have some good sources. Jakew (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision, etc

message: "an act of physical injury that degrades the *appearance* or function of any living body".
Mmmm, but mutilation, say in the lex talionis, wasn't really about beauty. Moreover, mutilation it's not exactly an "act", it's more a loss. When the surgeon cut a limb doesn't think of beauty nor injure the wounded with the aim of degrading anything. Final observation: one can suffer mutilation by Nature or chance. I think that the french intro is quite good:
La mutilation est une perte partielle/totale d'un membre, d'un organe ou la destruction/dégradation partielle d'une ou plusieurs parties du corps sans cause intentionnelle de donner la mort. Le terme mutilation désigne également l'action de mutiler, c'est-à-dire, amputer avec violence ou détruire/dégrader partiellement une partie du corps. Les mutilations physiques peuvent être volontaires ou involontaires ; les mutilations font notamment partie des nombreuses séquelles laissées par les guerres. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 20:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird intro 

message: It is not appropriate to have differing treatment of the subjects of male and female circumcision in this article.  It is said that certain bodies have labelled female circumcision as a mutilation, but for male circumcision it is only said to be "a subject of active academic debate".  Both issues are "a subject of debate" by different parties, but by any reasonable definition of mutilation, and according to mutilple major institutions, both forms of circumcision qualify.
A fair treatment in my opinion would be to acknowledge significant organizations that have categorized male circumcision as mutilation with no mention of whether there is "debate" about it.  For example, the Danish Society for General Medicine has released such a statement calling it mutilation and "ethically unacceptable":
http://www.bt.dk/danmark/danske-laeger-omskaering-af-drenge-er-lemlaestelse
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denmarks-29000-doctors-declare-circumcision-of-healthy_us_58753ec1e4b08052400ee6b3
Also worthy of note is that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has condemned male circumcision as a human rights violation:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/male-circumcision-muslim-jewish-condemned-european-council-511200
I don't believe a citation is necessary for this.  Mutilation is defined as the removal of a part causing an impairment of function.  Foreskin has proven documented functions that are impaired when the organ is not present.  Whether people prefer the experience of life with or without this impairment does not impact whether it is in fact an impairment of function and therefore defined as a mutilation.
Mentioning that there is a debate for one but not the other is telling of bias but I will not remove the existing citations pending further discussion of the proper way to address this.  I will however be making an edit to the article to include the statements from Denmark and the European Council on the subject, I think that is the absolute least we can do to be remotely fair in this article.  KhazWolf (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair Discussion of Circumcision 

message: Dondrehuddl12 seems to have bowdlerized the links to the Araucanian warrior Galvarino. Nice joke, but I fixed them. — Tatzelbrumm (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ¿Joke links? 

message: Need a example picture of a mutilation, because i heard wikipedia is not censored.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geanard (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: bro what 184.57.169.87 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need pictures