Talk:Circumcision/Archive 13

message: I noticed a revert back to (in part) "the clamp then cuts off the foreskin"  but this isn't accurate, at least not so far as the link at the bottom of the article to the procedure of a GOMCO circumcision is concerned.  What's up?  According to that link (and as I understand the procedure) the clamp keeps everything in place so that the doctor can remove the foreskin with a scalpel.  The clamp provides hemostasis (pressure frequently described as 'crushing') to minimize blood flow to the area) and in the case of GOMCO, a surface against which the docotr can cut (the bell that goes between the foreskin and the glans). I think this is an important difference, so I'm going to clarify the procedures part, unless someone else beats me to it or someone can provide a good justification for the phrase about the clamp cutting off the foreskin.  I'd be more bold and just do it, but this is such a touchy page, I thought I'd talk it out first. Zandrous 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Accurate medical details are important. Al 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedures section

message: I think someone should write how jews and muslims circumcise, I am very curious and belive that there must be at least one jew and one muslim in wikipedia willing to write how it's done. I know that there is a "brit millah" article, but it has a lot of jewish customs and social things. Cuzandor 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedures 

message: A rewrite, and parallel publish.  Attract many editors to choose between two versions.  Luckily, you pro-circ folk have left a clear choice!
That's where the Rfc will apply Nandesuka.  Is Jakew still dominating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TipTp (talk • contribs) 
I favor making incremental changes, rather than a drastic rewrite.  And to answer your question, it remains the case that JakeW, Nandesuka and Jayjg would prefer a more positive view of circumcision than some would. Al 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alienus, I politely suggest that you try to avoid characterizing what other editors believe, since you don't seem to be able to do it accurately.  Please focus on the article, and not the editors. Nandesuka 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming good faith too, and I didn't characterize it as a personal attack.   I said it was inaccurate.  I want an article that maintains a neutral point of view, that is based on reliable sources, and that has no original research.  None of those desires in any way boil down to wanting a "positive view of circumcision."  Since you've made that characterization several times in several places, I think it's important to point out that it is false.  The safest way to avoid making mistakes like the one you are making is to simply not comment on other editors at all — focus on the article instead.  Nandesuka 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem with your generalization is still there:  it's false.  I'm not taking insult.  I'm just saying that what you are saying isn't true.   The problem with generalizing "relative to" someone with a strong point of view that it suggests that that is an appropriate yardstick by which to measure.  It ain't; it leads to absurd conclusions such as characterizing someone who really doesn't care about some topic as "pro-that-topic" or "anti-that-topic."  That's why I continue to suggest to you that you'll be much more productive if you constrain yourself to talking about content rather than about editors. Nandesuka 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE POSSIBLE FIXES REQUIRE... 

message: For the record, this word isn't in the OED, and what references you can find to it on the web are confused, muddied, contradictory, and without any etymology.   As near as I can tell it's just made up.  Nandesuka 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off-topic, I know, but I believe that it derives from the Latin "cucullus" (a cowl or covering, according to one source, and a funnel-shaped head covering according to another). The a- prefix gives 'without'. The Greek for 'fondness for' gives us -philia. This would explain acucullophilia. I've had no luck in tracing the 'phallia' suffix. I'd guess it was originally a misspelling. Jakew 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd guess the 'phallia' comes from phallus.  Thus we have "without-covering-penis."  LWizard @ 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make a certain amount of sense. Jakew 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was my immediate conclusion.  I got the impression that some editors were confusing "philia" with "phallia" and taking offense at mistaken notion that the latter involves viewing circumcision as a paraphilia.  This would also explain the repeated reverts. Al 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "acucullophallia" 

message: Its getting to long again, someone archive it, dam you people talk to much, though it is funny to read… almost as funny as "[Uncyclopedia]".--BerserkerBen 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive please 

message: King queermo, you've added a  tag to the article. Please would you explain what words you object to. Jakew 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we RV that shit. He rv'd not only that stupid acuccullothing we're arguing for AGES about now, he also rv'd the skin bridge picture, mgmbill, and male genital mutilation, stuff which I believe we have worked out in consensus. A weasel words tags without explanation what is objected to is worthless. Vandalism or AGF: blunder? RV anyways. Dabljuh 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel? 

message: I just read through the history of what it took to get a simple synonym for circumcision mentioned here and I'm astounded.  Essentially, Dab had to wade through days of obstruction from a few editors who want to raise the bar arbitrarily high whenever there's information that they'd prefer to keep out.
It has become painfully obvious that these editors have gone entirely overboard, given their overreaction to the addition of an inoffensive and patently valid term. Now imagine how they react when the material is at all controversial!
In the future, you can be sure that I will point back to this example everytime one of these people raises the bar a little bit higher to exclude valid information.  Al 05:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell are you referring to? Johnny Dangerously 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, I am referring to the addition of "acucullophallia".  Someone added it but the usual suspects reverted it.  As a habitual restorationist, I restored it once I found that it had some easily-found citations.  This led to a week-long battle, which Dab handily won with a book citation.  In and of itself, it is a trivial matter, but it is highly indicative of the overall problem that this and related articles face. Al 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He's referring to me totally owning them bitches, and in order to draw out the enjoyment not immediately doing so but waiting for a week to see with what kinds of bullshit objections they manage / dare to come up with. It would take out all the fun if I just went ahead and be right all the time without me at least pretending to listen to other people's hilarious and misguided opinions. Dabljuh 08:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not disagreeing with you factually, but reminding you that I know two admins who just love to ban for WP:CIVIL violations. Al 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let this be a lesson. 

