genital Modification And Mutilation/Archive 1

-- Fplay 15:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ok, what should be done about Nohat's POV description of the term? I'm especially opposed to the phrase "a name used to show contempt". It is used to give an accurate description and also is a term used in the medical comunity. Nohat also describes his POV option with "Those who prefer to describe such procedures without asserting an opinion about them". // Liftarn

I didn't think it was POV. In fact, I thought it was more NPOV. "Mutilation" is a loaded term. It's just like the abortion debate: The Pro-life lobby calls the Pro-choice crowd "Anti-life." The Pro-choice crowd calls the Pro-lifers "Anti-choice." I think it is NPOV to describe that the term is used as a negative description for the NPOV term "genital modification."

If it is used by the medical community as well, point that out in the article. The article could state that it is used as a POV term, but also by the medical community. —Frecklefoot 16:20, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

We can't just redesign the language to suit our needs. "Mutilation" is the correct term to use here and thus it should be used. To draw a parallel to the pro-life/pro-choice issue we still call the article "Abortion" as that is the word used. // Liftarn

I think the issue is that even if mutilation is a correct term by strict definition (i.e. dismemberment/amputation) it has extremely strong POV connotations that go far beyond its strict definition. It's an emotionally charged word. For example, "mutilation" could also be applied to typical male circumcision, and it would be accurate as per strict definition. But due to the emotionally charged connotations of the word, it is POV. There are other correct terms—such as amputation, excision, and alteration—that don't have the same emotional charge and should be used instead.

—Cessen 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to combine this article in with genital modification; "gential mutilation" is already a subhead in genital modification, and much of its content is needlessly duplicated here. That would be the best way, IMHO, to have to controversy presented in a NPOV manner. -- Seth Ilys 16:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know there is some unnecessary (and unneeded) duplication. I planned to write a better article, but there are just so many hours in the day. modification and mutilation are two related, but different subjects. Modification is something you select to do yourself, like getting a tattoo or a piercing. Mutilation is something done to you that "radicly alters or makes inperfect". // Liftarn

For reference, I'd like to include the following dictionary definitions of "mutilate":

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See synonyms at batter1. 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. trans. To render (a thing, esp. a book or other document) imperfect by cutting out or excising a part; to change or destroy part of the content or meaning of. 2. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of the use of a limb or bodily organ, by dismemberment or otherwise; to cut off or destroy (a limb or organ); to wound severely, inflict violent or disfiguring injury on. Also intr. In early use freq. in Sc. Law; cf. MUTILATION n. 1. 3. trans. In extended use: to cut back or curtail so as to render ineffectual; to impose brutal or ruinous change on

Also, I'd like to point out that Liftarn made similar claims about "mutilation" being used by the medical community on talk:circumcision but was unable to demonstrate that to anyone's satisfaction. Nohat 16:35, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I could hold up paper magazines to the screen, but that wouldn't help much. :-) Medical publications are very restrictive about making their content available to non-subscribers so that makes it very difficult. // Liftarn

Well, you could give complete citations and short quotation that show the usage of the term is not blatantly partisan. Nohat 21:14, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Mkweise also believes the articles genital mutilation and genital modification should be merged. See the bottom of Wiki: Protected page. Nohat 16:41, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I could accept a merge if it would be treated in an unbiased way. For instance starting with "Genital modification or genital mutilation is..." without trying to push for usage of either word. Think about it over Easter and I'll be back on Tuesday to see what can be done. Oh, and it would be nice with an NPOV description of the links. // Liftarn

I would also like to present portions of various Wikipedian's opinions of the word "mutilation", as found on Talk:circumcision Talk:Genital mutilation and Talk:Genital modification. Nohat 20:57, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Opinions of Wikipedians on whether "mutilation" is POV:

user:fabiform: it should be obvious that describing something like a clit piercing or a male circumcision as mutilation is POV.

user:Lestatdelc: I would like to chime in as well that modification is not only accurate and NPOV, but also is the common parlance within communities that engage in elective body-modification. Mutilation does have a POV connotation to most people, and is also reflected in the various dictionary definitions of the term.

user:jaknouse: I agree that the 'mutilation' thing should be couched in NPOV language

Uncle Ed: The word mutilation has connotations of disfigurement and dysfunction as well. If your doctor removes a wart from your nose, are you "disfigured"? Is all plastic surgery "mutilation"?

user:silsor: I also find the word mutilate to be very negatively loaded

user:Eloquence: Let's use the term "mutilation" with attribution, as it implies certain conclusions (foreskin=essential, removing foreskin=makes body less perfect) which are at the very center of the circumcision debate.

user:jredmond: the word "mutilate" has negative connotations in English. Any word with negative connotations is inherently POV. Because it is POV, it is not appropriate for this article, except when characterizing the positions of circumcision's opponents.

user:Frecklefoot: I didn't think [ nohat's changes to genital mutilation were ] POV. In fact, I thought it was more NPOV. "Mutilation" is a loaded term. It's just like the abortion debate: The Pro-life lobby calls the Pro-choice crowd "Anti-life." The Pro-choice crowd calls the Pro-lifers "Anti-choice." I think it is NPOV to describe that the term is used as a negative description for the NPOV term "genital modification."

user:Seth_Ilys: I'd be inclined to combine this article in with genital modification; "genital mutilation" is already a subhead in genital modification, and much of its content is needlessly duplicated here. That would be the best way, IMHO, to have to controversy presented in a NPOV manner.

I would like to second Seth Ilys's point. I think that any relevant unique information on this page can be put into the subsection "mutilation" and expanded with appropriate language to make clear what the issues are and NPOV. This page could then be made a redirect which would point to the expanded NPOV entry of genital modification and that should resolve it. Lestatdelc 21:14, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

user:Exploding Boy: I think it's safe to say that an unnecessary, involuntary procedure that removes an essential organ is mutilation, but a voluntary procedure done for health or cosmetic reasons is modification.

Old text (after full rewrite) by Uncle Ed:

is a name for various types of alteration of the genitals for non-medical purposes. According to advocates of genital mutilation the term can be used as a stigma against the action, and can be applied to gential modification for medical reasons, cosmetic reasons, upholding tradition, or the result of assault. They also claim that whether a gential modification is considered "mutilation" or the norm depends upon the viewpoint of the speaker.

