Talk:Circumcision/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

Contents 1 Procedures section 2 Procedures 3 Image 4 THE POSSIBLE FIXES REQUIRE... 5 "acucullophallia" 6 Cites vs. Reliable Sources 7 Archive please 8 Different approach 9 Male domination of the article 10 Weasel? 11 Brenda Love? 12 Recent changes by Johnny Dangerously 13 Let this be a lesson. 14 Acucullophallia 15 "Medical" 16 Dubious statements 17 Medical aspects reads as a propaganda piece 18 No pictures? 19 Acuckoo revisited 20 Acucullophallia again 21 Significant revisions Jakew and Jayjg deletes from the TALK PAGE! 22 Here's the proposed outline 23 Recent article that may be of interest. 24 acucullophallia "dispute" 25 Request for arbitration 26 Sexual effects changes

Procedures section

I noticed a revert back to (in part) "the clamp then cuts off the foreskin" but this isn't accurate, at least not so far as the link at the bottom of the article to the procedure of a GOMCO circumcision is concerned. What's up? According to that link (and as I understand the procedure) the clamp keeps everything in place so that the doctor can remove the foreskin with a scalpel. The clamp provides hemostasis (pressure frequently described as 'crushing') to minimize blood flow to the area) and in the case of GOMCO, a surface against which the docotr can cut (the bell that goes between the foreskin and the glans). I think this is an important difference, so I'm going to clarify the procedures part, unless someone else beats me to it or someone can provide a good justification for the phrase about the clamp cutting off the foreskin. I'd be more bold and just do it, but this is such a touchy page, I thought I'd talk it out first. Zandrous 09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now it's been reverted back apparently because the reverter is in an arbitration that requested they refrain from editing this page. I guess I'll just wait and see what else happens at the hands of the more experienced wikipedians; I admit I'm a bit intimidated by all the action on this article, and am hesitant to get caught up in one of the frequent debates.Zandrous 16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the revert of the revert complained that the changes were factually false. I'm only addressing the part that was in the procedures section: there the part that says that the clamp cuts off the foreskin is actually false (that's such a value laden word for this controversial topic; how about incorrect, or innacurate?) so that's what I'm going to edit. I'll leave the other stuff for others to hash out.Zandrous 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information about using a dorsal slit with the Mogen clamp, because one doesn't, and added back details how it is actually used. I didn't think this would be controversial, as the techniques are quite standard among practitioners, but this time I added copious citations for the curious - sorry for not putting them in the first time. Dmr001 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Accurate medical details are important. Al 19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Procedures

I think someone should write how jews and muslims circumcise, I am very curious and belive that there must be at least one jew and one muslim in wikipedia willing to write how it's done. I know that there is a "brit millah" article, but it has a lot of jewish customs and social things. Cuzandor 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And how the circumcisers in africa or australia or whatever do it too Cuzandor 19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Comment edited by User:Nandesuka to remove insulting and inappropriate language.

Image

I don't want to get into an edit war so will leave a comment here, and request that there at least be given some consideration to my request (even if others have put forth the same request in the past) - it is why can't we remove the image? It hardly contributes anything in my eyes and is disturbing. I am repeatedly told that wikipedia isn't censored but then why isn't there a picture of a murder on its article, or picture of a corpse on its page? The reason is that such pictures would be unacceptable - why isn't this? Chooserr 19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you claim it hardly contributes anything? Many people have never seen an (un)circumcised penis, and it's not easy to imagine what it might look like. The pictures may be the most informative part of the article for many people. ^L_Wizard @ 19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a diagram could never be implimented instead...Anyways you have yet to address wikipedia's policy of censorship, which I discussed above. Should a picture of a starving animal be added to animal cruelty to illustrate what it looks like? Chooserr 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can find an encyclopedic image that illustrates the article in question: yes, absolutely. This issue was settled years ago. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors or for those with unreasonably delicate sensibilities. The article is about circumcision. There are, therefore, images of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. The photos are clear, simple, and not at all prurient. They are absolutely appropriate. Nandesuka 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr, if you haven't, you may find it useful to look through the archived talk on this page, as the issue of the images has been discussed at length at least a couple of times here. It also may help the discussion if you can be more specific about what you find disturbing about the images. (I personally think that an image of a retracted foreskin would be more illustrative than an erect uncircumcised penis, but I don't have such an image handy.).Zandrous 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that having pictures is appropriate (to show differences). But I wonder if it matters that for uncircumcised a statistically large penis is shown and an average one for circumcised (albeit a "shower). Would having similar sized penises pictured be a fairer comparison?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.252.179.21 (talk • contribs) 10:53, June 29, 2006 (UTC)

Those pictures are definitely important. I wouldn't be against good illustrations, but I don't think they'd be as useful. I live in a house with three circumsized family members, and I don't get the chance to examine the pertinent parts, so although I understood the difference in theory, I didn't understand it physically or visually until I came across this article. Kilyle 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don´t understand the discussion about those pictures at all. In continential Europe or better let's say in most european countries such a picture would´t matter because it shows something verry natural.

THE POSSIBLE FIXES REQUIRE...

A rewrite, and parallel publish. Attract many editors to choose between two versions. Luckily, you pro-circ folk have left a clear choice!

That's where the Rfc will apply Nandesuka. Is Jakew still dominating? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TipTp (talk • contribs).

I favor making incremental changes, rather than a drastic rewrite. And to answer your question, it remains the case that JakeW, Nandesuka and Jayjg would prefer a more positive view of circumcision than some would. Al 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I politely suggest that you try to avoid characterizing what other editors believe, since you don't seem to be able to do it accurately. Please focus on the article, and not the editors. Nandesuka 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

TipTp was on a wikibreak and asked about the current consensus. I think it was fair for me to answer. I don't think that this answer was in any way uncivil or constituted a personal attack or otherwise violated the rules. If you think there is a factual error, feel free to step in and correct it. Regardless, I ask that you assume good faith. Al 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith too, and I didn't characterize it as a personal attack. I said it was inaccurate. I want an article that maintains a neutral point of view, that is based on reliable sources, and that has no original research. None of those desires in any way boil down to wanting a "positive view of circumcision." Since you've made that characterization several times in several places, I think it's important to point out that it is false. The safest way to avoid making mistakes like the one you are making is to simply not comment on other editors at all — focus on the article instead. Nandesuka 18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are very few people, outside of obvious vandals, who would say (or even think) that they want articles that aren't neutral. Having said that, different people have differing notions of what constitutes neutrality. My view of a neutral page, for example, is that it should include mentions of CA-MRSA and coagulation defects, while your view is that it shouldn't. In this way, my view is anti-circ as compared to yours, yours is pro-circ as compared to mine. If we had a neutral page to compare it to, we could speak of where our views deviate from it, but no such page exists at this time, or at least we don't agree on its identity. From the point of view of TipTp, you're pro-circ. It's all relative, unless you have some fixed point to measure from. Personally, I don't consider myself anti-circ, but I do recognize that I am anti-circ relative to some other views.

Now, I realize that any generalization has the risk of overgeneralizing, but I do think we need to be able to speak of generalities as well as specifics if we are to understand the big picture. At no point did I intend to insult you by mischaracterizing your views, though, and I apologize if you took insult at anything I've said so far. Al 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your generalization is still there: it's false. I'm not taking insult. I'm just saying that what you are saying isn't true. The problem with generalizing "relative to" someone with a strong point of view that it suggests that that is an appropriate yardstick by which to measure. It ain't; it leads to absurd conclusions such as characterizing someone who really doesn't care about some topic as "pro-that-topic" or "anti-that-topic." That's why I continue to suggest to you that you'll be much more productive if you constrain yourself to talking about content rather than about editors. Nandesuka 20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"acucullophallia"

For the record, this word isn't in the OED, and what references you can find to it on the web are confused, muddied, contradictory, and without any etymology. As near as I can tell it's just made up. Nandesuka 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic, I know, but I believe that it derives from the Latin "cucullus" (a cowl or covering, according to one source, and a funnel-shaped head covering according to another). The a- prefix gives 'without'. The Greek for 'fondness for' gives us -philia. This would explain acucullophilia. I've had no luck in tracing the 'phallia' suffix. I'd guess it was originally a misspelling. Jakew 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess the 'phallia' comes from phallus. Thus we have "without-covering-penis." ^L_Wizard @ 16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That would make a certain amount of sense. Jakew 18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my immediate conclusion. I got the impression that some editors were confusing "philia" with "phallia" and taking offense at mistaken notion that the latter involves viewing circumcision as a paraphilia. This would also explain the repeated reverts. Al 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Cites vs. Reliable Sources

We've got a cite that says:

acucullophallic:

Having or pertaining to a circumcised penis

Then we've got an editor who says otherwise, without explantion. Who should we believe? Al 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an even more direct citation.

acucullophallia, acucullophilia

State of being circumcised (of men), attraction to men who are circumcised.

Note the distinction. Al 12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also note the unreliable nature of the sources. And the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nor is it a thesaurus.

