Talk:Genital integrity/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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

Linking to Whose Body

The nature of the link to "Whose body? Whose rights?" seems rather dubious to me. A bittorrent source and xvid codec are typical means for sharing pirated movies. Does anyone know whether this is legitimate? - Jakew 12:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BitTorrent is the least expensive way to distribute "¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights?". ¿Can you find a cheaper way? It was either BitTorrent or charge people for downloads. As for XviD, until one finalized the Theora-codec of Application/Ogg, XviD gives the best compromise between filesize and quality.
If this works out (and it seems to workout), we shall offer a lower quality version in MPEG#1 with a filesize between 500/600-mb so people can burn VCDs which can play in any DVD-player or computer.
--
Ŭalabio 01:11, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

According to this site, "Whose body? Whose rights?" is a copyrighted work (Copyright 1995, Dillonwood Productions), and is available for a fee. In this day and age, instructing people to violate copyright law is itself illegal, and keeping the paragraph would put Wiki at risk. In the US, certain breaches of copyright law are now criminal offenses under the DMCA. Consequently, I've reverted. -Jakew 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the guy who offered ¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights?. I got this response:

        From:   kristof
        Subject:        Re: ¿Whose body? ¿Whose rights?
        Date:   December 27, 2004 14:48:08 GMT
        To:     Ŭalabio

        


        Considering this whole issue about copyrights, I will now declare that I
thought this video was NOT for sale any more, which was the reason I was glad to
get a copy online, and which was the reason why I put up the torrent on my
webspace. I now want to appologize to the author for downloading an illegal copy
of his video. The torrent has of course been removed from my webspace, and I
have removed the file from my hard disk as well. I did watch the video one time,
and it only made me realize once more what's lost and why I should restore. So I
just hope the author understands this was a case of ignorance and not an attempt
to steal the nice work he did on this movie.

        Kristof

It seems that you are right. I would like to analyze your response not because anything is wrong with it but because it shows something is wrong with the system:

Jakew, 2004-26T01:47 (UTC):

According to this site, "Whose body? Whose rights?" is a copyrighted work (Copyright 1995, Dillonwood Productions), and is available for a fee.

This establishes context.

In this day and age, instructing people to violate copyright law is itself illegal, and keeping the paragraph would put Wiki at risk.

¡It is a terrible law which threatens the foundation WikiMedia.Org!

In the US, certain breaches of copyright law are now criminal offenses under the DMCA.

¡This is just plain wrong (morally, not factually)! Copyrightviolation should be only a tort where the violator pays damages equal to the loss of income.

Consequently, I've reverted.

As well you should. Now that I have the complete picture, I have no objections.

-- Jakew 01:47, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is evidence that the United States of America is a fascistic state. WikiMedia.Org should get out of the country while it still can. In the United States of America, it is illegal to save orphaned works by copying them off their deteriorating media. If I had my way, it would be fair use to copy works no longer in print, orphaned works would automatically inter the public domain, software and businessmethods would be unpatentable, and copyright would last only 14 years.

We do not see eye to eye, but I shall give you some free advice which just might save your country from becoming a dictatorship:

Demand that your voting machine use only open source for software and hardware (with open bidding on the manufactures so that multiple companies should make the voting machines), and demand a voterverifiable papertrail.

--

Ŭalabio 05:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable

I am deleting the following:

1) "anti-circumcision" is against the loaded words policy (see use of anti/pro prefixes).

2) "kooks" / "zealots" is inherently pejoritive and against the Wikipedia:Words to avoid as they are invariably intended to offend. I have never heard kook/zealot used positively or neutrally, but I could be wrong. There is no reason to degrade Wikipedia into name-calling just because we disagree on the topic at hand, but obviously such name calling works both ways.