In most cases ritual genital mutilation is performed on infants or children without consent.

The most common forms are:

• circumcision (male and female)
• genital piercing
• female genital mutilation
• castration
• penectomy

I tried for neutrality, by separating advocacy into proponents and opponents. I thought there was too much "male circumcision = mutilation" there . . .

Are the various points of view (POV) clarified and properly attributed? Please help me finish this! --Uncle Ed 16:32, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear... // Liftarn

Why was this page moved from the correct term Genital mutilation without any discussion? // Liftarn

Although I wasn't involved in the move, my suspicion is that it was for NPOV reasons. Most cultures that perform said mutilations/modifications do not consider them to be multilations, thus renaming the page "modifications" takes their point of view into consideration. However, it seems a lot of content has been removed from prior versions, also in the attempt to be NPOV, and maybe we can rectify that. --zandperl 12:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So orwellian. If you don't like what something is called you just change the name. However "genital modifications" and "genital mutilation" are related, but still two very different things. // Liftarn

I've moved the article title back to "genital mutilation", and used the convention that it's "mutilation" if you don't want it or can't consent to it (which is the common case: African FGM), and "modification" if you do and can (the much rarer bodymod culture). I'll let the circumcision article fight its own battles regarding that topic. -- Karada 13:27, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution. If there is enough material we could also have an article on genital modification // Liftarn

There is nothing about the words "mutilation" and "modification" that imply a distinction based on consent. The only difference is that "mutilation" is loaded with negative connotation and "modification" is neutral. The only reason to use the word "mutilation" as opposed to "modification" is to further the POV that the modification in question is somehow bad, which is a violation of NPOV policy. It is inappropriate for Wikipedia to call anything mutilation as the word is inherently POV.

As regards circumcision, the battles that are won (or lost) there have to reflect on other articles. It is very clearly pushing the "circumcision is evil" POV to list circumcision on a page titled "genital mutilation". I'm moving the page back. Nohat 14:32, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Please do not move the article again! If you have a problem with the wording I suggest that you present your case here first. // Liftarn

English Comprehension 101:

• A modification is any change.
• A mutilation is the removal of tissue, especially healthy tissue.

A genitial mutilation, it follows, is always a modification, but a modification is not always a mutilation. For example, removal of a genital wart is a modification but not a mutilation (as the wart is not actually a part of the genitals, simply a growth); similarly, adding a tattoo is a modification but not (generally speaking) a mutilation (though if it were done under duress that would be a different matter); in contrast, a castration is a modification and a mutilation. Tannin

Advanced English Comprehension: Using Dictionaries

Did you just make these definitions up? Made-up meanings for words don't constitute a valid argument, especially since your made-up defition of "mutilation" has nothing to do with the actual definition of the word. Why don't you try using real definitions from actual dictionaries? As I explained before, a "mutilation" is inherently negative and POV, as these real definitions from actual dictionaries demonstrate:

"mutilate" from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: 1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE

"mutilate" from the American Heritage Dictionary 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. 2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See synonyms at batter1. 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

"mutilation" from the Oxford English Dictionary 1. Sc. Criminal Law. The act or process of disabling or maiming a person by wounding a limb or organ. Now hist. In early use sometimes distinguished from demembration (or complete amputation) as comprising any injury to a limb or organ whether or not the affected part is actually severed from the body. Both crimes are now subsumed under the general heading of assault. 2. a. More generally: the action of mutilating a person or animal; the severing or maiming of a limb or bodily organ; an instance of this. Also: the fact or condition of being mutilated or maimed. b. Castration. Obs. rare. 3. The action of making something, esp. a book or text, imperfect by excision or destruction of one or more of its parts; an instance of this

As you can see, the concept of disability, essential part, crippling, making imperfect, etc. are inherent to the meaning of "mutilate", and not everyone would agree that all the modifications discussed on this page constitute all of those things, particularly circumcision. So unless you can justify that all the types of genital modifications on this page meet the defitions given here, there's no valid argument for calling them mutilations. Nohat 15:08, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Once we clear out the meaningless rhetoric from the above, we discover that a mutilation is exactly what I said it was, only in far fewer words: the removal of tissue, especially healthy tissue. Your point seems to be that you have no point, merely a raging POV. Tannin 15:17, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is easy to assert your opinion without making a point, which is what you have just done. "Mutilation" inherently includes the ideas of "making imperfect", "disability", "essential part", and "crippling". It is not just simply "removing healthy tissue", or else would you describe a nose job or breast reduction as "mutilation"? Nohat

If they were performed on a non-consenting victim, of courseI would, and so would you. Technically, even with consent a nose job is multilation, but most people would not use the term in that context, as nose jobs, unlike genital mutilations, are almost never performed without the consent of the person who owns the nose. Tannin

Once again, you bring in the concept of consent, but I don't see anywhere in any of the dictionary definitions where consent has anything to do with "mutilation". Therefore, the criteria of consent prima facie is not a valid distinction between mutilation and non-mutilation. Mutilation is a modification that the person who uses the word doesn't approve of, and is inherently POV. Nohat 15:40, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

So you are arguing that there is no such thing as mutilation then? Gahh.... What nonsense. What do you call a clitoridectomy then? Or the amputation of, say, an ear? Really, you need to think about trying to be a little more consistent in your emotional response to what is, after all, a simple and clear concept. Tannin

Of course there is such a thing as "mutilation". In fact I personally would describe most of the things on this page as mutilation. However, I recognize using the word mutilation inherently puts forth the POV that whatever is described as mutilation is bad. It is Wikipedia policy not take sides in issues, and if Wikipedia calls something "mutilation" it is taking the side that whatever it calls mutilation is bad. Obviously in the case of the things descried on this page, in our enlightened Western POV, the drastic nonconsensual modification of babies' genitalia, like female circumcision and castration, is a bad thing, Opinions differ more widely on circumcision in the modern West, but it is important that if any opinion is included in the Wikipedia article that it is contextualized as the opinion of those who hold it and not presented as bald fact, because there ARE people who don't think it's a bad thing, and if they speak English don't use the word "mutilate" to describe what they're doing. Modification is a neutral word, mutilation is not. Nohat 16:03, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Even if the term "mutilation" is not inherently POV, and does just refer to the removal of healthy tissue - NOT ALL GENITAL MODS REMOVE TISSUE. Piercings, for example, simply make a hole through tissue, without removing anything - the same goes for meatotomy, subincision, and genital bisection. Modification is far bigger and more general than mutilation - they should be seperate pages, they are NOT interchangable. Apart from this, calling any genital modification mutilation is outrageous - if one were to apply this logic to all modification of genitalia; the breaking of the hymen upon first vaginal insertion (virginal sex) would need to be considered mutilation. --OldakQuill 16:01, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agree! "Genital modification" is another thing than "genital mutilation". Modification probably belongs together with other types of body modifications (piercings, tattoos, scaring, plating et.c). I also object to this orwellian desire to redefine the language just because some persons may be offended. I suggest we use two articles, one for modifications and one for mutilations. // Liftarn

