Talk:Circumcision/Archive 8

message: Jayjg, if you think the article is not NPOV, please follow TShilo12's example and edited the article instead of reverting it.  There is no need to go back to the 10 December 2005 version.
Also a reversion should not be marked as a minor edit, especially for a controversial topic like circumcision.
*Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text.
*Reversions of pages are not likely to be considered minor edits under most circumstances.
Please do not mark significant changes, including reversions, as minor edits. -- DanBlackham 01:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes were neither NPOV, nor discussed in Talk: first. Reverts are minor edits by default; if you have any concerns about the use of the minor edit flag, please take them up with Rood, who completely POVd the introduction using both the flag and using a misleading edit summary. And if you think any of Rood's POV terminology (e.g. "natural, intact penis", "fetishistic") or unsourced claims (e.g. "the individual, over time, might occasionally consider multiple circumcisions to be desirable") belong, please make a case for them here. Jayjg (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions

message: I think we should be cautious about the inclusion of images of genitalia which the reader may not be expecting to see when following links to the page -- particularly if the reader is, for example, following links from pages about religious topics, and uncertain of the meaning of the term "circumcision" prior to coming to this page.  In particular, given the range of ages of readers and the range of jurisdictions within which they may be residing, we should err on the side of caution.  I am therefore going to replace the inline images with links to images.  The images will still be available, but the reader will only reach them after following a link which makes it obvious what to expect.  This is not censorship; it is just allowing readers to make an informed choice about whether to view the images, along the same lines that we already have spoiler warnings.  TerraGreen 22:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the French solution.  I think I'll be bold and add it for now. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, wait, I see that Terra Green's solution hasn't been reverted.  Never mind.  In the event we want to use a template, here's a sample:
 
 
 Warning: This page contains uncensored images of male genitalia.
 
 
That shows up as:
Warning: This page contains uncensored images of male genitalia.
(To avoid GFDL attribution problems in the unlikely event this is used, I hereby irrevocably allow unrestricted use of the above.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potentially unexpected images 

message: The intro to the article makes the claim that religious use of the word "uncircumcised" means non-Jewish or, more rarely, non-Christian. Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. I've seen the word used to describe non-Muslims on occasion, but never non-Christians. Any references?Benami 09:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncircumcised = non-Christian? 

message: This is not an encyclopedic source of information about circumcision. Therefore I removed it. Michael Glass 09:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was presented as an external link, not a source, Michael. None of the other external links are encyclopaedic sources, either - that's the nature of the net. Jakew 13:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circlist

message: "Circumcision is performed for religious, cultural, and medical reasons. Elective adult circumcision may also be chosen as a form of body modification, or for aesthetic or other reasons." Could someone explain the distinction between "body modification, or..aesthetic" reasons and the religious and cultural reasons already mentioned? Body modification is a cultural practice, and aesthetics are part of culture. This seems to be a difference without a distinction. Benami 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for circumcision 

message: Specific criticism with the overhauled article goes below this line, please! (Old article for comparison: here) Also, check out #Design_by_commitee for a list of relevant changes of the new version over the old one.
Dabljuh 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific criticism with the overhauled article

message: The problem with adding / removing every line and section one by one is that it accumulates to design by committee. The article ("Jakew's version" as I call it) is barely readable, not very informative, some exhaustive driveling about totally irrelevant (and Wikipedia-specific) issues, and contains many NNPOV items.
I decided to write the whole article from scratch. I'll now try to explain in some detail what I did:
*Removed the description of "uncircumcised" penis. It is the result from this annoying POV-War of intact vs uncircumcised vs genital mutilation, and does not add anything to the article. Used "uncircumcised" except for one incidence of "intact" where I found the difference to be relevant.
*Added a section "Effects of circumcision". This is a bit stub-ish, I expect you people to add some more effects. The reason for this is that this is probably the most important thing the first thing that someone wants to read when he's informing himself about circumcision. Some of the material in that section is C&P from the old article, some I wrote from scratch. Read it and reconsider if there is any considerable NNPOV in it. I have tried my best to make it just the "current state of the art" medicinally relevant while maximizing readability.
*Improved structuring of Reasons for circumcision, trying to make it more easily readable and also skip-able.
*Improved structuring and rewrote some material on medical reasons for circumcision.
*NPOV relevant edit: I changed the infant circumcision section to fix the WP:NPOVUW problem.
*History of circumcision: Removed what felt like 100 pages of bible thumping. This is the general article about circumcision, if you want to read the historic details, go read History of circumcision. I feel there's only a few relevant bits of information that should be in the article:
**Circumcision is way old
**The christians didn't circumcise for some reason (like, the romans didn't like it) (Didn't find a section in history that summed that up with style, so omitted it. Experts on historical christian non-circumcision may add a section like that again)
**It came en vogue again in late 19th century as a cure against masturbation
**And because I find the section to be relatively interesting and also relevant to the article I didn't reduce the 20th century history of circumcision. But I intend to work over that part again as it still has a lot of link- and statistics- thumping in there that I don't think does all really belong in the historical section of the article. This section may have to be worked on still.
*Didn't change "Prevalence" at all
*Removed 2 small, badly structured and barely readable sections that felt like incoherent POV rambling and in their meaning belong to Bioethics of neonatal circumcision.
*Revamped the links section
*Update Added Risks assessment and What is circumcision stubs. 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that this is going to accomplish what you're hoping for... Tomertalk 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design by commitee 

message: Dabljuh, in your latest edit summary, you stated: "rv (That write is POV, barely readable, and does not have consensus)".
Can I remind you that so far only you have endorsed your preferred version. Three people have reverted you:
#Benami 
#Jakew 
#Jayjg 
Additionally, four editors (the three above plus one other) have advised you not to rewrite the article.
While there is no unanimous view either way, you appear to be in a minority in preferring your rewrite. Jakew 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?