Talk:Circumcision/Archive 7

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1602139,00.html --Dumbo1 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it when it was printed. Isn't it awful? I was appalled at the Guardian - usually pretty good at balanced reporting. Unfortunately they didn't print my letter, but the following Saturday's edition did carry a letter from another person rather critical of the article. Jakew 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it awful? --Dumbo1 23:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Read This

message: there is a lot of pseudo-information in the editing
i am a pediatric urologist
if you want real info contact me
i am tired of the incessant bickering i see here with people advancing their agendas (especially robert the bruce)
i think my experience with the normal and pathologic states of the penis count for something
also, i at least do circumcisions (when i deem them necessary) and am well-versed in their complications
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 07:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: may I ask where you are from (i.e. your cultural background) and whether you are circumcised? --Dumbo1 23:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take that as an "you can ask the question but I'm not going to answer it"...--Dumbo1 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  circumcision 

message: The British rejected the National Health subsidy on circumcision because of the lack of benefit and the mortality rate noted at the time. Douglas Gardiner's paper was most influential here.Michael Glass 06:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The British rejection of circumcision

message: The spread of circumcision in South Korea can be attributable to American influence. However, there is nothing in the New Testament that mandates circumcision. If circumcision was promoted in South Korea, the source was American rather than specifically Christian.Michael Glass 06:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Korea

message: The image of the 'circumcised' penis in the article looks to me like it could be an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin rolled back...? It's hard to tell but it appears to have skin bands bunched behind the glans, which looks smooth and shiny. Have a look at these wikipedia pics where you can see another penis with foreskin both covering the glans and retracted.
I second this. Something is wrong because the 'circumcised' penis is either just a regular penis with the foreskin rolled back behind the gland OR its a newly circumcised penis (??)
Certainly the gland would not be moist but carotinised and dry. Someone please verify these photos?
I third this. The penis looks wet or oiled, which really shouldn't be the case circumcised or not. Additionally it appears as if there could be a foreskin and is just rolled back. In most circumcised penises, there is little or no foreskin to create a roll just behind the glans, as appears to be the case here. Can we have some confirmation of the provenance of these photos. Or perhaps someone really daring can take a picture of their, or a friends circumcised penis and post it. --Dumbo1 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcised? 

message: Michael, I've removed the discussion of the "earlier" figures, since it will be confusing towards readers.
However, it is incorrect to describe these figures as "earlier". Though they were presented earlier, they must be from a later sample point. The 63% rate comes from the study presented in Rio. Note that there were 45 infections in the control vs 15 in the intervention group. The earlier infection figures reported were 51 and 18 respectively, and thus clearly must be sampled later. I suspect that the 70% figure is a rounding error. - Jakew 17:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV numbers

message: The above issue has arisen time and time again. In a (probably naive) attempt to resolve it once and for all, let's try a vote, that we can simply refer back to. The terminology used on Wikipedia for a penis that is not circumcised should be:
====Uncircumcised====
#Jakew 11:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: #Jakew 11:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncircumcised

message: #Woodstone 15:18:10, 2005-08-16 (UTC) Intact is simply neutral; Natural might also be used; Uncircumcised is rather POV
#Liftarn 15:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Intact

message: #I believe that there are problems with both 'uncircumcised' and 'intact'. Both are skewed; only the direction is different. I think the best solution is to find a more neutral term than either 'uncircumcised' or 'intact'. My choices would be 'with a foreskin' or 'men with foreskins' and 'circumcised'. However, when quoting an author who uses another term, the author's choice of word should be respected. Michael Glass 11:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: You will notice the result of the vfd on uncircumcised was keep/redirect and its been pointed at this article.  I interpret this as meaning merge.  Why hasn't the information on uncircumcised been included in this article as per the keep part of this outcome?  64.229.13.96 06:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to live up to [[uncircumcised]] vote

message: "Further, many medical studies have found that being circumcised reduces a man's risk of developing penile cancer."
anyone have a source?
--Johnjosephbachir
:       
Jakew 09:56, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Has anyone thought to put up the penile cancer rates as a % of the male population. I believe it to be very small. HIV/AIDS is a much bigger problem. I propose that the section on medical reasons for circumcision be added to so the general reader will be better informed. As it stands this section does not inform as well as it could. --Dumbo1 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Male population of...? The species? It's tricky to get right, since rates vary enormously across the world. Jakew 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why stop at phimosis? Why not include other conditions to which the uncircumcised are more prone, such as HPV, BXO, and smegma? The answer, perhaps, is that this is an article on circumcision, not those particular conditions. Jakew 19:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  also penile cancer 