Reading through the above I have to agree, in part, with Nohat. The term "mutilation" has a negative connotation... it should be obvious that describing something like a clit piercing or a male circumcision as mutilation is POV. I don't understand how Tanin sees mutilation as a neutral word when the definitions include terms like "maiming", "disabling" or "wounding". OldakQuill also makes a good point - Tannin's definition of mutilation as the removal of healthy tissue would exclude several of the procedures such as piercings that this article deals with.

However, I'm not convinced that "modification" is the correct word to use either. To modify:

• OED. (4) To make partial changes in; to change (an object) in respect of some of its qualities; to alter or vary without radical transformation.
• Merriam Webster: (3) a : to make minor changes in b : to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end
• American Heritage: (1) To change in form or character; alter.

As far as I can see, only the last definition supports our use of modification, since a procedure such as female circumcision is so radical that is amounts to a substantial change. Well, neither word is perfect. Out of the two I vastly prefer "modification"... but perhaps we should try to think of other alternatives? fabiform | talk 18:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some good points Fabiform, however the term "Modification" is generally used by most in reference to tattoos, piercings, etc. The biggest site I can find is http://www.bmezine.com/ which stands for Body Modification E-Zine as an example. Beside this, I would contend that many proceedures constitute as radical. As I earlier suggested - they should be seperate articles as they are seperate things. There should be minor crossover, modification should have references to "forced modification" such as female-circumcision which is "counter to current morality". Just as mutilation should have references to modification, it is after a radical, and forced modification.--OldakQuill 19:29, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should also consider which name the practice is best known as. Part of the Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most popular name for a term. For example, the page on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is titled NASA despite the general policy of no acronyms for page titles. Similarly, if we're to get extremely picky, we could say that Holocaust is a POV title.

My point is, are people more likely to type in "genital modification" or "genital mutilation" when trying to find this article? Personally, I think for the former I'd want an article on body piercing and on the latter I'd be looking for FGM, so I'd vote to make the two separate pages. I'd settle for a single page that has sections on both FGM-type acts and body piercing-type acts, as well as a section that actually discusses the different terms for them both.

--zandperl 19:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, there would of course be redirects to the page that has the content. How about calling the page "genital alteration", with sections "elective modification" and "involuntary modification"? I placed content at genital alteration. Perhaps eventually, genital mutilation and genital alteration can link there.

"Alteration" means simply "making a change" and so neutrally encompasses everything described here. Nohat 20:27, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

Alteration is certainly neutral... but it's also somewhat vague. It doesn't even restrict it to intentional changes. Perhaps I'm too picky though. I have the feeling that zandperl is optimistic in thinking that there's a definate and clear dividing line between the two kinds of procedures, sure it's easy to say FGM is on one side and a piercing is on the other (although that's a POV), but male circumcision at least isn't that easy to categorise. That's why one page which looks at the whole spectrum is useful. fabiform | talk 22:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I must also say that Alteration is not the commonly used term. This is modification. --OldakQuill 22:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I vote for genital modification too. Not only does "modification" achieve the same NPOV effect as "alteration" - "modification" also means simply "making a change", and without the negative connotations of "mutilation" - but it also keeps us consistent with body modification (to which both mutilation and body alteration redirect), and allows a more complete NPOV discussion of the various motives behind genital-mod practices (including but not limited to religion, aesthetics, and sexual function). - jredmond 22:59, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Haven't heard from Tannin since 11:48, 2004 Apr 6. Shall we assume his silence constitutes consent to move the article back to genital modification? Nohat 23:39, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC)

For the love of Mike, some of us have to actually go to the office and do work sometimes. Tannin 10:49, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What if he's just asleep, or at work or something? To avoid a "move war", it might be best to ask on his talk page if he's OK with the title genital modification (it gets my vote by the way). There's no great rush. fabiform | talk 00:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see you've already moved it. I think it's still night where he lives so no wonder he didn't pitch in recently. I've asked his opinion on his talk page. fabiform | talk 00:15, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, he made 4 edits shortly after 22:36, 2004 Apr 6 (UTC), so I presumed he had time to look over this debate and choose not to comment. However, of course, if he or anyone chimes in with valid argments as to why it should be moved back to genital mutilation, we can move it back, but the current weight of opinion seems to be in favor of the status quo. Nohat 00:36, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I would like to chime in as well that modification is not only accurate and NPOV, but also is the common parlance within communities that engage in elective body-modification. Mutilation does have a POV connotation to most people, and is also reflected in the various dictionary definitions of the term. Lestatdelc 00:33, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

My vote is for two pages. One for mutilation and one for modifications. They are two related, but quite different subjects. // Liftarn

This seems specious to me. For example, tatooing and branding have been adopted for a number of uses throughout history, including ornamentation, ritual, group identification, marking ownership (of both livestock and slaves), and criminal punishment. You would have us describe the voluntary uses as body modification, but the involuntary ones as mutilation (which, incidentally, redirects to body modification). However, it is (on a technical level) the same practice, but associated with very different connotations by the cultures in which it occurs, and it would be silly to split the page on, say, tattooing, into two separate pages to describe its voluntary and involuntary uses. Shimmin 17:24, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let's say suicide/murder or rape/intercourse. There are two different words depending on if it's voluntary or not. This case is no different. Also notice that "genital mutilation" is the words for instance WHO uses. // Liftarn

