Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 1

message: ----
	What about the copyright in the picture? Anyway, can't you get a smaller picture — this one loads very slowly. Lupo 23:59, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	Premerge-[[Intactivism]] 	

message: ----
	It appears that most of the content in this article was written to justify its own existence:
	"However, the term 'Genital Integrity' does more than bring together the issues mentioned above. It treats question of genital cutting as a human rights concern, and states or implies that the right to bodily integrity, which is generally accepted in law, applies to people's genitals as well as the rest of them."
	"Therefore the term 'Genital Integrity' challenges some traditional medical practices"
	"Therefore the term 'genital integrity' , which is evidence of this change of thinking, is likely to be resisted strongly by those who do not see things in this way."
	"Some would argue that the term 'Genital Integrity' is too contentious to be used."
	The supporters of this article are using straw men in their arguments. Nobody wants to delete this because they're "in favor of child abuse", or because the term is too contentious. The reason this should be deleted is because it's a neologism, it's already covered in Intactivism, and most of the article is basically "the reason this article should exist is..." Rhobite 15:13, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
==	In Defence of Neologisms	==
	New words are created because the old words don't cover the concepts. I would guess that 'Inactivism' as a term would not stand the test of time as well as 'genital integrity' because the latter makes sense.
	If all new words are to be rejected because there are new, then the language would ossify. I would guess that the problem with the term 'genital integrity' is not with its newness, but with its challenge to other ways of thinking about genital cutting.
	User:Michael Glass
:	There's nothing wrong with neologisms, but they don't belong in Wikipedia until they become widespread. Isn't it a little pointless that most of this article is devoted to defending the existence of the term "genital integrity?" Wouldn't your effort be better spent writing useful content? This isn't a place for advocacy. Rhobite 04:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
==	To the Gatekeeper	==
	Well, first of all I expanded what was already written to explain why the term has come into existence. I did not write to defend or attack the expression 'genital integrity' but to understand why it has come into existence and to explain how it is used. This, I believe, is in keeping with the 'neutral point of view' philosophy of Wikipedia.
	I think the problem here is that the term 'genital integrity' carries with it a whole way of thinking about the body that challenges some conventional thinking. That is the thing that makes it so contentious, and so interesting.
	I note that Rhobite says that neogolisms don't belong in Wikipedia until they become 'widespread'. Now who is the gatekeeper who defines 'widespread'?  If a gatekeeper rejects 'genital integrity', what does it reveal about the preconceptions of the gatekeeper?
	Certain words and phrases are contentious. Examples would be 'gay', 'right to life' and 'jihad'. All of these have articles in Wikipedia, and rightly so, and equally rightly, none of these articles advocate the causes that are associated with them. I hope that the same thing will happen with 'Genital Integrity'.
	User:Michael Glass
----
==	Frequency of "Genital Integrity" according to Google.Com	==
----
	These are the frequencies of the terms "Genital Integrity", "Intactivism", and as a control, "Pannotia", according to Google.Com:
*	"Genital Integrity":	2 370
*	"Intactivism":	1 580
*	"Pannotia":	509
	"Genital Integrity" seems to be well represented on Google.Com.
	Ŭalabio 05:34, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)
----
==	Double Standards: "Genital Integrity" is questioned; "Subincision" is not.	==
	Why should the gatekeepers be questioning 'genital integrity' while 'subincision', a  blatant piece of promotion, with a direct link to a site that most would regard as very strange, if not obscene, remains unquestioned?
	I would suggest that though subincision is a mutilation in the eyes of most people, an article on this subject does not challenge vested interests in the way the very term 'genital integrity does.
:	I don't see anything promotional or POV on the Subincision page, but if you think the article is unacceptable, please bring it up on that article's talk page. The linked site is indeed strange, but in no way is it obscene. Wikipedia doesn't censor explicit content in linked sites.
:	I'll describe the problem here. You folks are having trouble integrating into the culture of Wikipedia. You're acting like you own the content of your articles and any attempt to modify or delete them is an attack on you. Please don't use words like "gatekeepers" to describe the community - the scrutinization of questionable articles is a benefit, not a drawback, of Wikipedia. Rhobite 18:42, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
::	Perhaps the reason you find subincision acceptable is because I changed it. When I first read it it informed me that one of the advantages of subincision was greater sensitivity! I changed that to something that was 'claimed' . It also did not have any links to mutilation and self-harm. These changes transformed a blatantly promotional piece to something that at least had the appearance of NPOV.  User:Michael Glass
==	An independent opinion	==
	OK, I've read all of the talk on VFD and the various talk pages, and surfed about 20 external websites and here are my observations. I also don't give a rat's ass about any of the issues concerned, one way or the other.
*	First, we do not need seperate pages for Genital Integrity and Intactivism. They are merely different names for the same social movement. It will be difficult to choose one over the other however, as both names seem to be widely used. If needs be we can create a new page called Intactivism and Genital Integrity.
*	Second - the existing Genital Integrity article is not NPOV and claiming that it is in a talk section does not make it so. This article is clearly biased in favour of those who support the viewpoint and cannot be accepted. We're veterans of people with their own agenda claiming their writing is neutral - trust me, it isn't. It will be subjected to a big editing pen. Manning 22:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	Talk of [[Genital Integrity]] during consideration of [[merger]] with [[Intactivism]]	

message: OK, I've read all of the talk on VFD and the various talk pages, and surfed about 20 external websites and here are my observations. I also don't give a rat's ass about any of the issues concerned, one way or the other.
*	First, we do not need seperate pages for Genital Integrity and Intactivism. They are merely different names for the same social movement. It will be difficult to choose one over the other however, as both names seem to be widely used. If needs be we can create a new page called Intactivism and Genital Integrity.
*	Second - the existing Genital Integrity article is not NPOV and claiming that it is in a talk section does not make it so. This article is clearly biased in favour of those who support the viewpoint and cannot be accepted. We're veterans of people with their own agenda claiming their writing is neutral - trust me, it isn't. It will be subjected to a big editing pen. Manning 22:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	An independent opinion	

message: From what I can see, this article is very close to be a fine article. The only problem is the frankly excessive number of external links at the bottom. As such, I have edited the article to remove most of the links. I made the decision to keep the three links that are still there (The International Coalition for Genital Integrity, Students for Genital Integrity, and National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM)) because the first two were the first results for the search "genital integrity" at Google, and the third was the site the ribbon picture was taken from. The clutter is gone, and there are still enough external links to provide interested people with a good start at finding out more. Modargo 06:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	Removal of excessive links	

message: ----
==	New Name	==
----
	Genital Integrity is a proper noun and should be capitalized and this this article is about both the concept of Genital Integrity and the movement Intactivism.  The name of the article should reflect these facts.  I propose that we rename the article to the movement Genital Integrity or something similar.  This is my thinking:
	 Intactivists base the movement of Intactivism on the concept of Genital Integrity which is a proper noun with 2350 hits on Google.Com.  The name the movement Genital Integrity reflects these facts.
	If anyone has any comments or better name-suggestions, then please chime-in.
	Ŭalabio 02:38, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
----
== from VfD ==
On 1 August 2004, Genital Integrity (note capital I) was nominated for deletion.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity for a record of the debate. Rossami 22:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 	The talk of the postmerged article	

message: On 1 August 2004, Genital Integrity (note capital I) was nominated for deletion.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity for a record of the debate. Rossami 22:50, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  from VfD 

message: The nature of the link to "Whose body? Whose rights?" seems rather dubious to me. A bittorrent source and xvid codec are typical means for sharing pirated movies. Does anyone know whether this is legitimate? - Jakew 12:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking to Whose Body