message: Here are some related sites:
====Pro-Topic====
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
*This is a pro-topic site
====Anti-Topic====
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
That's a HUGE block of text, and I think that a better solution is to follow the recommendations at the Wikipedia:External links style guide page.  Consider also the sage advice of WP:NOT: "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."  Nandesuka 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Rather than making up bizarre new mathematical rules for link inclusion, let's just follow existing policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. Jakew 18:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern was always about trying to use the existing policy to justify pushing pro-circumcision POV. 64.229.122.133 07:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake External Links

message: *This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
*This is an anti-topic site
That's a HUGE block of text, and I think that a better solution is to follow the recommendations at the Wikipedia:External links style guide page.  Consider also the sage advice of WP:NOT: "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."  Nandesuka 02:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Rather than making up bizarre new mathematical rules for link inclusion, let's just follow existing policy. Jayjg (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded. Jakew 18:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the concern was always about trying to use the existing policy to justify pushing pro-circumcision POV. 64.229.122.133 07:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Topic

message: I read the uncircumcised versus intact discussion with interest.
It seems to me that the term uncircumcised should be abandoned in favour of  circumuncised.
Broadly speaking, circum means "around" and cised means "cut". Thus, uncircumcised means "not-around-cut", implying "cut, but not around". My neologism, circumuncised, means "around: not cut", which far better illustrates the preputial status quo.
I cannot see my linguistic innovation catching on, but I thought I'd share it for the good of all.
Dubbin 21:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, and funny, but it'll never fly.    Tomer TALK 06:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Wouldn't it sound better with circumINcised, more Latin-like? =S 81.232.72.148 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumuncised 

message: I noticed that the religious meaning of uncircumcised has been censored from this article.  Obviously some people are trying to push the agenda of suppressing from the reading that uncircumcised is a POV term for reasons discussed above!  People here are bent on this idea that the term intact is POV and uncircumcised is NPOV (the opposite of the truth) and are doing everything in their power to distort the article to reflect this.  64.229.122.133 07:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't this extensively discussed somewhere else? 128.178.42.200 19:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  The result of the discussion was that almost half believed that the term was POV.  There needs to something in this article to that affect, or at the very least, include information that supports this or else the article itself becomes biased.  Uncircumcised was redirected to this article because it was thought this article could adequate cover it as well.  If there isn't space in this article for a good NPOV description of uncircumcised that addresses all of its connations as per its dictionary definition it needs to be resplit into a different article.  If this is not done, I would put forward that it has not been discussed extensively enough.  64.229.11.197 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has been censored to suppress the POV connoations to [[uncircumcised]]

message: I have a bit of a problem with taking Jewish sources on circumcision as NPOV.  The same goes with Islamic, Christian or any other religious source from a religion that has anything to saw about circumcision.  64.229.122.133 07:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Jewish information sources on circumcision really be considered NPOV?

message: To define circumcision, one must remove religious connotations from its definition.  Of course, adding a part about religious meanings of circumcision would be appropriate, but not in its definition.
:There is a separate religious meaning to the term uncircumcised (don't know about circumcised) listed in dictionary.com .  Since uncircumcised is merged with this article, that meaning must be addressed.  It shows that there is a negative connation to the use of the term uncircumcised -- it could imply gentile or non-christian.  If this is not included in this article there is a need to split uncircumcised back into a different article.  64.229.11.197 15:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why equating circumcision to religious terms is biased 