Once again, the concept of consent has brought brought into this debate EVEN THOUGH it has been pointed out again and again that no dictionary definition supports the contention that consent is a valid criterion for "mutilation". Neither do "suicide" or "murder" have anything to do with consent, they simply have to do with who is killing whom. And the defintion of "rape" explicity includes the concept of consent. It may be appealing to make the analogy intercourse:rape::modification:mutilation, but it's a false analogy because the definitions of the words are not analogous. Furthermore, if "mutilation" was inherently nonconsensual, how could there be such a thing as "self-mutilation"? Nohat 20:19, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

The World Health Organisation is campaigning against female circumcision. That's a POV many share, but a POV nonetheless. fabiform | talk 07:36, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thay are, but they are using an NPOV term to describe it. Btw, I'll be away over Easter so please play nice while I'm gone. // Liftarn

If consent is the defining issue, then my own (male) circumcision ought to be included as mutilation. I did not consent to it, and I very much wish that it had not been done to me. But, of course, that is not the definition of mutilation, and as such would be a misuse of the word.
I do not object at all to male circumcision being called mutilation in every-day discourse, for the very reason that doing so presents a POV that I 100% agree with. I myself call it such quite regularly. But on wikipedia that term has no place: "mutilation" is a loaded term that has many connotations for most people that go far beyond its dictionary definition. Even if it doesn't have those connotations for you personally, it is still POV because it does have strongly negative connotations for most people. Neither male nor female genital alterations should be called "mutilation" on wikipedia.
If you want to refer to genital modifications done without consent you can call it non-consensual genital modification, forcible genital modification, or something similar. Unlike intercourse vs rape, I'm pretty sure there is no english word for non-consensual bodily alterations. Or if there is, it's not "mutilation".
—Cessen 23:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the phrase "for non-medical reasons" to the end of the first sentence, mostly to keep this article more consistent with body modification, but also to keep us from having to drudge through surgical topics like vasectomy or hysterectomy. If the consensus is against me, though, I'll remove it. - jredmond 01:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with that phrase. Male circumcision can be medically necessary (rarely), but more importantly proponants of male circumcision say that it's medically benificial. I see what you're trying to do (although the removal of the uterus wouldn't normally be described as a genital modification) but it seems innacurate/POV to me. fabiform | talk 11:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But circumcision is also performed for non-medical reasons (religion, aesthetics, family conformity, etc.). And I'm not suggesting we remove everything that is performed medically - there are medical reasons for full or partial castration as well - just that we leave out those mods that are purely medical.

(I was trying to think of a purely medical procedure involving a woman's genitals. Since I already had "vasectomy" in my head, the "ectomy" sort of prompted "hysterectomy". "Episiotomy" is more like what I had in mind.) - jredmond 15:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But the article doesn't say that at the moment, it says "Genital modification is a term used to describe changes or body modifications made to genitals for non-medical reasons" which surely excludes all the cases where there is a medical (preventative or curative) motivation? fabiform | talk 15:44, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That sentence didn't have the "for non-medical reasons" phrase before. To my eyes, it could have been interpreted to include medical mods too. - jredmond 01:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I changed this to "usually for non-medical reasons" as most genital modifications are either ritual (in the case of circumcision) or elective non-medical (as in subincision, etc), but in some rare cases are medically necessary. Nohat 23:06, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, it's true that some mods are usually done for non-medical reasons, but have definite medical uses; OTOH, where do we draw the line? - jredmond 01:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I say we create a modification atricle series... 3 chief catagories: removal of tissue (mainly mutilation), modification of tissue (piercings, meatotomy), and addition to tissue (implants pearling, tattoing, etc. --OldakQuill 10:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)Perhpas this, though slightly more extended:

• Removal of Tissue
  • Male Circumcision
  • Female Circumcision
  • Castration
  • Penectomy

• Modification of Tissue
  • Male Piercing
  • Female Piercing
  • Splitting
    • Genital Bisection
    • Subincision
    • Meatotomy

• Addition to Tissue
  • Pearling
  • Genital Tattooing

These look good to me.  :) fabiform | talk 11:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think your structure is fine, but it can be kept in one article "Gential Modification" with relvant expansion to differentiate "mutliations" which is a subjective criterion and POV term where needed, with re-directs on pages "gential mutliation", "genital bisection" etc. I think this could be a singular, comprehenssive page structured along your outline. Lestatdelc 00:20, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

This seems like the best time to get the most attention, as genital modification appears to be controvertial of late. How about a body modification (or perhpas just genital modification) series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Body_Modification - I have come up with this, though the bulletted format doesn't seem to work. If you have any ideas or modifications, better "modification tree" etc. just mention it, thanks. --OldakQuill 18:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead, it sounds fine to me. Nohat 23:06, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

This horror show needs at minimum to be merged with genital mutilation, w one redirecting to the other. I am far to outraged about the particulars to say much more than that. Sam Spade 22:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You must REALLY hate all the entries on WWII then, I mean, talk about horror show and sense of proportion. (smirk). Lestatdelc 00:20, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about, but its pretty clear that your comment is useless and unsuited to the task of creating a better encyclopedia article. Sam Spade 01:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What I am "talking about" is your ridiculous characterization of this subject being a "horror show" in particular in the context of the vulgarity of much of what we as human beings do to one another, be it war, crime, which are staples of most of western culture, be it movies, books, songs, you name it. Your hypocrisy and feigned indigence about this topic is the only example in this exchange which indicates an inability to be objective and to work to make a better article, and it is yours. This is evidenced by your "horror show" comment and the highly POV suggestion that conflation of the contents of this article into that of "genital mutilation" which is inaccurate, and rife with subjective, negative connotations and implications. As for your shrill suggestion that my quip is somehow an indication I cannot contribute to such matters which you find so abhorrent is comical to say the least given your already misguided suggestions thus far. Lestatdelc 21:00, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I don't know what your talking about in either of your comments, but its pretty clear that your comment is useless and unsuited to the task of creating a better encyclopedia article.--OldakQuill 11:21, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Let us not forget, of course, that "horrorshow" is the Nadsat word for "good", from Russian хорошо (IPA [xoroʃo]) Nohat 21:09, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

Interesting addendum, but do you honestly think that Sam was using the Russian Nadsat word for "good" in this context? Lestatdelc 21:56, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