So, perhaps you could explain why it is so important that Wikipedia should document an incredibly obscure meaning of a term - and a usage apparently undocumented in reliable sources - in the introduction? Jakew 13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What part of "I looked this up in the OED, and it wasn't there" is ambiguous? I can't cite something that doesn't exist. You won't find either acucullophallia or acucullophilia in any reference available at bartleby.com (which includes the full text of thousands upon thousands of English language documents, as well as, of course, a dictionary or thesaurus). It's not in Webster, either. Or PubMed. Nandesuka 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The part where OED was the final arbiter of what qualifies as a word. Please don't blame me for rejecting your choice of standards, especially as they do not apply.

First, Google offers 1,470 hits, so I doubt the word is something that editor just made up. I noticed that it shows up quite consistently in specialized dictionaries of sexual terms, which is where we expect it to be. I doubt OED is ever going to have a comprehensive list of such terms, precisely because they don't readily show up in conventional media. And as for WP:RS, you've historically misinterpreted it, and it's not even a rule, so it doesn't matter either way.

Finally, the reason the word belongs in the first paragraph is that this is where we'd mention synonyms. Look at other articles for examples. Also, we should probably set up a redirect to here. Al 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there used to be a great deal of, in my opinion, very unnecessary fighting over terms such as "circumcised" vs "unmutilatedcastratedstabbedpenismurdered".

Isn't it advisable, to at least be able to use a more scientific sounding vocabulary - as in, detached from everyday speech and associations to avoid emotions. Synonyms like that are an important part of an article when stuff is looked up primarily by text search - if relevant words are missing, the article fails as a whole. Dictionaries are never complete, and neither is Wikipedia. The advantage of Wikipedia being, that we can update her ourselves as new information becomes more widely available. IAR2TR. Dabljuh 18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A term is only "scientific" if scientists use it. Can you find one that's used this term? I bet not. Nandesuka 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe he said "scientific sounding", which is accurate. Al 20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I was deliberately avoiding addressing the idea of putting "scientific sounding" terms in articles, regardless of whether they are common English usage or actually used by scientists, since it is so ridiculous on its face. But since you call it out: it seems like a really bad idea for an encyclopedia to choose what terminology to use based not on whether they are actually used in the real world, but instead based on "this sounds cool". But that's just my opinion.Nandesuka 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There was I thinking you people wouldn't care about "the real world" and preferred "reliable sources" (that you get to pick and judge) instead! Despite the term not being very widespread, it is used in the "real world" of people trying to sound scientific about the state of circumcision and the adoration thereof - see the links. "The real world" is thus exactly an argument why the synonym should be mentioned in the article. Spreading information is the purpose of wikipedia. Here we have a synonym for being circumcised belonging to an article that is in desperate need for a richer vocabulary about that state. Remember the "circumcised vs natural" wars? That problem would be reduced if there were actually more words - outside gym shower room talk - to describe the state of circumcision. Addition of the synonym (and subsequent, occasional use) would be without a doubt beneficial to the article as a whole. Dabljuh 23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

He has a point, there. I for one remember the petty wars over "uncircumcised" vs "not circumcised" vs "uncut" vs "whole" ad nauseum. "Acullophallic" vs. "Cullophallic" isn't a pretty solution, and maybe not even the best solution, but it's certainly one way to get terminology partisans to quiet down. Kasreyn 00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am right, dammit! Dabljuh 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It sure beats "turtleneck" vs. "vulture". Al 01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what: find me ONE use of this OUTSIDE of a web site (sex-lexis? You're kidding) and i'll drop my opposition to it. Just one magazine article. One book. One newspaper article. (Nandesuka)

Nandesuka, you gotta be shitting me - you aren't seriously asking us to find an unverifiable source for the term in favor of verifiable ones? (its, uh, mentioned in "Dick and Jane get sexually mutilated") Also, books and magazines kinda miss that handy "search plaintext" function. Dabljuh 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when is a book, newspaper, or magazine an unverifiable source? Nandesuka 12:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well go verify it, "Dick and Jane get sexually mutilated" polish edition, page 18. Dabljuh 12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. What's the ISBN? Who is the author? What year was it published? Who published it? All of that information will be at the front of the book. Verifying this should be easy. Nandesuka 12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Before we go deeper into that, may I remind you of the Circumcision fetish discussion? We had a high quality book source - "The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices" by Brenda Love, ISBN 0349115354, where said circumcision fetish was described. Yet the source was dismissed as unverifiable since nobody appeared to have that book? What the hell?

Now, lets assume for the sake of the argument I gave you the data for the book you seek. Wouldn't it simply take you to say "Sorry, can't find a copy of that book" to dismiss this source as well? Links to a number of online sex-encyclopedias are infinitely much more easy and faster to verify - and as a whole create a very good, reliable source, more than sufficient for Wikipedia to use.

As for the "other book", it used to be hardcover but then the hardcover fell off, also, some other pages have gone missing... Dabljuh 13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember that discussion, yes. Apparently, Ms Love did not discuss 'circumcision fetish', but 'circumcision', and discussed something totally different from that which the (desperately defended) article was about. It is true that nobody had the book, which made it completely impossible to base an article on it (hint: a source is more than someone using part of the term. It actually has content which should be used. As a minimum, this requires at least one editor to have a copy to work from). Furthermore, it's baffling that you raise the topic now, since as a result of the discussion, you stated: "I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion."[1]. Jakew 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As minor as t his issue is, it's a fine example of the usual problem here. Al 13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To some extent I agree: people constantly trying to insert unverifiable and unreliable information into an encyclopedia article is what I would characterize as "the usual problem." Nandesuka 13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the usual problem is that we disagree about what constitutes the usual problem. Al 14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you think it's reasonable to demand a non-web usage. By definition, such sources are much less convenient to find, and just as inconvenient to verify. In short, your request has the net effect of raising the bar arbitrarily. Therefore, I must reject it. Al 13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that a web usage would be fine, if the site in question is a reliable source. Oed.com, for example, would be fine, though unfortunately it doesn't document the term at all. Jakew 13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think "find me one example of a reliable and verifiable source using this word" is not 'raising the bar', it's lowering it. I was addressing the suggestion that the space-age-a-go-go English language is changing so fast that it's just a temporary phenomenon that the only sites google has indexed that mention this are places like "sex-lexis.com". Obviously, if you find the word used in a reliable or verifiable place online, go for it. But you won't. Because it is a ridiculous made-up word that nobody actually uses.. Nandesuka 13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be the fundamental problem. Jakew 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask for a print source, for one thing, because some Wikipedia contributors have access to online search tools like Lexis-Nexis, ISI Web of Science, and EBSCOHost, either through academic connections or through their public libraries. None of these sources, incidentally, turn up anything for "acucullophall*". (I only searched medical news on Lexis-Nexis; if someone else with access cares to search general news or whatever, feel free.) FreplySpang 16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unreasonable to ask for a print source when a large number of online sex-lexicons mention acuckoowhatever. (Searching for the term I found more sex lexicas than I believed existed) making it very clear the term is not just the product of a wikipedian's fantasy. Also, wikipedians may well also write books or publish in print sources, which does nothing to prevent those print sources from being used as sources, should they satisfy WP:RS (given the claim). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. That acuckoblah is a synonym of circumcised is far from extraordinary, and a mundane source therefore suffices. For finding a synonym to "Circumcised", and acu... yeah, you know, has the latin meaning of "uncovered penis", and it turns up in several sex lexicons, I'd say for all purposes those are reliable enough for a mere, less well known, synonym. For chrissake why are we even talking about this? We found a synonym, it may not be the most well known, but lets use it anyway. Now that I know "acusomething" is a synonym of "circumcised", I would feel cheated by any pseudo-encyclopedic article that failed to offer me that information. Just because YOU have never heard it doesn't mean nobody has ever used it. You live and learn, you know? Dabljuh 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, I didn't know I'd start up this hellstorm with just one innocent edit. I was looking at requested articles and acucullophallia was one of the medical articles that had been requested. I recently did an article on a rare congenital disorder, so I was feeling a science mood. When I did a Google search I saw that acu. wasn't anything more than dicdef material, so I made it a redirect to Circumcision. Then, I tried to find a place for it in the article, believe that an editor more experienced with it would move it to the correct place. If it was sitting in the list of requested articles and appears to be used enough on the net, why is this debate occurring? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is no reason a huge big deal is being made out of this. It is a well-sourced synonym.