I have no problem with including any criticism and linking to it, but there terms are not objective or warranted within the article itself as I understand NPOV philosophy. DanP 20:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To both Roberts, what is the disagreement here? We should follow Wikipedia's rules. DanP 18:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dan, we cannot change the title of an article, book, paper, or whatever, just because you don't happen to like it. Facts are not negotiable. Maybe you should lobby the authors of these pages to change their titles - then we can change the link titles. - Jakew 19:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True. But if the article specifically is pejorative, then referencing it with the same pejoratives is in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Otherwise, what should we do? Next we should reference criticism of circumcision by refering to web articles similarly titled by pejorative? Are you OK with that? DanP 21:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Referencing an article by it's title is acceptable. However, we should refrain from using perjorative terms in our own text. - Jakew 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-circumcision kooks

I reluctantly agree that it's normal to refer to an article by its title, however inflammatory. On the other hand, an article with an inflammatory title is not likely to be particularly persuasive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know about that Tony, it seems pretty much on the button. You think these extremists are sane then? - Robert the Bruce 16:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the term genital integrity so this article is my only source of information. I take the definition given in the first paragraph:

Genital integrity is a term that describes the principle that all human beings, males and females, should not involuntarily be subjected to medically unnecessary genital modification and mutilation, including male or female circumcision, or sexual reassignment-surgery , which includes intersexual children. Genital integrity is usually neutral with regard to voluntary procedures performed on consenting adults.
(emphasis is mine)

To me this sounds like an eminently sane proposition, indeed one that I should expect is supported by the vast majority of all people. Even if it were not, it is certainly a well formed and defensible stance and one consistent with principles of personal privacy, minimum surgical modification without consent and so on, which enjoy wide support. Finally, even if the so-called "genital integrity" position were not defensible as sane, the use of the word "kooks" would still be inflammatory. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To my mind, if a person were to state that objection by itself, it would not be wholly unreasonable (even if it is a position that I disagree with). However, the objection that many people have is to additional ideas stated by (some of) these people. Examples include:
  • The Lexus-driving doctor conspiracy theory. This states that doctors and medical associations (including the AAP) conspire to promote circumcision, in order to fund their Lexus-driving lifestyles. It further states that doctors deliberately write fraudulent papers and fudge results in order to promote the practice.
  • The loss of sensitivity theory. This states that when circumcised, the sensitivity of the glans decreases over time. It is based on nothing more than the anecdotal reports of a number of men who happen to be circumcised (no comparison with controls or anything logical like that). It ignores the fact that all organs deteriorate through aging. When confronted with the scientific evidence[1][2][3] most of these people object strenuously, and some resort to amusing conspiracy theories. Herein lies the problem: these people are not interested in science or learning; they are interested in their agenda.
  • Examples can be found in Talk:Foreskin of deliberate attempts to deceive people in the medical literature.

I could go on... - Jakew 21:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you could. But none of these points relates to genital integrity as it is defined, which is simply a matter of avoiding conducting surgery on a person who cannot give his consent, where that surgery is not dictated by medical needs of the patient.

That is a very unkooky idea indeed.