No, not really, but his original comment seemed like harmless heckling from the sidelines, unworthy of response, certainly not the polemic you gave him! But Sam Spade seems controversial and maybe you've had previous incidents with him that merited that kind of response. You should have just ignored him as he seems to have gotten your goat. I was just trying to lighten the mood a little. It's all horrorshow. Nohat 23:00, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

No previous incidents with him in particular though on issues surrounding sexuality that is outside the conservative "norm" I do not suffer fools lightly. Though I would say (and was obviously unable to convey) that I was actually chuckling as I wrote my question to you. Not in a foul mood over it at all, then or now. Have had to contended with outright physical violent behavior over issues surrounding non-procreative or non-heterosexual issues so this is nuthin' ! ;-) Lestatdelc 23:33, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Am I not right in thinking Malcolm McDowells character, in Clockwork Orange, uses "horrorshow" in some positive context? --OldakQuill 01:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right - read the Nadsat article. :) - jredmond 01:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The talk pages for both "Genital modification" and "Genital mutilation" seem to have reached some kind of consensus for an article merge, but cannot agree on a title. So I've unprotected, merged the articles into a single article Genital modification and mutilation, and just concatenated their text in the new article. -- The Anome 09:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

was any sort of consensus ever reached on the modification/mutilation issue? Exploding Boy 14:18, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

No, but it's pretty clear that there is a consensus that there is a distinction between the actual surgical acts and the way they are viewed as good/evil/neutral by different people and cultures. Therefore, they belong in a single article that discusses both the acts and the reactions to them. -- The Anome 18:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We intactivists care about the genital integrity of all individuals subjected to involuntary non-medically necessary genital mutilation.

?alabio 22:50, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the "modification" slant. Both sides should be about equal now. Seems like some sentences described modification as "modification", and mutilation as "modification" too! Technically both words qualify, but postive and negative POV is obviously something fought about constantly. DanP 20:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Non-consensual" is key to the mutilation issue. Exploding Boy 23:22, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

That isn't supported by any dictionary definition. - Jakew 23:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's true. Mutilation most often refers to removal of some kind, in terms of most dictionaries anyway. I have changed the sentence on mutilation views, since a person might perceive all, some, or none to be mutilation based on their personal opinions on the matter. Although clearly many people include consensual basis in their definitions. Otherwise nearly everything that draws blood and leaves a mark could be mutilation, so there is some hint of "deliberateness" of the act. DanP 00:11, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Who exactly are these "many people" Dan? Minority and fringe group views should not be presented as mainstream opinion. Please don't do it. - Robert the Bruce 04:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but the revision as it stands is simply not sufficient, never mind that it contradicts information in the rest of the article. Exploding Boy 17:22, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Robert, what are you talking about? There are plenty of people who say even genital piercing is mutilation, and some US states even have laws against it (one state even stops adults under mutilation laws). I am somewhat neutral here, in saying that it's just a matter of opinion as to whether the word mutilation applies. That is very different than saying whether it's right, wrong, fringe, or mainstream. Those are different than whether a word fits. DanP 19:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have requested that this page be protected to avoid the recent flurry of reverts from turning into a full-fledged edit war. Please do not make changes to the main article. Bring your concerns here for discussion. Exploding Boy 20:36, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

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)

I could say the same to you. I think that the version to which you would like to revert is less complete, less clear, and less neutral. I also think that the layout -- with the list of changes in the middle of the article -- is less useful.

My changes included:

• layout -- putting the list of mods at the end avoids breaking up the flow of the article and follows the style of other articles
• change of "modifications or mutilations" to "alterations" where necessary to avoid non-NPOV and wordiness
• cleaning up the middle section on circumcision and naming it as such
• making clear the fact that the distinction between modification and mutilation is personal and can depend on cultural or political biases (among others), and that the choice of one word over the other can be indicative of an individual's agenda
• improvements to general clarity and style

I don't think any information is missing, and I would appreciate it if you would stop calling me a vandal. A vandal is someone who blanks articles or purposely adds false, misleading or irrelevant information or profanities to an article, not someone who spends time improving it. Exploding Boy 16:41, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with many of your changes to the base text. I have taken your altered version and incorporated some of my improvements to this, thus effectively merging improvements made by us both. It would have been helpful if you'd done this in the first place...

My changes include:

• An observation on lack of dictionary support for consent as criteria
• Removal of "who elect to have their own genitals altered in some way, or " and "who have had their genitals altered against their wishes, or those". I actually think that the article would actually be improved by removal of these sentences altogether, but as a minimum these parts should be removed. The reason is simple: there's absolutely no reason to believe it to be true. As an alternative, I suppose we could change "is generally preferred" to "may be preferred" in both cases, but it makes for a somewhat vague statement, don't you think?
• Removal of "Some consider all sex reassignment surgery to be genital mutilation; others consider it so if performed without the consent of the individual concerned, for example if performed on a child." - it is essentially a repetition of the third paragraph.
• Added "medical" as reasons for male circumcision
• Changed "part of intactivism" to "one aspect of..."
• Added "foreskin restoration" to "alteration of tissue" (in addition to addition of tissue - the surgical methods do alter tissue).

- Jakew 19:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Jakew, please indicate why you're reverting. We can try to combine our changes, if you desire. DanP 23:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanP, I made a number of changes, which Exploding Boy and I seem to have agreed upon. You decided to revert them, for no apparent reason, and without discussion. Consequently, I undid your revert. - Jakew 23:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Similarly, your changes reverted many of mine. I'm sure we can mix them together. DanP 23:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As long as this article is in dispute, please discuss changes here before reverting large portions of the article. I've asked another admin to protect the article but it has yet to be done. In the meantime, let's tread lightly. Exploding Boy 23:59, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your changes were lost, especially if that was through an oversight on my part. Please see the above section for discussion of changes made so far. - Jakew 00:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

• Dan your questioning the reverting habits of others is interesting given your habit of indulging in same. Would you mind explaining your confusing actions inthis regard? - Robert the Bruce 04:29, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • If you've followed each step, it was not the reverts that were the only issue. Most of our changes were perfectly compatible, but sometimes they are clumsily overlooked. I'm sorry if I contributed to that phenomena, but I can at least admit when I've stumbled in that regard. DanP 15:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reverted some changes by DanP. They seemed to add nothing to the article except grammatical errors, and that table was horrible. The list format is much easier to read. Exploding Boy 16:19, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

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)

I'm with EB on this one. Here are my objections:

• The table!
• Dictionary definitions: lacks coherence. The paragraph is about consent.
• Normative: see a dictionary. The sentence structure is also better.
• It's absurd to say that proponents claim something is performed for a reason. The reasons are real, whether right or wrong.
• Prevalence/geographical region: I've tried to adapt and incorporate this.