Unfortunately, Scm83x, this is a very, very unhealthy article. Or, to be specific, the article is just text and can be fixed; it's the editors who are a problem. Al 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, please try to focus on the article and the issues at hand, rather than on the editors of the article. Last I checked, no one was badmouthing you. Why don't you extend the same courtesy to everyone else? Thanks. Nandesuka 02:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nan, I didn't mention anyone by name, nor did I even single out a particular faction. Clearly, you are reacting to something that's not actually there. Al 02:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

So you think it's OK to badmouth the editors of an article generally, as long as you don't name them? Do go on. Nandesuka 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it's ok to insert your words in my mouth? What I've said all along and still say now is that this article is a mess because of the ongoing war among editors. Thank you for understanding. Al 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, everyone, be civil. There has been a 3RR violation on this article now and as an outside observer I would have to say that there are certainly WP:OWN issues here. Various forces (I have no idea what the sides are and what their arguments and issues are) seem to be pulling at this article and discussing on the talk page without actually listening to each other. If one sentence causes this much tumult, it is certainly a symptom of a larger problem in this article. —

Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, there was a recent RFM that failed to achieve any sort of agreement, so you can look there to see where the battle lines are drawn. Basically, the editors have polarized into pro and con circumcision factions, with the articles typically reflecting the bias of the former. Al 02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Archive please

Its getting to long again, someone archive it, dam you people talk to much, though it is funny to read… almost as funny as "[Uncyclopedia]".--BerserkerBen 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Different approach

Jakew and Nandesuka state it is a made-up word. All words are made up. Not a valid complaint. Please state another objection. Dabljuh 10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be credible. There is a difference between the following scenarios:

1. Bob makes up a word. People start using it, and it spreads. Soon, it is used in print. A reputable dictionary, such as the OED picks it up. Wikipedia mentions it.
2. Bob makes up a word. He decides that it's a 'cool word', and submits it to a couple of dubious user-submitted online sex "dictionaries". Wikipedia mentions it.

The first is reporting on a (possibly) notable, credible, real-world usage. The second is failing to apply appropriate 'junk filters' to the net (which is a wonderful thing in that anyone can publish, but is also full of junk for exactly the same reason), failing to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Maybe Bob's word will catch on. If so, sooner or later, it'll be used in newspapers or books, and in time, reputable dictionaries. Then it has established itself as a word with widespread usage, it will have reliable sources, and (perhaps) it'll be notable enough to be mentioned. Jakew 11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jake. Now I understand completely: according to your original research, it's not a word. Thank you so much for sharing that. Your fame in linguistics exceeds you. Al 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets gather the facts and the conjectures here.

• Fact: It's a word, duh.
• Conjecture: It's not a widely used word.
• Fact: Its a constructed latin word that could be translated as "uncovered wang"
• Conjecture: It is a recently constructed word
• Fact: A google search finds about 1500 webpages using that word
• Conjecture: All those sites have a low standard over whether to include a word for a listing or not.
• Fact: Wikipedia has an article dedicated to the internet phenomenon of The Juggernaut Bitch
• Conjecture: We badly need more different words to describe the state of being circumcised.

I think this little listing speaks for itself. Dabljuh 00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hah: prodomina.com Only allows user submissions to the dictionary by email, that means, they are not automatically added, and instead are first checked by TEH MISTRESS. Or the web mistress. Anyhow, do you dare to question the judgment of the WEB MISTRESS of PRODOMINA.COM regarding acucullophalia? Dabljuh 00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense intended, but: so? Just because some other editors have been lax in their attention to notability requirements does not mean we must also be so. You need a better argument for saying "acucullophallia is notable" than "Wikipedia article x includes equally non-notable things." In fact, all you've done is harm your case. Kasreyn 02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think other editors have been lax when they included those things? That would imply that if, for example, the AAP started talking of "Acucullophallia" they would have been lax too. What makes you think The Juggernaut Bitch isn't notable? I laffed my ass off. It was referenced to in the latest X-Men Movie. By all standards, the policies, the usance on Wikipedia, the mentioning of this synonym belongs on Wikipedia. Dabljuh 03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes me think it, is that you used The Juggernaut Bitch in such a way that the only possible way to interpret your use of it was that you felt it did not meet Jake's high standard of notability, and that therefore acucullophallia need not, either (ie., that you felt Jake overestimates how high the bar of notability should be set, since something as frivolous as TJB has been included). If you didn't mean that, then what point was there in mentioning it?

Look, I'm not against the use of terms like acucullophallia. It makes sense to me and, if settled on, would provide a sort of bomb shelter for use in case of a future "intact" vs "uncircumcised" edit war. But if you're going to make a logical argument for it, do it right.

P.S. Oh yeah... I also do feel TJB is non notable. If there's ever a vote to merge, I'd certainly vote yes. Every wikipedian has their particular hangup; mine is organization of knowledge. Kasreyn 05:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My logical argument could be reformulated something like this: "The Juggernaut Bitch" may not be considered notable to you, or to me. But, like "Acucullophallia", a number of people do find it indeed notable. Notability on a general repository of knowledge can not be decided on whether *everyone* finds that particular bit of knowledge notable, only if *some* do.

For example, I find String theory not notable, as it is not a verifiable science (with current technology), thus, it fails Karl Popper's definition of what constitutes a scientific theory. However, if anyone - anyone at all - wanted to take care of writing and maintaining the string theory article, keep it fair, neutral, verifiable and all that, then I say, good luck to you. Because I may not find it notable, but someone else does, and someone else is going to maintain it.

I wanted to illustrate to you how your aequivalency of 'notable' = 'inclusion in Wikipedia' is flawed. You, me, anyone can find anything and everything not notable enough to include it in Wikipedia. You can always find someone who considers something not notable. What you cannot find is someone who finds everything notable.

What I mean to say is, if one half of the editors find anything not notable enough to mention it in Wikipedia, and the other half does find it notable enough, then it should be mentioned. This could be described as inclusionist strategy or philosophy. Remember there is a difference between using a method (Anyone finds it notable enough for inclusion, and there are really no arguments other than "I do not find it notable myself") and describing "inclusionism" as a goal.

By comparison, the method that "if anyone finds a particular bit of information not notable, not wikipedia-worthy, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia", which is basically the exclusionist point of view, would lead to a completely empty Wikipedia, devoid of any information whatsoever.

The right strategy to work within Wikipedia, therefore, is to let other people have their way when they want to include something - that is a deeply inclusionist point of view. An exclusionist point of view only serves to harm the Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge in the long run. What I am criticising about you (you opposed inclusion of the word), Jakew and Nandesuka's philosophy is, that if the entirety of wikipedia editors followed this strategy, there would eventually not be anything to read or edit on Wikipedia at all. Therefore I ask you: Change your underlying strategy, otherwise you will harm Wikipedia in the long term.

That we argued for a WEEK over this tiny bullshit piece of information, makes it even more ridiculous. We could have written so many awesome articles in the meantime, instead of expending energy. Dabljuh 06:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are other wikis out there, other websites out there. The information isn't going to be lost or something just because Wikipedia doesn't carry it. We're not the sole guardians of truth here. We're building an encyclopedia. I consider myself a limited inclusionist, but I do believe in standards of notability. I want to thank you for inspiring me to think about it, though, because you've led me to question myself and nail down exactly what I feel. I'd say that an item is "notable" if a.) it has been widely reported on and/or discussed by reputable sources (consensus determines what is reputable), or failing that, b.) a significant majority of editors of the article consider it notable. One editor should definitely not have the power to ipso facto declare an item notable or not notable.

"We" have not argued over this term, you've argued with Jake and Nandesuka. I really don't care, honestly. Nor do I have anything against the inclusion of TJB; pared down a bit and merged with the article on the X-Men or the animated series, it would do fine. I feel Jake falls on the exclusionist side in this article, and you and Alienus fall on the inclusionist side. And that's fine by me; I've already said my piece. Best wishes, Kasreyn 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your philosophy, Dabljuh. It explains a few things. I do not agree, however. If we include anything and everything, then what results is unreadable, incoherent junk. In fact, what we end up with is the sum total of all pages resulting from an internet search on 'circumcision'. If that happens, we've failed, because we haven't provided the reader with anything better than what's already out there. We haven't summarised existing facts, we've just made a scrapbook. Jakew 13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a challenge: Take all information that is found when googleing "Circumcision". Sum it up, removing redundancies and so forth. No copy & pasting either, since that's a copyrights violation. Make it so there's a bit of order in it. Impossibly huge amount of work that might actually result in an extremely good article? You got that right. The problem is not whether or not one should include a particular bit of information. The problem is how... Dabljuh 17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it would result in an extremely bad article, because what is needed is filtering out the junk - non-notable information, crank theories, dubious data or 'facts', etc. Jakew 17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

So, and, just for the sake of argument, how do you think does one filter out "the junk - non-notable information, crank theories, dubious data or 'facts', etc." ? Dabljuh 17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Subjective opinion. Welcome to Wikipedia.  :P In the end, it all boils down to a certain aspect of subjectivity when determining notability and reliability. Kasreyn 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you. And no. You don't remove junk by subjective opinion - Only censors do that. You filter out the junk with more information. Its a thing about information theory: The more information you have, the better are your "filters". Essentially, by adding information, you remove junk, and vice versa - the two seemingly seperate things end up being the same. Wonderful, isn't it? Or lets say you have "dubious facts". How do you remove them? Mind you, you want to remove the "dubious" part, not the "facts" part. You remove that by adding information. Eventually the "dubious facts" will turn out discredited or corroborated. The "value" of an information is again information with a value itself. Even when you have known, discredited things in the article, its still better than not having them in the article at all - Someone from Backwards County, Alabama might not yet know that this particular bit of information he clings on has been discredited, and an article that simply omits that discredited bit of information is not as useful to him than one that clearly tells him "Dude, that particular idea is bull". Dabljuh 17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I wasn't advocating the way things are, just pointing out that, as Wikipedia currently stands, a certain amount of subjectivity prevails. If someone from Backwards County, Alabama tries to insert discredited information, he gets reverted because the consensus is for including it. If too many people editing an article are from Backwards County, someone can submit an RfC. Wikipedia is only as good as its people. Kasreyn 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The article should mention the discredited information, display its obsoleteness in a manner that accomodates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That way, people from Backwards County, Alabama will not waste their energies and be tempted to add their bit of false information. All information is judged subjectively. But ultimately, as reasonable people, given the same information we must come to the same conclusions. That is the whole point of dialectic debate - Exchange information (arguments) until a solution to the problem (different information <- value judgement <- subjective opinion) is found. Whether or not many people come from Backwards County, Alabama, is not relevant - If the information was not notable, that would mean there would never be a single person to which that bit of information was useful. That would further mean, that person from Backwater County, Alabama, could never have showed up in the first place. This is simple statistics: The probability of something happening is 1 (100%) when it actually happens. Purely since this bit of information is notable to someone, it may be notable to someone else as well.

