Talk:Circumcision/Archive 32

message: Let's try to find a phrase that covers ethics, emotional consequences and legality, use it as a section heading and put the ethics, emotional and legal parts as subheadings of it.  Possibilities include "Ramifications of circumcision", "Societal considerations", "Ethical, emotional and legal considerations". --Coppertwig 16:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand including both ethical and legal issues together, but why emotional?  Might a section on adult persepctives be appropriate since adults seek both circumcision and uncircumcision, i.e. men occur as both satisfied and dissatisfied with being both circumcised and uncircumcised in infancy?Zandrous 08:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) They seem to me to go together; they're all in a sense about effects of circumcision other than direct medical effects;  or they're all about society's reaction to circumcision (or noncircumcision).  (2) They're three short sections, so combining them together helps keep the article tidy.  (3) They were together until recently. Why not put them together? --Coppertwig 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that they should go together, but they also have to do with direct medical effects.  Emotional considerations are the basis for ethical considerations; and when combined with scientific evidence ethical considerations are the basis for legal ones.  Blackworm 00:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Zandrous, what you're talking about basically boils down to men regretting not having been circumcised in infancy.  Are there such men in any significant numbers?  How do they compare to the number of men who are upset at having been circumcised in infancy?  What is the percentage of men who are unaware they were circumcised?  What is the percentage of circumcised men who know what circumcision is?  What is the percentage of all men worldwide who believe the practice immoral?  Etc., etc.  These are the questions we should be asking -- and the answers are nowhere in the article on circumcision.  It's a sad state of affairs. Blackworm 00:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackworm: Could you come up with some sources that provide numbers like that?  That would be interesting and probably usable in this article or at least in one of the subarticles. --Coppertwig 15:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very little research has been done. The only peer-reviewed study with meaningful data that I can think of is Schlossberger et al. Jakew 16:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics subheadings 

message: I'm responding to the RFC asking if this article "should respect the Jewish tradition."  The current version does fine at concisely summarizing the Jewish tradition without comment, and also at consisely summarizing arguments against circumcision without comment.  The point of view is neutral and does not need a revision. VisitorTalk 07:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of the RFC, but around this talk page, editors who are seen as critical of circumcision are openly painted with suspicion of anti-Semitism without any other supporting evidence or comment, and with the support of certain Wikipedia administrators.  Something is definitely wrong indeed.  Also, as discussed above, the summarizing arguments against circumcision are neither representative summaries nor arguments.  They are as if crafted to present the weakest points in the least sympathetic terms, or to make those critical of circumcision appear to be a fringe minority.  The article definitely needs a revision, but not for the reason the instigators of the RFC claim.  Blackworm 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC re Judaism 

message: I'd like to propose that a lot of the photographs be removed in favor of anatomical diagrams. Probably at most one photograph is appropriate. Not to be a prude but in principal Wikipedia is supposed to be a generally accessible resource and is not intended to be strictly for academics. The average person would tend to be uncomfortable with these pictures and I do not think they truly add that much value. Perhaps one photo to make the idea very clear is sufficient and then diagrams can be used wherever else illustration is required.
Again, this may sound prudish but mothers and their kids read this stuff and we should try to not be gratuitous about showing uncomfortable images.
--Mcorazao 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to replace them with diagrams, make sure they parallel the diagrams on the page on Female Genital Cutting by referring to the unmodified genitalia as "normal" instead of "uncircumcised,"  which means "heathen" in English .  We want NPOV.  Blackworm 06:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree- the addition of the repugnant pictures removes the encyclopedic quality and generally degrades the entire article.  Diagrams/illustrations should be added that are anatomically labeled. -Robert.starkey 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, at its core, Wikipedia is supposed to be uncensored. WP:CENSOR. The only reason they should be taken down is if they could be replaced by something more illustrative of the subject. Since a diagram obviously wouldn't be, there is no reason to remove them. Cheers, Rothery 06:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, any attempt to post similar images to the Female Genital Cutting article would result in a massive outcry, followed by censorship, denial, and rationalization.  There is plenty of censorship on Wikipedia; it's just that the norms are dictated differently, and double-standards are swiftly applied without a second thought.  An unmodified vulva is called "normal," while an unmodified penis is called "uncircumcised" (meaning: unclean, heathen -- and emphasis on lack of circumcision, thus presenting the circumcised penis as "normal").  A Western-centric, sexist presentation with censorship on Wikipedia.  With mass approval and smug self-satisfaction and claims of neutral point of view. All par for the course for WP. A big joke. Blackworm 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You have not made the case that the two manners under discussion are equally descriptive.  The images in this article currently answer the questions: "What does an normal/circumcised man look like?"  Diagrams would not.  The images on the FGC page do not answer the questions: "What does a normal/circumcised woman look like?" Blackworm 22:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that photographs of erect penises are not usually displayed in a general encyclopedia. One way to deal with this would be to remove the pictures but provide links to them. That way, readers who want to look at the pictures could do so, and those who do not want to look at such pictures would not have to. Michael Glass 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good suggestion.  I doubt it will fly, however.  If we take that route, we lose much of the justification for not having links to images of the procedure.  That will never happen on this page. Blackworm 09:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the pictures 

message: (Heading added by Blackworm -- Avi 01:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your POV bias is showing, Blackworm. -- Avi 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yours is, Avi. The unmodified genitalia of the female are described as "normal" on the FGC page; there is no reason not to call the unmodified genitalia of the male "normal," except if you have cultural bias or a particular POV to push.  Also, since the word "uncircumcised" is also defined as "unclean," and "heathen," use of that word carries offense, as well as pushing a particular POV.  This POV is continuously reinforced in popular culture (e.g. a scene in the Hollywood movie "The Ex" in which the antagonist's penis is ridiculed as a "giant, uncircumcised anteater"), thus I can understand if it may be difficult for you to look at it objectively.  I hope this clarifies things.  Blackworm 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avi's claim of "POV bias"