Talk:Circumcision controversies/Archive 2

message: I am deleting the following:
1) "anti-circumcision" is against the loaded words policy (see use of anti/pro prefixes).
2) "kooks" / "zealots" is inherently pejoritive and against the Wikipedia:Words to avoid as they are invariably intended to offend.  I have never heard kook/zealot used positively or neutrally, but I could be wrong.  There is no reason to degrade Wikipedia into name-calling just because we disagree on the topic at hand, but obviously such name calling works both ways.
I have no problem with including any criticism and linking to it, but there terms are not objective or warranted within the article itself as I understand NPOV philosophy.  DanP 20:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True.  But if the article specifically is pejorative, then referencing it with the same pejoratives is in violation of Wikipedia's rules.  Otherwise, what should we do?  Next we should reference criticism of circumcision by refering to web articles similarly titled by pejorative?  Are you OK with that?  DanP 21:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Referencing an article by it's title is acceptable. However, we should refrain from using perjorative terms in our own text. - Jakew 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV is non-negotiable 

message: Jake, you've now claimed that there are social problems implicated in possession of a prepuce.  I find this difficult to fathom, living in a society where the norm for males, by a very wide margin, is to possess a prepuce. In what way am I socially disadvantaged? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Social problems tend to depend upon the society in question. Among certain Native American tribes, munching on the hallucinogenic peyote cactus is the norm, but this would be problematic in many Western societies. I put it to you that because you live in a society in with most males are uncircumcised, the social problems do not occur. However, if you were to be transplanted into a society in which circumcision was the norm or even expected, the social problems would become more apparent. -Jakew 16:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: My home town is probably not a good example, because I live in England. Instead, let's say you go to the gym in a Turkish town (where circumcision rates are more than 98%). You change, and other gym members can see that you're not circumcised. This carries a certain social stigma, and while perhaps not ostracised, people feel uncomfortable about it, perhaps putting some distance between you and them. - Jakew 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have serious doubts that this is an actual phenomenon in "gym members" environment.  But I am heterosexual, so perhaps I don't see the whole picture here.  I never notice "social" stigma directed at intact males, even in 98%+ male-circumcised areas.  In any case, you should quote some sources before speculating on this.  DanP 19:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paragraph deleted now, but for future reference, here is a source  - Jakew 20:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that reference only says fears of ostracism are a reason parents give to circumcise, not that ostracism occurs. --Hugh7 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social problems? 

message: Some believe that parents also have a right to act in the interests of the child as they see it, as a preventive against possible health and social problems with which the prepuce is implicated.
Why was this added exactly?  Genital integrity is for intactness of minors, whereas this is saying the opposite. DanP 19:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't added so much as edited. The original form read: "Some parents also assert a right to act in the interests of the child as they see it, as a preventive against possible infections with which the prepuce is implicated." I'd point out that the paragraph is about those opposing "genital integrity", so in the context it is valid. Perhaps we should remove the whole paragraph. What do you think? - Jakew 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  Deleting has my vote.  This article is about genital integrity, not opponents of it.  DanP 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about false statement 

message: I still haven't got a reply from Jake about the link titled Anti-circumcision Kooks.  Now someone else removed it but he then restored it.
Jake, could you answer my query about this link?
: I would like you to address my legitimate question about the content of "Kooks" link.  I will not remove any links for now, but I do need to be happy that they are appropriate.  In what way is the "kooks" link a critique of the concept of genital integrity?
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Circumcision Kooks 2 

message: Robert Blair, in two edits ("add history and websites." and "more additions to history section."), you've actually replaced the NPOV version agreed here with your own POV version, with no explanation and no note in the edit summary. If you object to the NPOV version, could you please explain why? You have not responded to my list of objections above... I wish you would discuss these things.
I've also added some notes about interpretation, to avoid slanting the discussion. I've also removed the statement about the Canadians rejecting Schoen - to my knowledge, Schoen wasn't even approached.
The paragraph beginning "The genital integrity movement entered the 21st century stronger than ever, and continues to grow in strength." is ludicrously POV, and reads more like an advertisement than a scholarly article. I've done my best with it, but it should really be removed. I've removed the second sentence ("The percentage of boys and girls whose genital integrity has been protected continues to increase. ") because it does not appear to be true.
I've also added a comment about the effectiveness of the mgmbill.org site. ("To date, the bill has not been accepted or endorsed by any politician.") - Jakew 15:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jake, I tend to agree with you on all but your point on "The percentage of boys and girls whose genital integrity has been protected continues to increase. ".  Protection, as handled by legislative and judicial bodies, is not identical to intactness -- they are pretty much semantically independent.  One can be circumcised, and later recieve legal protections (perhaps viewed by some as having less utility at that point).  Alternatively, one can have legal protection, and still be mutilated regardless.  Unless percentages are substantially impacted by global migrations, it's fair to say legal protections have not decreased in any regions (do you know of any?).  Whereas in some, they can be said to have increased (no matter the limited effectiveness).  I do not see any problem with the sentence with regard to children.  DanP 19:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1989 AAP and others 

message: I have done some editing to clarify the wording at several points, to add a little extra information and to qualify the use of the word 'intactivism'. The purpose of this was not to push any barrow except that of clear writing. I saw no reason to cloak the obvious conflict between circumcision advocates and the genital integrity movement in obscure wording. It is a fact that I think we can all agree on, whatever our opinions.
I think the main addition I made was to say that there is a widespread movement in Africa to abolish the practice of female gential mutilation. I have not documented this fact, but will do so a little later.
I think the main reorganisation was to group most of the material on female genital mutilation under one heading.
I hope that this will be a positive contribution to the article.
Michael Glass 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of wording etc. 