- Jakew 19:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, I tried to combine into the list and abandon the table. On your specific objections:

• If the dictionary can be used to refute consent (which is pushed neither way in the dictionary), why do you object to it being used for tissue removal (which is clearly there)?
• Normative. It's still an assertion. Qualify it with who is making such a dubious claim.
• The article goes beyond that - it claims that is the why a procedure is done. That is very different that the real reason, which you've made no end of emphasizing in the foreskin restoration article. Which do you accept? (1) A reason (once stated) is always real (2) A reason is always claimed and/or asserted by some proponent. Let's be consistent here.

DanP 19:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DanP, good plan regarding the list. To answer your questions:

• The very fact that the dictionary is silent on consent is why it refutes it! The paragraph is on consent, rather than on formal definition of mutilation. I wouldn't object to an additional paragraph on formal definitions being added, however.

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)

Not at all. 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). But you would change it without delay no matter how I phrased it. Is that a fair assessment? Regarding the "may": First, there is connotation of permission ("You may have an ice cream cone"). Change it to "might" or similar terminology indicating the true relevance or motivation. Second, those are reasons suggested by the promoter. You have emphasized in the foreskin restoration discussion : To be fair, not all motivations are consciously understood, so it may be unrealistic to say that anyone truly knows their motivations. I have accepted some of your wording in that article that dilutes the certainty of stated reasons to that of the person actually engaged in such practice. I ask you to do exactly the same here. DanP 00:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding "may": In light of your first point, I've changed it to "might". The sentence lists possible reasons, and isn't exclusive. If you'd like to add other possibilities, I wouldn't object (as long as they're sensible, of course!). Regarding normative, how about changing the sentence structure to avoid the ambiguity? - Jakew 00:29, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By who? I know thats not NPOV. Sam [Spade] 14:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Section removed from article

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)

My opinion is irrelevant - it merely says that they (the "others" mentioned) regard the alterations as normative. - Jakew 15:38, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Who doesn't think what who do? Sorry, your question doesn't make sense - want to try again? Mentioning someone's opinion, without describing it as right or wrong, is not POV. For example, saying "some people think that any surgical modification to the genitals is mutilation" is not POV because it doesn't endorse that view. - Jakew 16:36, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and you can't have the article saying it is, its not NPOV. Sam [Spade] 23:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Ok, it now (again) says "which they see as normative". So it's clear that it is their point of view, not one endorsed by the article. Any objections? - Jakew 00:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thats better. I'm removing this page from my watchlist, it makes me unhappy. Sam [Spade] 13:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Exploding Boy, circumcision is only one practice among the many listed. I believe the article should not single out one practice over another, to make an example out of it. Whether it is piercing, castration, or circumcison, each article can make its definition separately. But to point more strongly at just one in an encyclopedia definition -- especially while whole articles exist on the matter -- seems off topic and slightly fixated, IMHO. If you honestly believe you can substitute any genital modification and mutilation practice at all in the example, and it would leave the readability and NPOV exactly the same, then I apologize. Otherwise, I hope you see my point that choice of definition is up to the reader without highlighting one practice to act as a prototype for all the others in the text. DanP 01:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's important to use the same example in both sentences -- presenting both a negative and a positive view and expressing a preference for neither is inherently neutral. A lot of the cleanup in this article involved removing the many, many examples. We can't give examples for every possible combination of what one person might consider to be (or not to be) mutilation/modification, or we'll be here forever. The phrase "for example" allows for all possibilities. Exploding Boy 19:40, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Seems sensible to me. -Jakew 21:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

BTW... in the second paragraph I used the term "cutting and removal" because those are the exact words used in the federal law. If that term is loaded, blame congress. I am only using accurate legal phrasing in disussing the legal aspect of the topic. That is the way legal points are made.

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)

There's a few. Circumcision, castration, piercings. The images are on the sub-articles. Peace. Metta Bubble 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why male genital mutilation is almost not mentioned in this article, except in the link section. I assume it is for reasons of social acceptance, but that implies a POV and moral judgment. If removal of tissue from a female genital is mentioned under "mutilation", male foreskin removal should also be - the act itself is undeniably the same, and differentiating between "circumcision" and female genital mutilation appears very of arbitrary when examined this way. --Stephan, 3rd February 2006

I think it's merely incomplete, not biased. A good edit might be to rewrite the Circumsion section to be Overview. It could be less merely about circumsion and more about all of the sub-articles listed; including castration as a form of punishment mutilation. But overall, be wary of merely reproducing large chunks of the sub-articles. Peace. Metta Bubble 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did some modifications to the wording, added a "health issues" section and modified the part about phimosis, it was inaccurate. I think it should be more acceptable now, although it's still rather incomplete and could use some more actual citations. --Stephan, 4th February 2006

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)

I redacted the HIV claim because the "studies" that purport it have gross methodological flaws that in most subjects would get the people performing them laughed out of the halls of science. Here is a counter study (With superior methodology) http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF6852571CD005207D9 Male Circumcision May Not Protect Against HIV Infection: Presented at AIDS 2006 By Danny Kucharsky Lordkazan 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means cite criticism. However, it's interesting to note that these "laughable" studies are actually taken very seriously, by respected organisations such as the CDC and WHO. As for your "superior" methodology, the news article is about an observational study, which are well-recognised as far less reliable than a randomised controlled trial. To quote from the 2003 Cochrane Review (prior to the results of the Auvert RCT): "The results from existing observational studies show a strong epidemiological association between male circumcision and prevention of HIV, especially among high-risk groups. However, observational studies are inherently limited by confounding which is unlikely to be fully adjusted for. In the light of forthcoming results from RCTs, the value of IPD analysis of the included studies is doubtful." Jakew 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
it would have been nice if the studies supposedly supporting HIV where "randomized controlled trials" - however they werent. there was no control of them. They all have fatal methodological errors. Just because the CDC and WHO are taking them seriously doesn't mean they're correct - the american medical community has been flat out wrong on this subject for many years. and to pull out Cochrane Review quotes
"Despite the positive results of a number of observational studies, there are not yet sufficient grounds to conclude that male circumcision, as a preventive strategy for HIV infection, does more good than harm."
furthermore
"Selection bias was problematic in all studies, and results were potentially confounded by other risk factors for transmission of HIV such as sexual behaviour and religion. Circumcised and uncircumcised groups (in cohort and cross-sectional studies) and HIV-positive and HIV-negative groups (in case-control studies) were seldom balanced for all or most of the 10 risk factors that we identified as potential confounders prior to quality assessment." (follows)