I'd be quite happy to keep the citations in for now, weird titles and all, because I think they are self-discrediting. But they are not of very good quality and the descriptions are not much use. In particular the link titled "Anti-Circumcision Kooks" is utterly incoherent. I cannot make head or tail of it. It seems to have nothing to do with arguments against genital modification and everything to do with a chap who, from the quotes, appears to have a very bizarre obsession with do-it-yourself genital modification of some kind. A more descriptive title in the link might make it clearer who this chap is and why the link is considered to be a critique of genital integrity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Genital Integrity" appears to be a sugar-coated name that these people have created for themselves, not unlike "pro-life" really just means "anti-abortion". It is carefully crafted to appear thoroughly reasonable, and superficially the ideas expressed in this article are not unreasonable. However, that is not the real purpose of these people: that is to do absolutely anything to stop circumcision. Lip service is given to prevention of female circumcision, but it is unlikely that many of these people give a damn about that. Don't be fooled. - Jakew 21:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jake, what is unreasonable about ending medically unnecessary genital surgery on children? -- DanBlackham 22:39, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
DanB, saying "I think that circumcision should be stopped because it is unnecessary" is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is creating deceptive web-sites, materials, and even papers. What is unreasonable is deliberately acting to conceal the truth about the procedure. What is unreasonable is creating bizarre and borderline insane conspiracy theories every time their theories are challenged. That is what I object to. - Jakew 22:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To those who value their freedom, what DanB says is actually unreasonable IF IT'S SAID TO RESTRICT a man's choice (which technically it does in the extreme interpretation, but I doubt his sentence meant that way). However, it is perfectly reasonable for DanB to say that pertaining to cases when it takes our choice away. Logically, you have to either agree with DanB's words, at least in the context they're given, or be promoting tyrrany in Wikipedia with advocacy of mutilation. Am I missing any alternative viewpoint? If you bothered to notice at all, my initial developments of the circumcision advocacy article had hardly any criticism - I try to extend the olive branch. Instead, what do I get? Foreskin restoration - trashed. DanP 23:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem, and it is my personal opinion only, with DanB's statement is that it excludes beneficial but not strictly necessary procedures. You might be okay with that, but I am not. Either way, our private opinions should not influence Wiki's articles. We should stick to the facts and private differences should make no difference. - Jakew 23:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. But private differences are a fact. Human variability and free will do not vanish at your command. Are you going to add "removal of the external ear has benefits" to the ear article or shall I? For any organ of anatomy, yours is not a very scientific view any more than environmental sciences saying genocide has food supply benefits. Such measurement systems are outdated. Your POV is that the benefits apply even if the mutilation is totally involuntary. My POV is that those are no longer benefits when a circumcised condition is undesirable, or when such benefits are potential, not actual. Loaded words seems to linger here. It may be intended as "benefit" by your side, but that is not the same as the definition of the word itself. Do I benefit if I lose at roulette? Do I benefit if I'm forced to play? Can such a word be applied even before I start playing? Or before I am born? Strange indeed that facts on your side are so amorphous. This should be "potential benefit" in the article, with clear respect for choices, instead of just our side being censored. DanP 00:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't really make sense of what either of you is saying. I only asked what the odd article at "Anti-circumcision kooks" had to do with critiquing the concept of genital integrity as defined in the opening paragraph.

Now Jake, you might say that the concept of genital integrity has been made up to sugar coat some other (unspecified) concept, but to me it seems to be perfectly defensible to state that any form of non-therapeutic surgical intervention should be performed only with clear consent. While this is at odds with the expectations of some religions, the medical profession is not, nor should it be, beholden to any religion. In common law such an operation is classed as an assault and a legally defensible excuse must be given for it. A society's determination of what constitutes a valid excuse for this operation will tend to vary over time, and (as with abortion) individual opinions will vary greatly within a society. I'm no opponent of circumcision where it is medically indicated in the view of a competent physician, but at present this is often not the criterion by which circumcision is carried out, and I think that opposition to religious or social circumcision is consistent with my views, although I don't in fact have an objection to circumcision provided it is performed in such a manner as to ensure it will have no medical ill effects. So I'm broadly sympathetic to the concept of genital integrity, without being an adherent. I could easily see myself changing my mind and opposing, say, Jewish circumcision if it is carried out without pain relief, and as the possessor of a prepuce I don't really understand why people should be eager to remove the prepuce of their male children. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:23, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As has been discussed above, it is appropriate to include these links, no matter how much you may dislike their titles. I've reverted their removal. - Jakew 00:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like you to address my legitimate question about the content of "Kooks" link. I will not remove any links for now, but I do need to be happy that they are appropriate. In what way is the "kooks" link a critique of the concept of genital integrity? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Social problems?

