Talk:Circumcision/Archive 6

message: @Jakew:  When I wrote the section of consent I mentioned that it was "one" of the most hotly debated topics.  I did not presume to take it to the level of saying that it was the "most" hotly debated topic.  I do not think that a deficit of papers on the subject is enough to dismiss this notion.  Afterall if it is not hotly debated it then it is difficult to explain why there is so much emotion, edits and reverts about this.  In any case I will let it go because for the most part I am extremely happy with the edits that have happened to the sections I wrote on Emotional Impact and Consent.  I believe they have really improved what I was trying to say, and said it clearer and better.  Great work all!  Sirkumsize 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consent

message: Earthbound01 20:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should come to a consensus 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia's policy of deleting personal attacks, I have removed this section. - Jakew 14:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A finding of opinion; A vote. 

message: I have to say it seems obvious to me that male and female circumcision are extremely different procedures which are almost totally unrelated. Male circumcision is usually performed for purposes of hygiene, whereas female circumcision is usually performed in cultures where women are subjugated in order to make sexual intercourse painful and unpleasurable for women in order to preserve their virginity. Male circumcision does not particularly interfere with sexual performance or health, and does not cause pain or discomfort beyond the initial circumcision (if an anaesthetic was not used, which is not generally the case, in Western society at any rate) and isn't generally performed as a ritual of control or oppression. In order to be the equivalent of female circumcision, the entire penis would have to be removed, being the male equivalent of the clitoris, and- I don't know- there's not really any way you can follow that idea so that intercourse is still more or less possible but incredibly painful for males. Some sort of equivalent though would probably be the removal of all male reproductive organs. And that's not really the case, is it?
:Earthbound01 19:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rubbish! I'm not circumcised, and there's no way I'd be dirty or ugly! What's up with those lot? Scott Gall 04:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female/male 

message: I am shocked by the turn the NPOV war raging about this article has taken. The arcticle is one big piece of propaganda for male circumcision. Any attempt to bring some balance seems to have been systematically reverted. It almost makes me want to give up contributing to wikipedia. - Woodstone (sig added by Jakew)
: Yes, it is distressing. Things have improved, though. You should have seen it a few months ago: Wikipedia read like one of the more rabid anti-circumcision websites! At least things are a little more neutral now, in spite of the flood of anti-circumcision activists who try to subvert Wiki for their own purposes. - Jakew 21:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe that on such a heated article there is no mention at all of the cause of the whole war:  The emotional impact of circumcision.  That is, unless you want to argue that I was not emotionally harmed by it.  64.229.8.8 11:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  shocked by lost NPOV war 

message: Estimates of the worldwide prevalence of male circumcision vary between 15-30% of the male population. Most male circumcisions are performed for religious or cultural reasons.
In most of these countries the predominant religion endorses circumcision (see Circumcision and religion, below). 
These sentences do not cite any sources.  I recommend deleting these unless someone can state where they come from.  DanP 20:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevalence 

message: This article, , has been listed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  Further disruptive edits, vandalism, or an edit war in progress will cause this page to be protected.  Please keep in mind that the Wikipedia has a three revert rule and may cause you to be blocked if you make more than three revisions within a 24 hour period, not counting revisions due to vandalism.  The Wikipedia would like to assume good faith, and ask editors to calmly and rationally approach a resolution before the article is protected.  Should this page be protected, please request for its unprotection also at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection warning 

message: This article has been protected by Admin Raul654.  Should you feel that the article needs to be unprotected, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.  However, it seems that an intervention has been stepped in, and a temporary rewrite is in progress. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.
Male circumcision is primary meaning of "circumcision." Neutralitytalk 06:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
* Strongly support.  The article on female genital mutilation just barely holds on to its legitimacy at its current title, and as you say, "circumcision" conjures only one image up in most people's minds.  ADH (t&m) 08:45, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
* Oppose.  As things stand now, the beginning of Male circumcision is missing the word "Male".  Both Male and Female circumcision exist.  Both are controversial topics.  Both have long articles.  However, if Female circumcision gets renamed to Female genital mutilation, I would support this move. Samuel Wantman 10:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that there are articles for both Female circumcision and redirect for Female genital mutilation, so I will have to modify what I said slightly.  If Female circumcision can be renamed to something without the word circumcision, without controversy, I would support the move.  But I don't think that will happen, and I'm not sure it should.  Samuel Wantman 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Male circumcision]] → [[Circumcision]] 

