Talk:Circumcision/Archive 30

message: Jakew and the Cabal claim bias with inclusion.  See their comments above.
I reiterate that because frenectomy in integral to circumcision ... required to complete ~25% of circs, only done along with circs, and potentially caused by circs ... the reader should have reference to the procedure in the intro.  Again, it is a critical component of circumcision.  See the intro that existed for years before the Cabal deleted...
Circumcision is the procedure that removes some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The frenulum  may also be cut away at the same time, in a procedure called a frenectomy. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and caedere (meaning "to cut").TipPt 15:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Based on my above discussion with Jakew, it is clear that a majority of the sources cited in the procedures section make reference to the frenelum as well as the foreskin.  I would suggest fine tuning the above wording, perhaps by removing the word "away" since apparently the frenelum may also be cut through without being removed.  Whatever the particular phrasing, I agree that the frenelum should be included in the definition of circumcision since it is clearly a part of the penis involved in the procedure. Zandrous 11:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the discussion above, it sounds reasonable to me to include mention of the frenulum in the intro.  --Coppertwig 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Frenectomy has its own article, and, in my opinion, while it should be referenced somewhere in the section on methodology, it is inappropriate for the lead. -- Avi 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  However, I think mention of the frenelum belongs in the definition in the lead. Zandrous 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about circumcision in general. The frenulum is a detail that may or may not be involved. It doesn't belong in the lead. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frenectomy in the intro paragraph 

message: For someone who “honestly apologized” for inappropriate remarks about other editors, espcially vis-a-vis use of the term “cabal,” on July 15, your further posts, Tip, are indicative of your insincerity, and perhaps duplicitousness, as can be seen from
*
*
*
*
*
*
-- Avi 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TipPt's continued lack of civility 

message: The dispute tag is accurate.  There's currently dispute as to whether circumcision is (always) surgery, and whether the strongest statements from medical association position statements can be quoted in the article.  Also the large section on religion occurring before much (or any?) mention of any harm or risk has been pointed out as being non-neutral.       Etc. --Coppertwig 22:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

message: I believe this photo was removed because it was obviously of an underaged child.71.198.175.226 22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be illegal; it is not pornographic? -- Avi 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still not clarified.  Someone didn't sign their post, but worse than that, they didn't specify which image they're talking about.  --Coppertwig 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "Skin Bridge" Photo 

message: The issue is content.  The circumcision article is not factual in it's omission of highly pertinent facts, it's emphasis on relatively irrelevant information, and it's gross misrepresentations of fact.
I won't raise related issues again, and will have a concise list of topic problems in about a week.TipPt 19:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration of content 

message: In Jayjg's most recent edit, in which his edit description reads: "cleaning up the rest of some old vandalism," the following content is removed:
", though it is not prescribed by the major Christian denominations. It is not requirement of the other great world religions."
Wikipedia's official policy on vandalism states: "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."
Since none of the other definitions of vandalism in the policy seem to match this deleted material, then Jayjg, could you support your apparent claim that this material is both in bad faith, and that its "bad-faith nature" is "inarguably explicit?  Blackworm 09:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Please use accurate, useful edit summaries, everyone.  I await Jayjg's response. --Coppertwig 12:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "vandalism"