Only when people won't, don't or can't understand the basics of information exchange, dialectic, Wikipedia and all that, only then they must be removed from Wikipedia because they will harm the project and the community more than they could benefit. Dabljuh 18:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Male domination of the article

It's obvious to me that this article is biased toward males, does not fully capture the topic, and is lost in nit-picking. Where are the females represented in the non-sexually biased use of the term? King queermo 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll be thrilled to know that Wikipedia finds female circumcision so notable it has its own article, attended by an equal panoply of hair-splitting POV-warring subpages like this one's. Happy? Kasreyn 21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, except to truly create an unbiased circumcision article, it should include a non-gender biased entry in the 'circumcision' area, I re-added weasel because its still biased more toward males and penile circumcision. User:Johnny_Dangerously

I disagree. Common word usage should be relied upon at Wikipedia, where it is not structurally biased (as is claimed regarding terms such as MGM and FGM). "Circumcision" in English-speaking countries is, as far as I know, considered to default to male unless female circumcision is specifically indicated. Kasreyn 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel?

King queermo, you've added a {{weasel}} tag to the article. Please would you explain what words you object to. Jakew 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we RV that shit. He rv'd not only that stupid acuccullothing we're arguing for AGES about now, he also rv'd the skin bridge picture, mgmbill, and male genital mutilation, stuff which I believe we have worked out in consensus. A weasel words tags without explanation what is objected to is worthless. Vandalism or AGF: blunder? RV anyways. Dabljuh 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify King queermo, I believe he's referring to this line: Except where specified, "circumcision" in this article should be understood as "male circumcision". Johnny Dangerously 01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added an NPOV as well. Johnny Dangerously 01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the top paragraph, and truncatd part of the male-specific procedure, which is still contained in penile circumcision. Johnny Dangerously 01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Brenda Love?

Dabljuh, a few things: 1 - if you're going to cite a source, you have to do it in the article, not in an edit summary. 2 - you "cited: acucullophallia - Found in: Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love, ISBN 0349115354, page 553". Finding it on that page was a neat trick, since that book is only 528 pages long.[2] Jakew 10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the edition, books have different numbers of pages. For example, see this 1992 edition as opposed to this 1994 edition as opposed to the 2002 edition that Jake cited. It is not wholly unbelievable that this citation was found on page 553 of some edition. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 10:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my edition of the book has 608 pages, counting the not numbered 16 page preface. The alphabetically ordered part is p.1 - 552, p.553-579 the glossary, p.580-592 being the the bibliography. Must be an older revision you're looking at. Compare to this Dabljuh 10:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we file this as a WP:AGF violation? Yes we can. By the way, I suppose on that / thelink jake cited, that the description is wrong (belonging to an outdated revision of the book) and the book offered is actually the same that I have. Dabljuh 10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and file. As for the book, ISBN numbers are specific to a particular edition, and the number you gave corresponds to the 2002 edition. If you cited the wrong edition, that's hardly verifiable, is it?

The other two mentioned above have 336 and 352 pages respectively.

Incidentally, the amazon link you gave (also the 2002 edition) goes from 'acrotomophilia' to 'acupressure', so I'm not sure why you mention it. Jakew 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jake. I quoted the right edition, the right ISBN. The figure on Powell's is simply wrong. So is the figure on Amazon's description - The very same place you can check out the table of contents and see that the Glossary starts at page 553.

Incidentally, the page I mentioned is the first one of the glossary. That is, very brief explanations of words for easier overview. There is no actual entry on "Acucullophallia" in the encyclopedic part - There is one about Circumcision, however, where "Acucullophallia" is mentioned as a synonym of circumcision, as well as "Apellous", "Peritomy", "Posthetomy". Dabljuh 11:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to quote the relevant paragraph? Jakew 12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan to eventually reproduce the article in fulltext for easier reference. Trying to figure out whether that's permissible under fair use. Dabljuh 13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There, I uploaded the respective pages. Almost as relevant however is another section on "genital modification" that I may upload at a different time, if requested. Check it out at User:Dabljuh/teusp. As for fair use: 3 of >600 pages is not usage that would anyhow hamper the copyright holder financially... Amazon makes a lot more available online. Dabljuh 19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's most interesting. Unfortunately, although it mentions acucullophallia, it doesn't define the term. Is the implication that it is synonymous with 'circumcision', or does it indeed mean 'the circumcised state'? Jakew 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the article does not mention they are synonyms at all. It just randomly puts words in parentheses there. They could mean anything! Also, I find the notion that the block of text below "Circumcision" refers to circumcision to be Original research as well. Who are you to say a block of text that has "Circumcision" all over it, would actually refer to "Circumcision"? In deed, the notion that this book's author is Brenda love is Original Research: It could actually be titled "Brenda Love" and written by "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices". How would we know? Amazon.com is definitely not a reliable source on that matter! Ahem. If you're not convinced of the meaning, let me translate the synonyms mentioned, hopefully correct:

• Acucullophallia. Latin. "Un-Covered Phallus-state", noun
• Apellous. Latin. "Un-Skin-ish", (skinned), adjective
• Peritomy. Greek. "Around-cut", noun
• Posthetomy. Greek. "Foreskin-cut", noun

Note how the -ia ending indicates it is actually referring to a state. If it was referring to a procedure, it would end in -ate, I suppose. [3] Dabljuh 11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If and when User:Dabljuh becomes a reliable source for the definitions of words, I'll be happy to include those. Jakew 11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Boy, Jake, every time I think "He might stop being systematically wrong", every time I think "He might stop shooting himself in the foot", or when I think "Maybe he'll suddenly come to reason" you just top it off, seemingly without any effort. Are you trying to get mentioned in the Guinness Book of World Records or is this some sort of innate talent? Because I sure haven't seen anyone so stubborn about being wrong in a while. Since "Bioscientific Terminology Words From Latin and Greek Stems by Donald M. Ayers" certainly qualifies as a reliable source.

Oh hey, and Jake: You're a reliable source. Of laughter. Dabljuh 12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Ayers use the definition of acucullophallia as an example, or are you performing original synthesis/interpretation? Jakew 14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is no longer in effect. Didn't you get the memo? Dabljuh 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No. Jakew 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR is irrelevant. We have print sources showing that the word is genuine, and we can google for its meaning trivially. If this is "synthesis" then we must delete all Wikipedia articles immediately. Al 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So find a reliable source giving its definition. Without one, it's OR. Jakew 17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The various web dictionaries are reliable sources. Moreover, the definition is not at all controversial. As Dab points out, it is painfully obvious from even a layman's understanding of Greek and Latin roots. In short, there is no WP:OR here, and if you disagree, I recommend you file an RFM immediately, because I do not accept your interpretation. Instead, I will act on my best understanding. Al 17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Alienus, the dictionaries cited aren't reliable sources. They don't even come close. Yes, we have mention of the term in a print source, but that doesn't validate the unreliable sources any more than mention of 'moon' in a book validates some crank's moon landing hoax page on the net.

As for the probable roots, the analysis is pure OR, as I stated above (I obviously agree with it, since I offered 'a-cucullus' myself, but that doesn't stop it from being OR, as I noted at the time). As for an RfM, recent experience tells me that we'll go around in circles, with you refusing to accept policy, so I don't really see the point.

Currently, with what sources we have, all that can be said is 'the acucullophallia is in some way related to circumcision'. Jakew 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I continue to disagree with you. With all due respect, your arguments are entirely unconvincing and irrelevant. Thank you for understanding. Al 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by Johnny Dangerously

change diff Essentially you've performed a move and merge without gaining any sort of consensus with other editors. I feel this sort of unilateral editing is disruptive to the project. Additionally, you've reintroduced terminology like "intact" which there is a consensus against using, and sources (such as CIRP) whose reliability is hotly contested. It's good that you retained the material deleted - moving it to penile circumcision - and I applaud your motives. But I'm reverting until there is a consensus to go ahead with this move. If I know the editors of this article, there is no consensus for such a move. Respectfully, Kasreyn 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with Johnny's actions, I do find he raises an interesting point: penile circumcision looks like a mini version of medical analysis of circumcision - The latter being, despite the relatively ambigious name, about circumcision on males exclusively.