message: Circumcision refers to both male and female genital manipulation, often tied to culture and traditions, usually religiously-based, though from a non-biased view it can be seen merely as a cosmetic procedure.  The term "female genital cutting" is obviously an ignorant mis-nomer, as it refers quite adolescently to something referred to as "circumcision" - the on-going debate
as to the "FGC" "FGM" is far from appropriate.  This article is full of political innuendo and male chauvanism masked as some sort of soap-box for arbitrating male egos.  Circumcision does not refer to only the man, and the constant revision and seperation of male and female shows that a lot of Wikipediaists are obviously chronic masturbators, possibly homosexual or bisexual in their penile infatuation.  Circumcision and the term "female circumcision" should be combined into one unbiased definition, and the chauvanism removed to provide an NPOV.   JC
:"Circumcision" is far more often used to refer to male than female circumcision, as far as I can tell. Female genital mutilation is a horrible thing, but I have no idea how it's POV to not call it "circumcision" when that's ambiguous and less common. Please do not make personal attacks. ~~ N (t/c) 13:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there might be some merit to moving it here - I can see why having it at "female genital mutilation" is POV, but having it at the much less used "Female genital cutting" just seems like a bizarre misuse of the NPOV policy. Circumcision is widely defined as applying to female circumcision as well as male, so I see no harm in including it here (although moving it to female circumcision might reduce clutter).StuartH 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about renaming the articles to "circumcision (male)" and "circumcision (female)" or something similar? --Yodakii 15:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Wikipedia article is obviously male-dominated, biased and ignorant of science 

message: I believe the answer is obvious:  Turn circumcision into a disambiguation page and point it to male genital cutting and female genital cutting.  There isn't enough room in one article to cover both.  They each deserve their own article.   64.229.11.197 15:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ridiculous to merge the articles. They are about different procedures, they are both long articles, they have vastly different cultural histories, legal positions etc. In terms of dab page that is secondary, but as there are likely to be only 2 links, a dab link at the top of (male) circumcision is probably sufficient, but lets get rid of the stupid merge first. Justinc 00:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation page

message: After a 3 week "reversion war", the type of changes proves two or three individuals are ruining this article for these reasons:
* 1: "female genital cutting" is some bvllshit made up term, so why make another mistake with "male genital cutting" - that is the most absurdly un-clinical term I've ever seen
* 2: censoring "female circumcision" for the purpose of 'avoiding future generations practicing the act' is altruistic censorship, but censorship none-the-less and does not paint a clear picture of the truth; also violating NPOV; and might I add places far more faith in Wikipedia's longevity than any sane person would
* 3: any argument that "uncircumcized" also means "heathen" is obviously a judeo-christian moralist, biased and possibly radical and thus violating NPOV
:Do you have any arguments that aren't personal attacks?  The article itself refers to multiple types of genital cutting, only some of which would be considered "circumcision". The reference to "heathen" is simple historical fact. And the article itself is far too large to merge anyway. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, thank you for acknowledging the reference to heathen as fact.  The person that wrote the original post seems to have neglicted to sign it.  In any event I totally disagree with, and fail to comprehend his optional third reason.  How is acknowledging the fact that the term uncircumcised has a negative connation due to an historical meaning NPOV?  The only kind of person that would argue this would be someone desparate to shield the term for criticism (probably out of fear that the term intact will prevail).  This is censorship which he (or she) himself acknowledges is against policy.  No personal attack on the unsigned individual intended.  Sirkumsize 11:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh, the indians, Chinese and Japanese have a different word for it.  This is an english article about an engish word.  The word uncircumcised has been used to mean heathen in cultures that use the term.  Sirkumsize 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It would be awfully nice if those who object to the current layout and naming of the articles would bother to read and comment on the existing discussions in this page and Talk:Female genital cutting first... Jakew 11:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Would an admin care to enforce the no personal attacks policy? Jakew 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As inappropriate as the unsigned individual is, she make some good points.  I have serious concerns about the labelling of the links, CIRP in particulair, as well as the removal of Circumcision Support Network.  I also feel that JakeW and others could edit more harmoniously.  Sirkumsize 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: See also Jenchurch's previous versions, in which she declared "Wikipedia is devalued by lame-brained adolescent males" "JAKEW is obvious a homosexual who is fixating on the images of penises and has NO VALID REASON for his edits." "It proves morons are ruining this article for two reasons:" and so on. Jakew 14:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you have a problem with my edits, say so. Do not extend them into accusations against myself. Making such comments as "rv JakeW has no reason other than his ego for these reverts" and (your revised version of) "JAKEW is obviously fixating on the images of penises and has NO VALID REASON for his edits." is not helpful. Jakew 14:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, Mad Merv. It's interesting that your very first edit (contribs) was at 15:39 today. On the other hand, Jenchurch's last edit (contribs) today was at 15:38. Jakew 14:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If it were not obvious enough that you and Jenchurch are one and the same, you pick a new username containing an obscure word that is one of Jenchurch's edits. Come on, you break the rules, you're informed about them (nicely, too: I could have requested that you were blocked for the 3RR violation, but I didn't), and you try to evade them by changing your username. I'd like to assume good faith, but you're making this impossible (there is no be deluded policy). Jakew 15:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female genital cutting is assinine 