   * Age    * Sexual behaviour    * Location of trial    * Religion    * Education, occupation, socio-economic status    * Sexual behaviour – measured by age at first intercourse, number of sexual partners, contact with sex workers    * Any sexually transmitted infections    * Condom use    * Migration status, travel to different countries    * Other possible exposures, e.g. injection, blood transfusions  

So even your lauded cochrane review says that these studies are FLAWED! Here is a list of all the studies to date on the subject (except the ones announced this month, but those suffer the same flaws - i've read them and so have several world renown epidemiologists and they called bullocks) http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
No Jakew - it is NOT vandalism to remove flat out incorrect information that has no source citation to begin with - it's vandalism (and agenda-pushing) to keep it in. Lordkazan 13:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no dispute that the observational studies are limited, and this is stated by the Cochrane quote I gave, which recommended waiting for the results of the RCTs. Since the time of the Cochrane review, the first randomised controlled trial has reported results. The study may be found here.
To address your concerns about cited sources, I have added a link to the CDC's factsheet, which includes references to relevant materials. Jakew 14:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
and that study was a poorly controlled piece of shit with the realiability of a 2 year old telling you about quantum physics. it's not a valid source - it suffered from the bolded issues in the list above VERY BADLY. PS: don't be a hypocrit and post the ad hominem warning on my page after you ad hom'ed me by claiming I was vandalising when I removed unsourced, unsupportable, bogus junkscience claims that were cushioned in weasel words Lordkazan 14:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
and if you're wondering - it's because the group of people who would be circumcised where they selected their random sample have a completely different set of sexual behaviors than the ones that didn't. In the United States there is no measurable difference in female->male transmission amongst the intact and circumcised groups of men - and we have the highest HIV rate of the so-called "western world"! The source I linked at the beginning of this discussion is FAR more accurate that Auvert could ever DREAM of being. Auvert needs to learn to control for secondary (and much more deterministic) variables. Lordkazan 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore I see you are engaged in a revert war with TipPt in circumcision where you keep removing accurate information and claiming you are reverting vandalism. Lordkazan 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already addressed your misconceptions about the Auvert study at Talk:Circumcision. As for vandalism, you must be confusing me with another editor. I have not accused you of vandalism. So far you have been extremely incivil, but you haven't vandalised the Wiki, as far as I can tell. Jakew 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