I feel that while his motives are commendable, he is not familiarized enough with the article complex. I suspect he is not aware of the large number of articles involved with circumcision. Johnny, I suggest you take a look at Category:Circumcision as well as Category:Circumcision debate.

As for male / female circumcision, the consensus has been like this for ages: Circumcision in the english language refers to male circumcision, but the article mentiones female circumcision soon, to resolve ambiguity. The female circumcision folks however decided to instead name their practice female genital cutting, which is all around a very dumb name, compared to the much more widespread and common female genital mutilation. Male genital mutilation redirects to circumcision. Despite the obvious redundance, but for organisatory reasons, we even have a gender-neutral Genital modification and mutilation article. We used to have a cool "body modification" box but I don't know where it's gone.

Due to the sensitivity of the topic, adding or removing anything to any of these articles may cause a shitstorm of ridiculous proportions. Essentially, circumcised folks generally don't want to hear they're actually mutilated, jewish/muslim folks don't want to hear that their stupid practice should be outlawed, and the genital integrity dudes don't want to hear about "uncircumcised" when they call that "normal", "intact" or "not genitally mutilated", and want to make very clear in the article that Circumcision blows huge amounts of donkey cock. Welcome to WikiHELL! Dabljuh 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say at least one user agreed with this move. No consensus not to truncate and revitalize the article with less biased phrasing. User:Jakew is actually mostly responsible for the "female genital cutting" title, as he has been dominating this article with his biased homosexual male adult circumsized views for nearly a year now. I'd also like to add that he is probably behind the proposed merge with Circumcision advocacy, and I might also theorize that Jakew is the one who is attempting to increase the real estate offered on Wikipedia for close up shots of male genitalia, most likely to appease his own homosexual ego. Also, Kesreyn, in my own defense I've merged nothing. Johnny Dangerously 06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've had some friction with Jakew, but it's never had anything at all to do with homosexuality, and I'm not particularly tolerant of people who gay-bash, so I'd suggest keeping that very much in mind from now on. Al 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't know anything about "homosexual ego" or anything. I don't personally agree with Jake's views, and I feel he raises the bar on notability higher than on any other Wikipedia article I've seen, perhaps unrealistically high. But he is also one of the best-educated and most intelligent and polite Wikipedia users I have ever encountered. He does not deserve your condescension and mockery simply because you do not agree with him. The sheer amount of insulting comments he has absorbed here, without ever lashing back in kind, cause me to have a lot more respect for him than for those who attack him.

As for "merging", you are right. I didn't realize there had never been an article on penile circumcision, and that you created it. I thought there already was such an article and you were just merging content into it. My mistake. Kasreyn 00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how much Jake has actually to do with the title of "Female Genital Cutting", but I can assure you, regarding the wang pics, everybody here loves the cock. Dabljuh 07:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You have to realize that referring to a man as a homosexual is not derogatory if the said person is a homosexual. Johnny Dangerously 01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be true, but you did not stop there. You also accused him of being biased by his homosexuality, and of being driven by his "homosexual ego", whatever that means. So, yes, you did make a personal attack, because you did not have the sense to stop at the facts known to you. Kasreyn 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gay-bashing, I'm trying to reach an NPOV consensus. If you question my methods, find a better way to reach NPOV on the circumcision article. I don't feel its justified to make the circumcision article about males primarily. Johnny Dangerously 02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The vast majority of procedures are carried out on males. In the English language, the term's primary definition is the removal of the foreskin of the penis. From American Heritage:

• 1. The surgical removal of part or all of the prepuce. Also called peritomy.
• 2. The cutting around an anatomical part.

#1 being the primary definition, Circumcision is and should be taken to mean signifying primarily male circumcision, per Wikipedia naming conventions. Kasreyn 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Show me where it defines a) that the American Heritage Dictionary is not a male dominated piece of literature and b) that the numbered order in a definition is supposed to be taken as some sort of prioritized list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnny Dangerously (talk • contribs) .

Good grief man, it's American Heritage. It's the accepted standard of American dialect English. How about you show me some evidence that American Heritage is a "male dominated piece of literature" rather than merely reflecting popular usage of the language. And yes, since you do not appear to be familiar with how dictionaries work, the definitions are always ordered by descending priority. I can't believe I have to explain things on Wikipedia that I learned in High School. Kasreyn 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So your ethnocentric bias is revealed, because you are citing only the American definition. Systematic Correction 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Wikipedia's manual of style and naming conventions clearly indicate both American and British dialect usage are equally appropriate and acceptable. Specifically, the guidelines state that in an article especially relevant to America or to Britain, to use the associated dialect. The article uses American dialect, largely because routine neonatal infant circumcision, especially many of the cases under discussion, are American in origin. If the article's editors had a consensus of using British english, I would obviously have quoted the OED's definition of circumcision instead. I do not have an OED handy and they're too greedy to allow free access online, so I can't immediately provide the definition; I'll look it up next time I'm at the library. Seriously, the nonsense objections some people raise... Kasreyn 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll save you the trip to the library. The OED defines circumcision as "The act of circumcising; [. . .]" and circumcise as "To cut off the foreskin or prepuce of (males); chiefly as a religious rite of Jews and Muslims. Also in Surgery. (Also to perform an analogous operation on females). [de-emphasis original]" Those are the first definitions, at least. Make of it what you will. ^L_Wizard @ 02:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lizard.  :) So we now see that "ethnocentrism" (whatever that means, considering "American" is not an ethnicity) has nothing to do with my definition of the term. Both American and British dialect forms agree on the proper definition of the term to be used on Wikipedia, based on their primary definitions: circumcision specifically and unambiguously refers, by default, to the procedure as performed on males. Are we done yet? Kasreyn 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

From the discussion regarding homosexual egos (to Jakew): You are the evidence of your own homosexual, homoerotic tendency toward males. Since you are the "top editor" of the article, thus "owning" it, it is obvious to me from a lengthy trend in the bias of the article toward male genitals, that your underlying ulterior motive is to increase the number of penises present on wikipedia not for information, merely for your own personal amusement. Obviously this has also struck a chord with other editors of the article. I believe with statistical analysis tools not yet invented for Wiki's history features, we could determine how many times you have edited the article, versuses the other samplings, and would be able to make a judgement about that based on the fact that I am guessing (with some accuracy) that you are the "owner" or "hijacker" of the article. User: Johnny Dangerously 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Without such tools (or, I suppose, even with them) you are merely making personal attacks without substantiation. There is nothing wrong with an editor making the majority of edits to a page if he happens to be well-informed on the topic (which Jake is) and constructive in his editing (which seems to be the point under discussion). I'd suggest that merely pointing out that Jake is one of the most frequent editors to this article proves nothing relating to bias. Kasreyn 09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• The tools to easily find sock puppets exist, but are limited to admin, and the admin won't bother with people that don't cause a certain threshhold of problems. This is why one person can have King_queermo, Johnny_Dangerously, Systematic_Correction and over a dozen other identities so easily and without any significant repercussions. It's not a lack of tools, it's a lack of enough admin to deal with minor arguments. Of course, like you said, frequent editing isn't a sign of bias, but for people who do and then try to hide it, I would say it probably is. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 02:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sounds to me like someone's been found out... No less than I expected. Kasreyn 02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• A personal attack is "go fuck yourself, motherfucker" - calling someone an article hijacker is merely finding a term that is descriptive of his actions which are similar to "server hijacking" -- it does prove bias. By editing the article he is putting his own thoughts, and not the thoughts of the community, onto the page. He is the selection process behind the article, thus he is biasing the article toward his vision of what the article is supposed to contain. That is what bias is. In fact, it is specifically systematic bias. Johnny Dangerously 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

A personal attack is "you are unfit to edit this article because of your views", or, translated, "you are too immature to keep your personal views from being reflected in your editing". This is untrue. Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by "not the thoughts of the community". If you'll look at the page history before your arrival, you'll note that Jake was not waging a one-man war against the other editors here the way you are. His edits were supported by several other editors, such as Nandesuka. I've generally tried to stay neutral in this page's politics and wars, but I can certainly recognize when partisans of either side - specifically I'm thinking of TipPT and Jake - are overwhelmingly better-educated than I am on the subject. When I realize such a thing, my only options are to educate myself better in order to be able to cogently debate with them, or sit back and leave it to them. I've chosen the latter because I honestly have no wish to know that much about this primitive procedure. What disturbs me is your refusal to acknowledge the primacy of substantive debate and consensus over material, preferring instead to defend all your edits with the claim that Jake is the boogeyman. Kasreyn 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, if there was a User:Loves the cock userbox, I would add it in a heartbeat. ^L_Wizard @ 07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hot damn, now that's an idea. Could you make one? Because I have no idea how to. Dabljuh 08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This user loves the cock

There, made one! Dabljuh 10:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a revert myself, there should be some consensus decided on here ahead of time, as Kasreyn has said. I personally have never heard of female circumcision that wasn't treated as a synonym for genital mutilation; it does stick out as odd sounding. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute about the scope of this article. I'd be fine if this were a disambig that pointed to male circumision (or penile circumcision) and female circumcision (or some more honest title, like Female genital mutilate. I'd also be fine if we went back to clarifying up top that this article was solely about male circumcision and offering a link to the female variety. Either way, we need to get our act together and come to some consensus about this. Edit wars are lame. Al 17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your first idea better, Al. Johnny Dangerously 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Let this be a lesson.