message: Previous articles on wikipedia which have since been deleted included a large number of citation about concern about media bias in favour of circumcision and against the Genital Integrity movement.  In particulair the fear that academic and media organization have of being labelled as anti-semitic etc. if they seem to endorse Genital Integrity.  Do you think that some of this should be included in this article?  Sirkumsize 04:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation of anti-semitism & islamophobia 

message: Excuse me for butting in, maybe this has already been covered, but why does a particular fringe group deserve such a large portion of this article's time?  Is that appropriate?  Would it be appropriate to fill half the article on "Pro-Life" with the extralegal antics of Operation Rescue nuts, or to hijack "Animal Rights Movement" with a detailed list of the crimes of the ALF?  It seems to me like someone was attempting to construct a strawman here.  -Kasreyn 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electro-Anarchy 

message: There's a two-sentence article called Association for Genital Integrity that I think should be merged with this article. Benami 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Johntex\talk 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep. Jakew 12:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Excluding critics and neutral sites, I count 26 external links. Many of these are little more than duplicates of others, offering no additional information. Few are encyclopaedic.
I therefore propose to identify the 10 most useful sites, and keep those but delete the rest. Would anyone care to nominate sites to be kept? Jakew 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 seems like a good number. As for specific links, I think that the links to NOCIRC, NOHARMM, and MGMbill.org are among the most useful. Christopher 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've been bold and chosen 10, including the ones you mention. It may not be the best selection, but it is at least a selection. Jakew 10:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks to be a good selection of the links.  Good job Lordkazan 13:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a web directory]] 

message: } move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Controversies" makes more sense to me, as there are several.  Two examples are the controversy over non-religious neonatal circumcision and the controversy over adult circumcision campaigns to combat HIV.  I think it might be misleading to suggest that there was only a single controversy.  I'm not entirely opposed to Joe407's suggestion, but I prefer the more concise titles.There seems to be quite a lot of overlap between the history section of this article and the history of male circumcision article.  This can — and should — be fixed regardless of any other changes: having similar content in multiple places is an indication of poor planning, and in the case of these articles it seems to encourage one-sided histories that are arguably POV forks.  Since historians have generally documented the history of circumcision (as opposed to the history of circumcision controversy, or for that matter the history of circumcision opposition), I would think that history of male circumcision is a more appropriate place for much of this material.For discussion of whether to spin out part of the history of male circumcision article, I suggest Talk:History of male circumcision. Jakew (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text: ** OK, I created a new topic: Talk:History_of_male_circumcision#Spin out medicalisation of circumcision 1850-present day section(s) into its own article.  Having thought about what I wrote there I actually think that this new controversies article would be redundant if we have a thorough medicalisation of circumcision 1850 to present day article.  I don't think i am mistaken because controversies surrounding non-therapeutic neonatal circ, and circ to prevent HIV in Africa, is within the topic of  "Medicalisation of circumcision: 1850 to present day". Tremello22 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move, merge, and rename request 

message: This article badly needs references. In particular, the lead and overview are completely lacking in references, and, I suspect, may be unsourceable. In addition, the history section appears to consist mostly of primary sources that do not directly refer to the subject of the article; instead they are presented as an original synthesis that purports to be the history of Genital Integrity.
Have any scholarly publications actually discussed and defined the subject of the article? Jakew 11:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some references. I don't know if any scholarly publications actually have discussed the genital integrity movement and its critics. Michael Glass 13:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the ultimate test for whether it belongs in Wikipedia. I'll wait for another month or so, to give plenty of time to find reliable sources, and if none are found I'll nominate it for deletion. Jakew 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Many of the results seem to be trivial usage of the phrase. However, it may be that there are sufficient substantial sources to provide a definition and meaningful content for the article. Since most of the 'sources' cited in the article don't even mention 'genital integrity', I suggest that a rewrite is needed. Jakew 20:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Part of the problem lies in the title. "History" could be taken as a history of the genital integrity movement. I see these sentences as relevant, but the section would be better labelled "Background information." The four sentences in question are well documented but the arguments of those pushing for circumcision are not mentioned. I agree that it would be more even-handed to outline these arguments.Michael Glass 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, the new title is a slight improvement in terms of clarity, but we still need sources that explicitly make a direct link between this material and the subject of the article. As far as an even-handed history of circumcision goes, remember that we already have history of circumcision, and we don't need a duplicate. What we need to concentrate on is significant events in the history of (or background to) the 'genital integrity' movement, as determined by reliable sources. Perhaps a pertinent question is: do any reliable sources actually discuss this issue? Jakew 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: The first four paragraphs of the 'history' section seem to be a somewhat one-sided view of the history of circumcision, rather than a history of 'genital integrity' per se. Do any reliable sources establish a direct link between this material and the subject of the article? If not, I propose to delete these four paragraphs. Jakew 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem lies in the title. "History" could be taken as a history of the genital integrity movement. I see these sentences as relevant, but the section would be better labelled "Background information." The four sentences in question are well documented but the arguments of those pushing for circumcision are not mentioned. I agree that it would be more even-handed to outline these arguments.Michael Glass 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, the new title is a slight improvement in terms of clarity, but we still need sources that explicitly make a direct link between this material and the subject of the article. As far as an even-handed history of circumcision goes, remember that we already have history of circumcision, and we don't need a duplicate. What we need to concentrate on is significant events in the history of (or background to) the 'genital integrity' movement, as determined by reliable sources. Perhaps a pertinent question is: do any reliable sources actually discuss this issue? Jakew 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History