stop modifying the language on male to be different than that for female - it can be contentious for both for ANY reason. Religious reasons are not an excuse to mutilate a minor. Lordkazan 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, to which you are of course entitled, but you must recognise that it is not one that is universally held. The simple fact of the matter is that there are a range of views on both procedures, and female circumcisions tend to be more contentious. Jakew 15:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Which is what the language was meant to imply, your latest addition to the language is good as well (See we can agree on some things when you're not trying to censor information :P) Lordkazan 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I will be reverting this section back to my original formulation. I dispute that there is anything at all controversial about circumcising males for religious or cultural reasons. It is most definitely not the same thing as female circumcision, and to equate the two is absurd and insulting. Circumcision is a central rite and obligation of Judaism and Islam; it is not peripheral, and it is not optional. To state that religiously-motivated male circumcision is controversial is the same thing as saying that the practice of Judaism and Islam is controversial. This is religious intolerance and is extremely agressive and uncivil behavior. Please do not remove this qualifier again from the article.Dasondas 23:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be controversial, whilst being engaging in a controversy about it. Your reasons that there should not be a controversy seem to be fairly good ones, nevertherless there clearly is some degree of controversy in some cases.WolfKeeper 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR prevents us from documenting a controversy among Wikipedia editors, WolfKeeper. Jakew 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you and several other sympathizers of intolerant fringe groups choose to engage in a discussion does not elevate the issue to a controversy worthy of being dignified in the text of a Wikipedia article. Insisting on the "controversial" nature of religious circumsion looks a lot like bigotry. Stop it.Dasondas 02:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
YOUR PERSONAL ATTACK HAS BEEN REPORTED Lordkazan 16:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Please try to assume good faith.WolfKeeper 02:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith; that is why I said the edit "looks like bigotry" instead of saying that the edit was bigoted. I appreciate that my language is getting a little curt, but I have not stopped assuming that you are acting in good faith. I may stop making this assumption, however, if editors continue to revert this language without citing relevant, reliable and non-fringe sources proving the controversial nature of religious circumcision.Dasondas 03:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I did actually cite it; and the cite seems reasonably balanced so far as I can tell.WolfKeeper 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It could be a lot worse, but do we have a more scholarly source? Also, Dasondas makes the reasonable point, in effect, that we need to know whether the controversy is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion. We have to have a reasonable threshold, after all. Jakew 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dasondas if you revert to your formulation I will consider it vandalism and take appropriate action. Your assertion I dispute that there is anything at all controversial about circumcising males for religious or cultural reasons. is absurd, non-verifiable, opinion and bullocks. I am a direct counterexample to your assertion that there isn't anything controversial about circumcision males for cultural reasons, and I know several jewish people who oppose religious circumcision. Circumcision is genital mutilation, and it was visited upon me in my infancy, without ny consent, and against my wishes now as an adult for primarily cultural reasons (USA) which is propagated by medical fraud. Lordkazan 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Your personal experiences may be important to you, but they don't really qualify as relevant sources for Wikipedia articles, do they? You have demonstrated quite clearly in your comments on my Talk page that you don't understand the first thing about religious circumcision, yet you still persist in trying to use Wikipedia to promote a POV that is extremely hostile to various religions. Various of your edits here and elsewhere have not been following accepted Wikipedia policies. If you want an article to state that religious circumcisions are controversial, you need to cite relevant, reliable, and non-fringe source material to back that contention. There are about 600 million males alive today who have had circumcisions done for purely religious reasons; this is a practice that is several thousand years old. But let's not let any of that get in the way of one anonymous, anatomically frustrated Wikipedia editor. I got it.Dasondas 16:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, your POV does not constitute the truth. I am keeping the article in a state that says "non-theraputic circumcision can be controverious" more or less. This is the truth. Your assertion to the contrary is irrelevant. Your assertion about my supposed lack of knowledge is irrelevant. your personal insults against me and Wolf is irrelevant. By saying that using the same statement for both genders is hostile tword religion you are showing ethnocentrism - someone who mutilates female genitals for religious purposes would claim that you're the bigot. No, the article as Wolf and I are trying to keep it is RELIGION-NEUTRAL. You're trying to put it into a pro-religion position.
Age of the proceedure and popularity do not matter about whether or not it's controverisial - those arguments ammount to argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Furthermore your accusations of "Fringe"ness are personal attacks - argumentum ad hominem. Wolf has kindly provided you with a source to block any additional vandalism you attempt.
The article as Wolf and I are trying to keep it is religion-neutral. You are attempting to make it pro-religious. Sorry, preventing that is not bigotry, and adding it is a violation of NPOV Lordkazan 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The source currently being cited is not relevant. It establishes that the Swedish law is controversial, but it is a very long way away from establishing that the practice of religious circumcision has generated enough controversy to be qualified as such in Wiki English. Find proper sources or remove the disputed material.Dasondas 16:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Want me to just link to the Genital Integrity wikipedia page for you? Lordkazan 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't use Wikipedia as a source, LK. Jakew 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS Wiki cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. Dasondas 17:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
*sigh* my point was to demonstrate that he's wrong - it's not just "some fringe groups" - he's trying to push his pov. I have a pov, and I freely admit that all over the talk pages - but I do my best to keep them off the actual content pages, he's trying to push his pov onto the content page. I could start linking to the cites liked by Genital Integrity as primary source evidence of the controversy. Lordkazan 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, most of the source material on that page is either a) about secular, not religious circumcision, b) sites made by the (allegedly) 'fringe' groups themselves, or c) both.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: suppose I dispute the existence of gravity. I create a website "nogravity.com", in which I express my views. Should Wikipedia then take care to note this 'controversy' in its treatment of gravity? Clearly, no: I'm just a fringe element, and my site about my fringe beliefs is no evidence that I'm not a fringe element.
So I guess I can't quite see your point. Jakew 17:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Simply because you assert a group is "fringe" does not make it so. excluding it from consideration on that basis is POV. Non-theraputic cirucumcision can be contentious - that is a fact. Lordkazan 17:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, whether it is a fringe view or not is a critical point. Rather than being POV, NPOV policy actually dictates the following: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. ... None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." (WP:NPOV#Undue_weight) Jakew 18:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the burden is on you to show that these groups are "fringe". Nearly every single uncircumcised male I've talked to strongly dislikes the idea and would never have it done to his own kid. Hell, entire cultures (e.g. most east asians cultures) are completely uncircumcised, and they generally aren't fond of the concept at all. Yes, many people do in fact view it as a pointless mutilation (and you have already been given links to their websites. Keep in mind that these are only the vocal ones--most anti-circumcision people aren't vocal, but their opinions are revealed in their own choices and their own arguments when asked why they aren't having their child circumcised.) Hell, the sheer number of people arguing with you here should be evidence enough that we are not fringe. Conflicting studies (cited in foreskin and sexual effects of circumcision) themselves demonstrate a scientific controversy, and many people have put forth various reasons why it's undesirable to get rid of the foreskin. This is already well explained (and cited) in the aforementioned articles, so I think a simple link should suffice.

The matter of religious vs. secular reasons is rather irrelevant, too. No one (to my knowledge) is arguing against circumcision for religious reasons, only for it. (I.e. no one is using religious reasons to oppose circumcision, and the fact that some of the pro-circumcision argument is based on religion is irrelevant.)

In short, your accusations of fringe-ness are unfounded--completely unproven and uncited and contradictory with the current situation (the controversy of which is indication enough that there is, in fact, a controversy.) --Lode Runner 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki talk pages are not a reliable source. Unfortunately, POV pushers (fringe or otherwise) tend to view Wikipedia as a good place to express their views, thus WP:NOT explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a propaganda vehicle or a soapbox. Jakew 22:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not citing ourselves, we are using ourselves as evidence that our beliefs are not "fringe" and thus (if necessary) we can cite *other* sites. Do you want more links then? Google "genital integrity" and take your pick. Google "circumcision" and note that one of the top 10 sites is www.mothersagainstcirc.org, one is and many of the other sites in the top 10 are neutral and, in fact, acknowledge the existence of a debate. One of the neutral pages contains the line "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) does not recommend routine circumcision." What more proof do you need?--Lode Runner 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Call citing "using ourselves as evidence" if you like, but the net effect is the same and WP:NOR disallows it. Furthermore, how do you propose to establish that individuals and websites are non-fringe? Jakew 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You are citing YOURSELF--at least I have links to back up MY argument. You are one twisted rules-lawyer indeed to claim that neither reputable (and popular) links nor group consensus is reason to include something that goes against your own, pet, unsupported theory. I have given you links (indirectly, but you can do your own freakin' Googling.) Unless you want to contest the validity of those links, one by one, this proves that it is no longer OR. End of story.

Oh, and your interpretation of WP:NOR is incorrect. Sorry, but NOR does not apply to talk pages. You can see my reply to you on the female genital cutting talk page for more info. --Lode Runner 06:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research." WP:TALK Jakew 09:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to concede, however, that the controversy is much less pronounced than it is with FGC. As I've said elsewhere, there's a massive difference between foreskin/hood removal and excision of the clitoris itself. Though male circumcision is controversial, I do not think that the article should in any way put male circumcision on par with cutting off a girl's clitoris. I'll meditate on the issue before I make any changes... --Lode Runner 21:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.