I just read through the history of what it took to get a simple synonym for circumcision mentioned here and I'm astounded. Essentially, Dab had to wade through days of obstruction from a few editors who want to raise the bar arbitrarily high whenever there's information that they'd prefer to keep out.

It has become painfully obvious that these editors have gone entirely overboard, given their overreaction to the addition of an inoffensive and patently valid term. Now imagine how they react when the material is at all controversial!

In the future, you can be sure that I will point back to this example everytime one of these people raises the bar a little bit higher to exclude valid information. Al 05:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

What the hell are you referring to? Johnny Dangerously 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, I am referring to the addition of "acucullophallia". Someone added it but the usual suspects reverted it. As a habitual restorationist, I restored it once I found that it had some easily-found citations. This led to a week-long battle, which Dab handily won with a book citation. In and of itself, it is a trivial matter, but it is highly indicative of the overall problem that this and related articles face. Al 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

He's referring to me totally owning them bitches, and in order to draw out the enjoyment not immediately doing so but waiting for a week to see with what kinds of bullshit objections they manage / dare to come up with. It would take out all the fun if I just went ahead and be right all the time without me at least pretending to listen to other people's hilarious and misguided opinions. Dabljuh 08:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you factually, but reminding you that I know two admins who just love to ban for WP:CIVIL violations. Al 08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Acucullophallia

This word seems to be a neoligism specific to the BDSM crowd, and is absent from most mainstream dictionaries. Please compare:

• http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acucullophallia
• http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acucullophallia

The definition here http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/acucullophilia is:

acucullophilia: 1. Attraction for circumcised men.

2. Fondness for circumcised penises.

Which is most definitely NOT synonymous with circumcision. -- Avi 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's the wrong word. Acucullophilia is love of circumcised penises. AcucullophALlia is the state of being circumcised. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, thank you for clearing that up. It still seems to be a neoligism, however, but more widespread than I had first thought. -- Avi 00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All words are new at some point. We've agreed that a citation of its use in a printed book would suffice, and this has in fact been found. Al 01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

However, we are still waiting for a source supporting the claim: that the word describes the state of being circumcised. Jakew 11:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You must be using the royal "we", because the rest of us have seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate the definition of the term. This evidence comes both in the form of multiple links and a demonstration of the etymology which shows that the word must mean "the state of being circumcized", based on its roots. In short, you are either mistaken or lying. In good faith, I will assume the former and politely ignore your obviously erroneous protestations. Thank you for understanding. Al 01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since apparently no one has ever used the word in a sentence, since the beginning of time, your speculation about what the word "must" mean are quite funny. Nandesuka 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This accuculophalia sounds like some sort of congenital deformity Cuzandor 18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to refer only specifically to circumcised penises. Circumcision is not a congenital deformity. Kasreyn 00:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

"Medical"

We shouldn't detail "medical" ... HIV ect twice. The Circ first page should be an overview.172.192.132.163 04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "first page"? What other pages are you referring to? Also, note that some consensus of other editors should be reached before removing large quantities of comment, especially when that content is the work of many months of effort by others. Have some respect that others have worked hard to make this article what it is. Kasreyn 09:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good quote: "A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.63-67 Studies from the 1980s suggested that the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions.64-66 This finding was recently confirmed.68 In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision.67,68 Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

In other words ... "medical" is practicly irrelevant.

The first page in other articles is usually an introduction to detailed information, which is contained in related linked articles. For example, under the heading "Medical Aspects" (who came up with that?) you see "Main article: Medical analysis of circumcision" Why list and detail everything twice. I see lots of confusing and misleading repetition.

What really bothers me is that daily washing with water prevents problems (otherwise considered a "benefit" of circ's) ... THAT should be in the first page under "medical aspects." I read that STD's (including HIV) can likewise be reduced (similar to circ results) by washing and urinating after sex. Everyone should know that. What we're left with is one thing, a lower risk of UTI's in the first year. Until antibiotics stop working, they are a more cost and complications effective solution relative to infant circ's.172.190.160.162 14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might find a debate forum more suitable. This page is not for making arguments about the 'right' choice; it is simply for discussing how best to present information about the subject matter. Jakew 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It a forum. Use it properly.

I came back here looking for debate ... "Authoritative medical associations worldwide do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision (see external links below),(disputed — see talk page) but where traditionally practiced, circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.[1].(disputed — see talk page)172.190.160.162 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We have many cites finding tradition driving parental decision making. Findings of discord between doctors (during informed consent) and parents. Findings of no net benefits. Why do you dispute the statement?172.190.160.162 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I explained in the section below, the cited source explicitly states: "A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns." It does not state that this is true elsewhere (or "where traditionally practiced"). If you want to make a broader statement, you'll have to find a source stating it. Otherwise, you'll have to limit yourself to what the source actually says.

The same is true of the first disputed point. No reliable source supports the claim. Jakew 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dubious statements

172.190.160.162 has made some dubious changes to the introduction.

Firstly, (s)he included:

Authoritative medical associations worldwide do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision, but parents expect neonatal circumcision as a cultural ritural. [4]

I added a {{fact}} tag after the comma, to reflect the fact that no reliable source (as far as I know) has surveyed all authoritative medical associations worldwide. I also amended the second part of the sentence to reflect the source cited: "in the United States circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns."

This has now been changed to:

Authoritative medical associations worldwide do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision (see external links below),

I dispute this. No source is now given to support the assertion.

but where traditionally practiced, circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.[1].

I dispute this. The source explicitly refers to the United States, not to other locations. Jakew 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't play games. Med Assoc's in the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, and Germany ... so far, explicitly do not recommend. Several are linked below. Why don't you find ONE medical assoc that states otherwise? The paragraph lead sentence does primarily reflect (US) assoc controversy. Would you settle for "evidently most" worldwide? Sounds stupid.

Don't make accusations.

We can support a claim that medical associations in the US, Canada, and Australia don't recommend routine circumcision, because we have a source (the AMA) which says so. We haven't surveyed every single association out there, so we can't make a claim about them, and even if we had, it would be original research. "Evidently most" is also original research.

I don't intend to find medical associations that state otherwise, because the onus is upon you, not me, to cite a source to support your claim. Jakew 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

How about authoritative medical associations generally do not...172.190.160.162 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR Jakew 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have BMA and studies (though all US) finding tradition. Also, what would you call religous circ's ... that's cultural ritural as well.172.190.160.162 15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a waste of time trying to show that it's true, because policy requires that it's [[WP:V|verifiable]. So please, just find a source stating it. If you can't, change it back to 'United States' to accurately reflect what the source actually says. At the moment, you're misrepresenting it. Jakew 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and leave it US. I'll add cites later for other nations ... which I will then insist on listing.172.190.160.162 15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please change it back then. You can remove the second 'dubious' tag while you do. Jakew 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Medical aspects reads as a propaganda piece

Medical aspects section reads as a propganda piece and is based off many ancient and now refuted studies - such as the bogus claim of a lower incidence of UTI, etc - the latest medical science indiciates that there are no medical benefits of non-theraputic circumcision beyond what can be obtained by wearing a condom and washing regularily - someone please correct this POV tripe 12.226.237.65 22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Would these be refuted studies of the type that published criticism can be cited, or would they be the other variety?

Incidentally, do you have any particular papers in mind that are examples of this 'latest medical science'? Jakew 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, listing all that confusing medical detail suggests relevance.

There should be a summary paragraph, which highlights reduction risk of UTI's and HIV, and downplays other (currently detailed) supposed "benefits." Remember (easily cited), daily washing conveys similar "benefits" to circ's but without the complications risks.172.193.15.209 05:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually quite difficult to cite as fact, since nobody has tested the hypothesis, though it's reasonably easy to cite speculation to that effect. Jakew 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

actually there are papers and books on the subject - getting some friends to do research.. hold on 65.125.133.211 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No pictures?

And I do not even see a discussion about this. Strange. Socafan 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. There are pictures of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. Or are you asking why there are no pictures of the procedure being performed? We've gone over that on this page before; I personally believe such an image should be included, but the natural grimace of pain and/or fear on the infant's face in every available picture of the procedure led some editors to argue that it would bias the reader against the procedure, and the image was replaced with one of an operating room in which nothing was visible but the backs and tools of the doctors, the baby being completely obscured. An image of a young (if I remember correctly, Turkish) boy being circumcised was also removed on the grounds of being too disturbing. If you're interested in reopening that debate, I'd welcome it. It's been some time since it was discussed, and it's possible that the consensus of the editors may be different this time. Kasreyn 03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe there were also copyright/permission problems with the "Turkish" photo, as well. Nandesuka 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't remembered that. Kasreyn 07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, had overlooked the pictures, they are small and next to the "contents" section rather than in the article. Socafan 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Acuckoo revisited

I see that acucullophallia has once again been removed from the article. Jakew's claim that the statement is not well-sourced is poppycock, so I won't address it.