Jake, you've now claimed that there are social problems implicated in possession of a prepuce. I find this difficult to fathom, living in a society where the norm for males, by a very wide margin, is to possess a prepuce. In what way am I socially disadvantaged? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Social problems tend to depend upon the society in question. Among certain Native American tribes, munching on the hallucinogenic peyote cactus is the norm, but this would be problematic in many Western societies. I put it to you that because you live in a society in with most males are uncircumcised, the social problems do not occur. However, if you were to be transplanted into a society in which circumcision was the norm or even expected, the social problems would become more apparent. -Jakew 16:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm walking down the street in your home town. How does anybody know I am not circumcised? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My home town is probably not a good example, because I live in England. Instead, let's say you go to the gym in a Turkish town (where circumcision rates are more than 98%). You change, and other gym members can see that you're not circumcised. This carries a certain social stigma, and while perhaps not ostracised, people feel uncomfortable about it, perhaps putting some distance between you and them. - Jakew 18:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that this is an actual phenomenon in "gym members" environment. But I am heterosexual, so perhaps I don't see the whole picture here. I never notice "social" stigma directed at intact males, even in 98%+ male-circumcised areas. In any case, you should quote some sources before speculating on this. DanP 19:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Paragraph deleted now, but for future reference, here is a source [4] - Jakew 20:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
that reference only says fears of ostracism are a reason parents give to circumcise, not that ostracism occurs. --Hugh7 00:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about false statement

Some believe that parents also have a right to act in the interests of the child as they see it, as a preventive against possible health and social problems with which the prepuce is implicated.

Why was this added exactly? Genital integrity is for intactness of minors, whereas this is saying the opposite. DanP 19:43, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't added so much as edited. The original form read: "Some parents also assert a right to act in the interests of the child as they see it, as a preventive against possible infections with which the prepuce is implicated." I'd point out that the paragraph is about those opposing "genital integrity", so in the context it is valid. Perhaps we should remove the whole paragraph. What do you think? - Jakew 19:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure. Deleting has my vote. This article is about genital integrity, not opponents of it. DanP 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having read Jake's explanation, I think it makes sense (considerations of social pressure could play a part in a parent's decision). I don't mind if it's in or out, it's something that can be conjectured by the reader easily enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-circumcision

Can we agree on a "short" and "long" neutral version of the following:

Genital integrity advocates are sometimes called "anti-circumcision activists", though some of them find this objectionable because they feel (?).