message: Merged by general consensus.  Mad Merv
:Interesting version of 'consensus'. As far as I can tell, nobody agreed with the suggestion. Would you please take some time to learn Wikipedia's policies, and have some respect for the community? Still, somebody else will need to revert you, since I can't without breaking the 3RR (you have already exceeded three reverts as your 'Jenchurch' sockpuppet). Jakew 15:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was clearly no consensus for any merger, and it created an unacceptably large article (66k) discussing disparate topics.  Please try to get consensus for major changes first, rather than ramming these kinds of huge unilateral things down peoples throats. Also, use of sockpuppets for edit-warring is forbidden according to Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  No consensus for the merger.  Totally inappropriate action.  I do however share some concerns about the over-zealousness of JakeW which I have hopefully expressed in the past.  In any event, unprofessional behaviour will not gain you sympathy.  Sirkumsize 10:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No agreement was made on the FGC page to merge the articles. The merge is, and continues to be inappropriate. Jakew 14:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop this. Do not merge this article. If mad merv makes any more personal attacks I will block him, but can you lot stop fighting each other and start ,aking sensible arguments. Justinc 12:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please stop taking unilateral actions in defiance of both consensus and policy. Jayjg (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The existing versions of the article are not "JakeW's versions", but rather the consensus of a significant number of editors.  If you want to change article names, you need to get consensus - you could try at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  Also, please respect the Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility policies. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: Clearly the merged article was a failure. I consider the current Circumcision and FGC articles too long as it is and that merged one was way too long. Fortunately merging is not our only option. My current thinking is that we should rearrange all of the Genital Modification related pages in such a way that it is easy to navigate between them. I also think that Circumcision and FGC would benefit from being broken up into smaller subpages so that it is easy to get both a superficial and also super-in-depth treatment of the subject. This might not be the right talk page for this, but here is what I am thinking for heirerarchy at the moment. Every article would be linked to both its parent and all of its children.
*Genital Modification
:*Male
::*Circumcision
:::*History of Male Circumcision
:::*Medical analysis of Circumcision
:::*Adult Circumcision
::::*Posthectomy
::::*Frenectomy
::::*Phimosis
:::*Routine Infant Circumcision
::::*Circumcision Scar
::::*Bioethics of Neonatal circumcision
::::*Circumcision Advocacy
::::*Circumcision and the Law
::::*Circumcision in the Bible
::::*Genital Integrity
::::*Medical Analysis of Circumcision
::*Castration
:::*Orchidectomy
::*Penectomy
:*Female
::*FGC
:::*FGM
::::*Clitoridectomy
::::*Infibulation
:::*Clitoridotomy
:::*Labiaplasty
Redirect Pages should be in there as well, I think, as siblings of their redirects.
I await your comments and suggestions. Christopher 04:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath of attempts to merge Circumcision with FGC 

message: Why not organize it like this:
Circumcision is going to be a branch again, to two sites:
# Circumcision on males, where it is a wonderful, healthy, good for sexuality and whatever practice. Also, it cures AIDS.
# Female genital cutting, where it is an evil practice, dangerous, destroys the sexuality. 
Now why is this? Sexism, as in, Violence vs Men is OK while it is not vs Women? Culturism, as in, my society mutilates men and protects women so it is ok, societies who do it the other way around are totally evil? 
Why not start an article on amputating baby feet so they can jog better later in their life? I'm all in favor of it, so any article that discusses amputating baby feet should have the same number of pro and contra arguments!
In fact, I think about editing murder so it contains more pro-murder arguments because I think the article is too biased in the direction of murder being a bad thing.Dabljuh 12:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So... this is your NPOV?

message: I thought it best to put a simple explanation why I put Muslims before Jews in the survey of numbers in the article. The reason is simple. There are about 1000 million Muslims and 14 million Jews so Muslim numbers are overwhelmingly greater. Michael Glass 07:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslims and Jews