I want to address why this is a contentious issue. It seems to me that the real objection must come from a desire to avoid having the-state-of-being-circumcised described as a "condition" with a name that sounds like a disease. By analogy, I've heard from doctors that if you tell a patient with a rash that he has mild dermatitis, he will immediately become much more concerned (despite the fact that you haven't told him anything substantive).

The term should be mentioned in the article. It was requested that Wikipedia have an article on it, so the redirect (which is currently facing deletion) should exist. Further, per the guideline WP:REDIRECT we should then include acuckoo in the first paragraphs of the article. Attempts to remove this word from Wikipedia will leave users either saddened at Wikipedia's lack of information on it (if the redirect is deleted) or confused (by a redirect to a page that doesn't explain what they searched for at all).

Perhaps we can strike some sort of middle ground. For the good of the user we need to include acuckoo in the article. But out of concern for circumcised men, we don't want to scare them by providing a medical term for their condition. Perhaps the word can be couched in such a way that it is less scary? ^L_Wizard @ 07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if it was pointed out that the state of not being circumcised is called cucullophallia? A difference of only one letter surely wouldn't be as scary. How about "The state of being uncircumcised is also called cucullophallia, while the state of being circumcised is also called acucullophallia."? Note that I use "state" rather than "condition", since as you mention, "condition" implies that something is wrong with the person.

I'm also wondering where the heck the word went and when it was deleted. It's not in any of the last 50 revisions that I see. I thought we had that one nailed down finally. Did it get swept away just because Dabljuh got blocked and can't defend it? There's no way that could be right. If Dabljuh argued his case and won people over, then it shouldn't be deleted the instant he's not around to defend it. If he didn't win people over, then his version should never be included as some form of appeasement to make him happy. One way or another, something smells here. Kasreyn 07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you when it went away. It was commented out here, by JakeW, on his grounds that it is not well-sourced. It's still in the article source as a comment, at least. Anyhow, I think Dabljuh won several people over to his position, but many of those people (like you and me, perhaps) are "sensible" enough not to touch the article itself with a ten-foot pole. ^L_Wizard @ 07:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a case of Jake apparently trying to WP:OWN the article, with a little help from his friends, Nandesuka and Jayjg. There have been no legitimate objections raised to the mention of acucullophallia, and no consensus to remove it, yet JakeW has done everything in his power to keep it out of the article. What's funny is that the word just means "circumcized" and is painfully neutral.

I don't really understand his behavior, except perhaps that it was based on confusing acucullophallia with acucullophilia, with the latter being a paraphilia that he might find embarassing. If so, that misunderstanding has long been corrected, so I'm at a loss as to what reasonable motives he might have. Perhaps he's just going on intertia and an instinctual feeling of ownership, perhaps not. It's a mystery to me, but not one I need to solve. Whatever he's thinking, I think differently, so I'm going to remove the comments that hide the evil word of shame! Al 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

In addition to restoring acucullophallia, I noticed that an anon IP had made a number of small, reasonable changes to the article, which Jake reverted with no explanation. Applying the principle of charity, I can only suppose that Jake decided it was a banned user or something. However, Dab has explicitly denied any involvement (and it's not like he's made any effort at all to hide his identity behind the IP's he's been forced to use in order to post on Talk pages), and no evidence of sockpuppetry has been offered. Therefore, any blanket revert is premature at best. Besides, the changes were good, and that matters more than anything else. I fully expect JakeW to violate Wikipedia rules by reverting my changes without sufficient explanation, but I hope he won't live up to these expectations. Hasn't it been long enough already? Al 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Here are just a few examples.

• Changing "Some investigators disagree with the use of circumcision" to "Investigators disagree with the use of circumcision". Is there proof that all do? No. This just makes the article less neutral.

You should include the complete sentence: Investigators disagree with the use of circumcision when less invasive treatments are available and effective. That's neutral.172.193.183.143 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it more neutral than 'some investigators'? It isn't. Moreover, it implies that every investigator (author is the correct term, btw) form this view. We don't know that. All we know is that some have. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Incorporation of "In two studies, strong parental cultural expectations clash with deliberate informed consent" in the introduction. Not only does this duplicate material, but it's specific to one country, and hardly belongs in the introduction.

It relates to controversy, and to the prior sentence. I'll make it Two studies in the United States found strong....172.193.183.143 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's needless detail for the introduction, and ignores studies with differing findings. This is already covered in detail, and in a neutral manner later in the article. There is no need to clog the introduction with obscure information about parents in one country many years ago. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Changing "Circumcision may be recommended to treat medical conditions in males" to "Circumcision may be recommended to treat medical conditions in older males". There's no evidence that there's a lower age limit at which it may be recommended.

There is no disease state in the neonatal penis where the medical treatment involves circumcision. All the conditions historically cited for circ's are on older (than infant) males.172.193.183.143 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Got a source for that? I don't doubt that such need is rare, but to state that it never happens strikes me as incredibly implausible. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Inclusion of: "Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa. For example, a "low and tight" circumcision which includes a frenectomy might be expected to diminish sensation more than a "high and loose" circumcision. Finally, loss of penile skin mobility may reduce stimulation to stretch receptors, and loss of estrogen receptors has not been studied." - Pure POV.

You deleted but left out (of the above criticism) "The frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive," thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity.[8][9]172.193.183.143 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Covered below. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Meatodomy is the standard treatment for meatal stenosis." - unsourced, off-topic

Meatodomy is a complication of circ's if it is the standard treatment for meatal stenosis. It is sourced above (here it is again [5]

Off-topic anyway - as I've commented before, we don't need to discuss treatment of every condition that becomes more or less likely - but if claimed, it should be sourced. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Changing "According to a 1998 study, anaesthesia is used by 45% of physicians" to "According to a 1998 study, anaesthesia is used by only 45% of physicians", introducing needless POV.

Aneasthesia is recommended by all medical associations. The rate should therefore approach 100%. How would you suggest that the rate brings harm to the infant?172.193.183.143 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While editing here, I'm not interested in harm. I'm interested in neutrality and factual accuracy. The fact, according to that study, is that it's used by 45%. Saying 'only' implies the POV that it ought to be more, and Wikipedia is not permitted to express a POV. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Inclusion of "The frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive," thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity." - POV language, dubious sources (if a peer-reviewed study can't be cited for such a claim, it should be clarified that it's an opinion).

Those two sources were found in the UCLA main library. Both are college texts on sexuality. One is the main human sexuality class text...it was reviewed by several professors...it has been used for many years.172.193.183.143 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't stop it from being an opinion. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few peer reviewed studies which conclude significant innervation of the frenulum:

[6] [7] [8] [9]

Innervation is not the same as sensation. Jakew 18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Questionable reorganisation of article without consensus to do so.

Jakew 13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus with Jakew in charge.172.193.183.143 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a consensus, but JakeW happens not to be part of it. Neither are Jayjg and Nandesuka, who coincidentally agree with JakeW on all circumcision-related matters. Al 16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL! So there's a consensus, which includes you and TipPt, but it just doesn't happen to include any of the other people talking on the page (including others as well, by the way). Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

TipPt, please login when editing, please do not intersperse your comments with Jakew's (as they are very hard to read that way), and please get consensus for major re-writes. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever you are, thanks for finding a situation where I inserted my comment before his 172.193.183.143 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC).172.193.183.143 16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Acucullophallia again

And once again, the claim has been restored with a citation that does not support it. Nowhere does Love state that this is what it means.

If acucullophallia does indeed mean the state of being circumcised, then cite a WP:RS that says so. If you can't, delete the claim.

It's simple enough. Misrepresenting a source is unacceptable. Jakew 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As has been shown repeatedly, you are mistaken. Therefore, I will restore acucullophallia at my convenience as often as I have to in order to counter your harmful edits. Thank you for understanding. Al 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to 'restore'. It's right there, in the article. Just before the note that says it's disputed. I hope that you wouldn't try to cover up the fact that it's disputed... Jakew 13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A search of the word "acucullopallia" brought up some very dubious links. It does seem to be a fetish term which could be mentioned further down the article but is of too narrow a use to be in the intro. Sophia 07:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look more carefully, you'll see that there's some confusion out there between "acuculollophilia" and "acucullophallia", where the former is a paraphilia and fetish term, while the latter just means circumcised. Al 14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Both terms appear to be used only by dubious, unencyclopaedic, fetish-oriented sites (eg "the deviant's dictionary"), though having said that I have a vague recollection (sorry, can't cite a source) of having seen the 'philia' in a printed dictionary somewhere. Anyway, they don't belong in the introduction or indeed the article. Jakew 14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tried the search again but the same dodgy links (British Spanking Society?????) keep coming up. Can you point me to a RS? Sophia 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Google immediately comes up with http://www.sex-lexis.com/(http:/acucullophallia and http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/bodya-d.htm and http://www.eroticy.com/Home/Terms/Default.asp?Letter=A

All of these correctly define the term (and differentiate it from the other term). The article itself references a book that's in print, as demanded by Jakew. In short, the word might not be as common as "the", but it's not dodgy. Al 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, none of these qualify as reliable sources, and as noted, the book (which is itself on the dodgier end of the spectrum, but let's ignore that) does not define the term. It is absolutely not being used as a source, yet it is dishonestly represented as such. Jakew 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Trouble is, you like to claim things are unreliable when you dislike them. All three qualify as reliable sources. Al 15:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Alienus, this should be entertaining. Let's take one example. Please explain, referencing appropriate parts of the policy, why 'the deviant's dictionary' conforms to Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source in this context. In doing so, please demonstrate that it not only match the 'good', but does not match the 'bad' criteria. Jakew 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What's really entertaining is how you skipped the first citation. Let's see what you didn't want to discuss.