message: This was a strange move to gender-neutralize the title.  If you run a book search at your local library or at a university for subject=circumcision, most are of the female variant.  Run a Google search, and one clearly sees a need for at least some disambiguation when searching.  DanP 14:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google search just enforced to me that it was the correct move – male circumcision being the most prominent results.  Female circumcision is linked to in the opening paragraph so I think that it's more than acceptable.  Anyway, it's been done now. violet/riga (t) 14:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection.  But I still think it's strange from a search perspective. DanP 14:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Move 

message: From a Reuters article, on "triple incision plasty":
"Consequently, a number of alternatives to circumcision have emerged to treat phimosis in young children. Results of the newest approach, known as triple incision plasty, are described in the medical journal BJU International. During the procedure, doctors make three separate longitudinal incisions around the tight ring of the foreskin, then suture the incisions obliquely. This results in a looser, slightly shorter foreskin that can move easily up and down over the head of the penis." BJU International, September 2003
From another Reuters article on Gastric suctioning from which more general conclusions were drawn:
"Compared with controls, infants who underwent gastric suctioning at birth had nearly a three-fold increased risk of having a functional intestinal disorder later in life. "Our research suggests that exposure to adverse conditions or noxious procedures during the first few minutes or days after birth, may cause persistent changes in brain development at that time, thus creating a propensity for specific patterns of behavior and an increased vulnerability to various psychosomatic disorders," " Journal of Pediatrics, April 2004.
From another Reuters article based on anatomical and behavior changes observed in Rats:
"Treated rats were significantly quicker to withdraw from noxious thermal stimuli than were untreated rats, and their late-phase responses to painful stimuli occurred earlier than in untreated animals. Furthermore, adult rats with neonatal inflammation exhibited increased evoked firing rates after brush and noxious pinch stimuli, compared with adult rats in the control group, the researchers observed. "Although we have yet to directly link animal research findings to what happens in human infants, one is tempted to speculate that similar changes as those identified in the animals may occur in newborn humans exposed to pain and inflammation," ... Dr. Ruda said, "neonatal pain and tissue injury should be added to the list of neonatal experiences that may have a lifelong impact." " Science 2000;289:628-630
From another Reuters article on transmission of herpes through a type of circumcision:
"Eight infants developed genital herpes following an ancient Jewish ritual of circumcision, highlighting the dangers associated with this procedure, researchers report.  All of the infants underwent a form of circumcision in which the circumciser, or mohel, takes wine in his mouth and sucks the blood from the newly created wound, then spits the blood and wine mixture into a receptacle. The circumciser repeats this procedure, known as metzitzah, until the bleeding stops.  Currently, only a minority of mohels practice metzitzah, with most now opting for a suction device to remove blood from the wound." Pediatrics, August 2004
--Silverback 09:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI, more relevant research results 

message: I, along with surely many other wikipedians, am bewildered and disappointed that this page has had to be locked. There are a many, more controvertial pages on Wikipedia that continue to remain unlocked. Hopefully differences amoung contributors can be reconciled into an informative, neutral and helpful article. Given the growing popularity of wikipedia it is inevitable that more and more people will use this article as a, possibly primary, source of information on this topic. All efforts should be made to ensure the fidelity and usefulness of the article.(P.S. Wikipedia does not give medical advice is not mentioned in the article) Both factions should realize that their combined contributions and mutual cooperation can ultimately produce a far better article than either group could hope to achieve seperately. If arguments cannot be resolved then the regretable step of splitting the article out in seperate articles (for and against) would be the wisest course of action.
Wikipedia is not a platform. It's a place where people can share knowladge for the betterment of "everyone". Thanks for your attendtion.
I think this is an interesting suggestion. Let each side write its own best article and let the readers decide for themsleves who has the best information for the health, well-being, and safety of the child. Isn't that what it's really all about? Vanlewis 05:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be a good idea, Circumcision (genital mutilation), and Circumcision (improvement on God's handiwork).--Silverback 06:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inspired by my initial misinterpretation of the sub-title below, I thought someone was euphamizing "genital mutilation" as "inappropriate revision".  8-) --Silverback 06:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regular User Disappointment