message: This word seems to be a neoligism specific to the BDSM crowd, and is absent from most mainstream dictionaries. 
Please compare:
*http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acucullophallia
*http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acucullophallia
The definition here http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/acucullophilia is:
acucullophilia:
1. Attraction for circumcised men.
2. Fondness for circumcised penises. 
Which is most definitely NOT synonymous with circumcision. -- Avi 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the wrong word.  Acucullophilia is love of circumcised penises. AcucullophALlia is the state of being circumcised. — Scm83x hook 'em 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All words are new at some point.  We've agreed that a citation of its use in a printed book would suffice, and this has in fact been found. Al 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, we are still waiting for a source supporting the claim: that the word describes the state of being circumcised. Jakew 11:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You must be using the royal "we", because the rest of us have seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate the definition of the term.  This evidence comes both in the form of multiple links and a demonstration of the etymology which shows that the word must mean "the state of being circumcized", based on its roots.  In short, you are either mistaken or lying.  In good faith, I will assume the former and politely ignore your obviously erroneous protestations.  Thank you for understanding. Al 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since apparently no one has ever used the word in a sentence, since the beginning of time, your speculation about what the word "must" mean are quite funny.  Nandesuka 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, it seems to refer only specifically to circumcised penises.  Circumcision is not a congenital deformity.  Kasreyn 00:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acucullophallia 

message: And I do not even see a discussion about this. Strange. Socafan 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  There are pictures of circumcised and uncircumcised penises.  Or are you asking why there are no pictures of the procedure being performed?  We've gone over that on this page before; I personally believe such an image should be included, but the natural grimace of pain and/or fear on the infant's face in every available picture of the procedure led some editors to argue that it would bias the reader against the procedure, and the image was replaced with one of an operating room in which nothing was visible but the backs and tools of the doctors, the baby being completely obscured.  An image of a young (if I remember correctly, Turkish) boy being circumcised was also removed on the grounds of being too disturbing.  If you're interested in reopening that debate, I'd welcome it.  It's been some time since it was discussed, and it's possible that the consensus of the editors may be different this time.  Kasreyn 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe there were also copyright/permission problems with the "Turkish" photo, as well. Nandesuka 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I hadn't remembered that. Kasreyn 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, had overlooked the pictures, they are small and next to the "contents" section rather than in the article. Socafan 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No pictures? 

message: Jayjg ... How else can we all see a change to the Topic outline?.  DO NOT DELETE from the talk page.  Please see the above discussion between Jakew and I regarding specific changes.
(deleted - content may be found at )
:TipPt, please don't put new versions of articles on Talk: pages. I've moved your version to User:TipPt/Circumcision. Jayjg (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant revisions Jakew and Jayjg deletes from the TALK PAGE! 

message: Contents [hide]
1 The procedures of circumcision 
2 Sexual Effects 
3 Risks of circumcision 
4 History of circumcision 
4.1 Circumcision in the ancient world 
4.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century 
4.3 Circumcision since 1950 
5 Cultures and religions 
5.1 Aesthetics 
5.2 Christianity 
5.2.1 Coptic Christian 
5.3 Hinduism 
5.4 Sikhism 
5.5 Islam 
5.6 Judaism 
5.7 Tribal traditions 
6 Ethical issues 
6.1 Consent 
6.2 Emotional consequences 
6.3 Legality 
6.4 Religious circumcision of minors 
7 Medical aspects 
7.1 HIV 
7.2 HPV 
7.3 Hygiene 
7.4 Infectious and chronic conditions 
7.5 Penile cancer 
7.6 Phimosis and paraphimosis 
7.7 Urinary tract infections 
8 Prevalence of circumcision worldwide 
8.1 United States 
9 See also 
10 References 
11 External links 
11.1 General information 
11.2 Circumcision techniques 
11.3 Circumcision opposition 
11.4 Circumcision promotion 
12 Further reading
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TipPt (talk • contribs) .
:Please explain why you feel that this rearrangement is justified. Jakew 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's the proposed outline 

message: This is where you get to state precisely what the alleged dispute is.  We now have web and print citations, so there's no way to deny this fact.  Therefore, I can't see any legitimate basis for dispute.  Prove me wrong. Al 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes do back it up so it should go somewhere in the article but the web searches I have done and the sources given are not authorative enough to grant it top billing in the intro. That is the only dispute I have with the term.  Sophia 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was sort of waiting for you to suggest a specific place that's a better fit. Al 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page Jakew 09:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, but I was asking about a place in this article. Al 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you know my opinion on that. Since your question was addressed to Sophia, though... Jakew 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Dispute explained in #Acucullophallia again, above. Jakew 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  acucullophallia "dispute" 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh
Come and join the lynching! Al 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for arbitration