Turns out that http://www.sex-lexis.com/ is run by http://www.farlex.com/, who also run http://www.TheFreeDictionary.com and http://www.TheFreeLibrary.com. Precisely how does this fail to be reliable? It should be entertaining to see you try to knock it. Al 16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what else they run - the question is whether this particular site is reliable. Jakew 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Significant revisions Jakew and Jayjg deletes from the TALK PAGE!

Jayjg ... How else can we all see a change to the Topic outline?. DO NOT DELETE from the talk page. Please see the above discussion between Jakew and I regarding specific changes.

(deleted - content may be found at [10])

TipPt, please don't put new versions of articles on Talk: pages. I've moved your version to User:TipPt/Circumcision. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the proposed outline

Contents [hide] 1 The procedures of circumcision 2 Sexual Effects 3 Risks of circumcision 4 History of circumcision 4.1 Circumcision in the ancient world 4.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century 4.3 Circumcision since 1950 5 Cultures and religions 5.1 Aesthetics 5.2 Christianity 5.2.1 Coptic Christian 5.3 Hinduism 5.4 Sikhism 5.5 Islam 5.6 Judaism 5.7 Tribal traditions 6 Ethical issues 6.1 Consent 6.2 Emotional consequences 6.3 Legality 6.4 Religious circumcision of minors 7 Medical aspects 7.1 HIV 7.2 HPV 7.3 Hygiene 7.4 Infectious and chronic conditions 7.5 Penile cancer 7.6 Phimosis and paraphimosis 7.7 Urinary tract infections 8 Prevalence of circumcision worldwide 8.1 United States 9 See also 10 References 11 External links 11.1 General information 11.2 Circumcision techniques 11.3 Circumcision opposition 11.4 Circumcision promotion 12 Further reading

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TipPt (talk • contribs) .

Please explain why you feel that this rearrangement is justified. Jakew 18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent article that may be of interest.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_us/circumcision_feud

Includes some hard numbers. Al 04:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, did you know that "recurring balanitis and posthitis" is often caused by caretakers who unnecessarily manipulate the nonretractible foreskins of infants? Check out premature retraction for more. Al 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why some people like to cut others for no reason at all. Cuzandor 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No one ever does anything without being convinced of the rightness of their reasons. It is only from an outside perspective that it may appear there are no reasons for an action. Kasreyn 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

People often have reasons, but that doesn't stop them from being wrong. Al 00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right, the human body wasn't designed to be cut. Some people are just too crazy to see that. Cuzandor 20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be respectful of viewpoints other than your own, both of you. Describing other views or persons who hold them as 'wrong' or 'crazy' doesn't help, isn't necessary, and only creates conflict. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to express your personal view of the subject. Jakew 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't keep people from expressing their views. The first step to negate bias is to recognize bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.138.207.49 (talk • contribs) .

Excuse me, but Jake's mild chiding was entirely appropriate. Cuzandor was being disrespectful of other viewpoints, and this isn't the right place to have such a debate. See WP:NOT. Kasreyn 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove that? Cuzandor 18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me.

"Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed." WP:CIVIL

"Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette." Wikipedia:Talk page Jakew 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault if people are offended by the truth Cuzandor 20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

But it is your fault when they are offended by your calling them "crazy". Kasreyn 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

What word would be better then? Misinformed? I'm just sad about all those "cutting is good" people, because I might reincarn as one of their victims. Cuzandor 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Misinformed is not a good choice. How would you feel if someone said you must be misinformed, otherwise you'd be in favour? Annoyed at the very least, I would imagine. Right?

If it's absolutely essential to state your viewpoint, consider something like 'people with whom I disagree' instead. It's less inflammatory. Save the judgemental terminology for elsewhere. Jakew 09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of reincarnation was to feel sorry for the wicked, not for oneself; after all, the wicked supposedly reincarnate as lower forms of life, while the virtuous supposedly reincarnate as higher forms of life. So why worry? Kasreyn 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, did you just admit that circumcised are lower forms of life? How cool. Cuzandor 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially offensive ones. I was referring to lesser animals, like, for instance, being reincarnated as a cockroach for sins in a former life. Kasreyn 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, just ignore him. He is trolling you. Nandesuka 11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I was suspecting that, but felt it best to AGF. Thanks, Nandesuka. Kasreyn 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If this escalates into a real argument about reincarnation, I will be forced to give up all hope of civilly editing this article. ^L_Wizard @ 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I was just having some harmless fun, but you're right. I'll stop now. Kasreyn 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe that cutting off a normal, healthy part of a child's body is not ethical. Other people believe that non-therapeutic circumcision of children violates the child's basic human rights. Those are points of view that also deserve respect. -- DanBlackham 20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but don't we already cover that in the section on ethics? Kasreyn 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just plain crazy to cut someone who is perfectly normal and not expects to suffer such an injury. Cuzandor 22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another "did you know" factoid:

MRSA is a widespread, highly antibiotics resistant Staphylococcus strain that is mostly found in a hospital setting since it infects wounds like those created from surgery such as circumcision very easily. Antibiotics tend not to be successful fighting the infection of a wound, but Maggot therapy has shown to be very successful. Tasty, huh? Get some maggots on your big worm, aight? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.75.130.173 (talk • contribs) 22:56, June 21, 2006 (UTC)

If that makes my son invincible to AIDS, I choose to put maggots on his d*ck. Cuzandor 17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

acucullophallia "dispute"

This is where you get to state precisely what the alleged dispute is. We now have web and print citations, so there's no way to deny this fact. Therefore, I can't see any legitimate basis for dispute. Prove me wrong. Al 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The quotes do back it up so it should go somewhere in the article but the web searches I have done and the sources given are not authorative enough to grant it top billing in the intro. That is the only dispute I have with the term. Sophia 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was sort of waiting for you to suggest a specific place that's a better fit. Al 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page Jakew 09:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I was asking about a place in this article. Al 19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know my opinion on that. Since your question was addressed to Sophia, though... Jakew 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute explained in #Acucullophallia again, above. Jakew 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh

Come and join the lynching! Al 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sexual effects changes

The sexual effects of neonatal circumcision have not been studied. Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa. Specifically, the frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive," thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity.^[1][2]

There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are conflicting. The intromission function of the prepuce may facilitate penetration. [11]

The American Academy of Pediatrics states "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males."[12]

1. ↑ Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100
2. ↑ Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129

The last sentence ("no valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction") is not accurate and is removed. Note research studies finding sexual effects in the "main article."TipPt 14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Three problems:

1. This commentary is one-sided and POV. It does not summarise the full article.
2. It misrepresents the opinions of Hass and Crooks as fact.
3. You've deleted the last sentence for no valid reason. It doesn't matter whether you disagree - they stated it nonetheless. If you can find criticism of their claim in reliable sources, however, it's fine to cite it. Jakew 14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Three comments:

1. If something is omited in the summary, please point it out so we can determine if it's relevant.
2. So long as we attribute their professional conclusions, we're fine.
3. That last sentence seems to conflict with what was said earlier, which makes it misleading at the very least.

Al 16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I suggest you read sexual effects of circumcision, where you can find a large amount of facts that were omitted.
2. That's the problem. TipPt's version states them as fact, not as an attributed opinion. It is a fact that they say so, but it is not necessarily a fact that it's true. Compare: "The world was construced following the orders of white mice (source: Adams D, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)" with "According to the character Slartibartfast, the world was construced following the orders of white mice (source: Adams D, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)". The first states something as fact that has not been proven to be the case. The second states that someone states that it is a fact.
3. The last sentence does not conflict with what the source stated earlier (since anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid), though it may well contradict TipPt's view of things. Jakew 17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It might be helpful if you could highlight a single example of an omitted fact that conflicts with what was kept. I don't see any such case off-hand, but I suspect you can come up with one.
2. This is an argument for refactoring, not removal.
3. You haven't addressed the apparent conflict.

Al 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

1. One example is the claim that: "Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa." This conflict's with Masood's findings, in which 38% of men reported increased sensitivity. In addition, it's almost certainly OR, and also makes the unproven claim that the tissue is erogenous.
2. It may be an argument for refactoring, perhaps, though it seems to be an opinion about a body part, that's been inserted here in as OR. It might belong in an article on that body part, if represented properly. If the authors did discuss circumcision, it might be worth quoting in the sexual effects article.
3. What apparent conflict do you refer to? Jakew 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)