Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive 1

message: to match its category name. -- Fplay 15:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: rename

message: You left out supercision —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.27.198.172 (talk • contribs).
:Be bold and add it then. :-) Jakew 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: supercision

message: I feel that Jakew's version of the article, to which he is continually reverting, does not represent a clear, balanced, and well-laid out view of the topic.  Please discuss below, and refrain from making changes until consensus is reached.  Exploding Boy 22:51, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
::Perhaps, instead of merely grumbling, you'd like to explain the specific reasons why you felt it appropriate to revert the changes? If you don't explain your objections, how on earth can we be expected to resolve them? - Jakew 15:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article's looking fine, but since "intactivism" is used by some groups, I think it can stay (particularly as there is a link to the relevant article).  Exploding Boy 22:48, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not arguing that it should be removed altogether. But in the interest of remaining grammatically correct, we should either say "part of "intactivism"..." or "part of Intactivism". The former is probably more correct, thinking about it. - Jakew 22:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Jakew, please indicate why you're reverting.  We can try to combine our changes, if you desire. DanP 23:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, your changes reverted many of mine.  I'm sure we can mix them together. DanP 23:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I moved it to a table format.  I hope that's OK.  Some of the phrases still hint that one side is correct.  I changed those too, and ideally nobody should see a slant in any particular direction. DanP 01:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the table, I'm OK with the list format.  But why do you delete all of the content?  DanP 19:09, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, the focus of formal definitions seems to be damage (or harm), rather than removal per se, though removal of something considered to be essential appears to count.
* Normative. Look at the sentence structure: "For still others, less "extreme" alterations (such as piercing), or alterations which are seen as normative (such as male circumcision) are "modifications,"" - it's obvious that the alterations are seen as normative by the 'others' concerned.
* This is what it says: "Male circumcision may be performed for religious, social or medical reasons". Note the use of the word "may". Are you seriously suggesting that any of these three reasons are impossible? Or are you saying that other reasons should be added? I'm confused by your discussion of the foreskin restoration article. - Jakew 20:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued Reverts

message: By who? I know thats not NPOV. Sam [Spade] 14:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats your opinion, there is nothing normative about genital mutilation, voluntary or no. Sam [Spade] 15:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Who doesn't think what they do is normative? Its an irrlevant POV statement. Sam [Spade] 16:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "are seen as normative" 

message: For still others, less "extreme" alterations (such as piercing), or those that they regard as normative (for example, infant circumcision) are "modifications," while more extreme alterations (such as castration), even if undertaken voluntarily, are mutilation.
:Thats your opinion, there is nothing normative about genital mutilation, voluntary or no. Sam [Spade] 15:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who doesn't think what they do is normative? Its an irrlevant POV statement. Sam [Spade] 16:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removed from article

message: and you can't have the article saying it is, its not NPOV. Sam [Spade] 23:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Jake, clearly you wouldn't leave the phrase "seen as mutilation".  Why are you leaving "seen as normative"?  If you refer to my paragraph above: The sentence structure does not say "normative as seen by those performing or requesting the procedure".  It says "seen as normative" with the subordinate clause being passive (perhaps suggesting "seen by all" or perhaps "seen by the person on whom the procedure is performed", it is POV).  I would never do this, but I could try saying "seen as normative" with the foreskin restoration article, since the majority of men have foreskin (ie. that is the norm on planet earth).    You are a rational person and I'm sure you can see how this does more than merely state that an opinion exists.  So if the POV is objected to as horrifying, there also a good logical basis for removing or changing it to neutrality. DanP 23:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Thats better. I'm removing this page from my watchlist, it makes me unhappy. Sam [Spade] 13:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genital "modification" is not normative! 

message: Robert, please don't blow away whatever you like.  I'm sensitive to your concerns.  The section on modification vs. mutilation was inherently confusing.  Obviously some people include consent, age, necessity, severity, etc. (or any combination of them) in their distinctions.  It seems best just to state them, and let the reader decide.  I have no desire to stifle your viewpoint, but it seems better to include more than just a handful of random examples.  DanP 00:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Modification vs. mutilation again

message: By saying it has "statistics" and a "description of circumcision" Wikipedia tacitly implies that it supports the veracity and accuracy of the statistics and description, which is not necessarily true. Calling it an "opinion article" is sufficient. Let the reader decide for himself if it contains statistics and a description or if it contains lies and exaggerations. Nohat 21:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible to me. -Jakew 21:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed part of description of external link 

message: Hold on a second.  Exactly how is this "pushing a point of view":
:The United States government passed a federal law in 1996, which became effective in April 1997, criminalizing female genital mutilation. The law provides that the practice of FGM on a person(s) under the age of 18 is a federal crime, unless the procedure is necessary to protect the health of a young person or for medical purposes connected with labor or birth. The penalty for violating this law is a fine or imprisonment for up to five years, or both. This law specifically exempts cultural beliefs or practices as a defense. In addition, many states have specific laws criminalizing the practice.   
    
:No similar laws have been passed anywhere in the United States which criminalize genital cutting and removal on males under 18.''
?? It seems to be clearly and unambiguously stating a fact, namely that the removal of parts of the female gentitalia for non-medical reasons is illegal, while the removal of parts of the male genitalia for non-medical reasons is not.  Please explain.  Exploding Boy 23:42, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:I didn't make that edit, but the second paragraph looks pretty loaded to me.  Perhaps it can be rephrased... - jredmond 23:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: recent removal

message: Have there ever been pictoral representations of the topics in this article? Should there be? I think so.--Anchoress 19:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a few. Circumcision, castration, piercings. The images are on the sub-articles. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: It looks like Designer vagina, which was previously merged to and redirected here, is being used as a POV fork for the modification/mutilation debate.  Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation, which also redirected here, has been pointed towards that article, too. Not having been involved in the apparently extensive discussions on the subject, I don't know if this is a consensus decision, but it looks to me like it was tidier the way it was.  Thoughts? -- Vary | Talk 04:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Fork?