We need a short version too for inclusion as a brief explanation in other articles, so as to avoid causing confusion. -Jakew 00:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's wrong to say that a person who advocates genital integrity is an anti-circumcision activist. For instance, one can support genital integrity without ever opposing circumcision as a medical procedure. If there is ever a reference to a genital integrity advocate, who is not anti-circumcision activist, being wrongly described in public, then that should be specifically and individually addressed. If it's a common enough error that it needs to be mentioned a lot then presumably there will be no shortage of specific cases and the context will determine which particular wording is used. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a mainly American (and British) context, anti-circumcision is probably a synonym. But obviously one could argue that for Intenet context, it can have connotations of bias against circumcised men (a totally different meaning!). Or, to some in Africa, it could mean opposition to female circumcision, but not male. We should respect the flavors of interpretation here. I propose "genital integrity activists, who oppose infant circumcisions", if it's male infants being referenced. Otherwise, change it accordingly. DanP 01:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can live with that as a short version for inclusion in articles, but I think we should incorporate a longer version into this article (not huge, just a sentence or two to explain). My feeling is that if you are unhappy about being called anti-circ activists, that's fair enough (it still seems odd to me in spite of Tony's comment, but...), but surely you don't mind the (true) comment that other people sometimes refer to you as anti-circ activists? You could use it as an opportunity to say why that is inappropriate. - Jakew 01:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I still propose we merge anti-circumcision into this article at this point. Even if totally appropriate, the loaded words take on the anti prefix is somewhat prohibitive. It's not a problem in your typical American jargon. It's mainly a problem when you write articles (meant to leave out ambiguity) on circumcision and some looking-for-trouble reader thinks your talking about bias against circumcised men, or adult circumcision, or specifically about females in Nigeria, or whatever else they imagine besides RIC. By context alone, if "anti-circumcision" were used in an article entitled "Infant male circumcision by the medical profession", I have no personal objection to anti-circ terminology used they way you intend it. But outside that context, there are more connotations. So in a strict sense, if you want to make anti-circumcision apply only to those particular persons, then the defintion of circumcision must change accordingly. By that no-so-rational change, an adult could never undergo circumcision because the word only applies to male infants. You have never proposed such a change in Wikipedia. Make sense now??? DanP 08:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of the loaded words policy is incorrect in this respect. Remember that we are not using the term directly per se, but discussing the fact that some people use the term. If we word it properly, there should be no need to worry about readers confusing the meaning (we could say something like "Some people call genital integrity advocates 'anti-circumcision activists', meaning that they campaign against circumcision of boys and/or men. However, some genital integrity advocates find this term objectionable, because....." - note that I included men because I have come across a few extremists - a small minority - who oppose adult circumcision on the peculiar grounds that men circ'd as adults might want to advocate infant circ).
What do you want to do? Should we launch an RfC to find out the community's assessment of the loaded word's policy's applicability? - Jakew 22:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For consistency, let's also ask in the same RfC if parents and doctors who strongly advocate circumcision can be labelled "pro-circumcision activists" in our various articles. I also propose an RfC to change initial use of the term circumcision to "The practice of circumcision, which some believe is a bodily mutilation when done to infants,..." in each an every article we use it in. That way objections with regard to genital integrity activists will seem clearer. Seem fair enough? Let me know your thoughts. DanP 11:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we should be consistent. Let's apply the same criteria used for labelling anti-circ activists: they can be labelled as such if they a) are a member of a pro-circumcision activist group (such as the notorious YESCIRC, YESHARM, ABNORM, or the International Centre for Genital Mutilation), or b) have ever presented or attended one of the conferences or symposia organised by such groups. I think that's fair, don't you?
Secondly, while it's ok to mention fringe opinion in articles, doing so everywhere is overkill and harms the articles. But let me know once you've ensured that every reference to 'money' in Wiki says "Money, which some believe is an oppressive tool of the imperialist pig-dogs, ..." - Jakew 12:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is noted. Thanks for having a sense of humor. Seriously, the criteria you mentioned might also be applied to pro-mutilation doctors who attend American obstetric conventions. Your point about money -- a worldwide tool of commerce -- is hardly the same as a mainly gender-targeted child mutilation which plenty of folks object to outside whatever fringe you're imagining here (choosing no infant circumcision of either gender just as 85%+ of the world does is now fringe I guess?). In any case, I am fine with fewer rather than more numerous opinionated modifiers on any of this. Mere membership, presenting at or attending a conference, in itself lacks the "action" element and should not automatically qualify as political activism rather than merely support. If you want to say "genital integrity supporter" or "male circumcision opponent" that is more accurate, but some articles are starting to sound redundant and warped with the repetition. There is obviously more than one descriptive level on each side of this. We need not label every pro-circumcision article "a biased article shamelessly promoting childhood sexual mutilation". Any thoughts? DanP 15:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Circumcision Kooks 2

I still haven't got a reply from Jake about the link titled Anti-circumcision Kooks. Now someone else removed it but he then restored it.

Jake, could you answer my query about this link?

I would like you to address my legitimate question about the content of "Kooks" link. I will not remove any links for now, but I do need to be happy that they are appropriate. In what way is the "kooks" link a critique of the concept of genital integrity?

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Genital Integrity / anti-circumcision organisations

The links in the section Criticism of Genital Integrity / anti-circumcision organisations are full of false and misleading information. For example the following statement from Anti-Circumcision Groups [5] is totally false! "Deceptively, the name of one of these organizations, 'Doctors Opposing Circumcision', conveys an impression of authority, but in reality membership of this group includes only ONE doctor!" -- DanBlackham 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I think you're right. For instance, the organization lists as its staff two MDs: Denniston and Reiss, as President and Veep. You may like to note that in an edit, unless there is reason to doubt that the organization's claims that these two are MDs and members are true. The piece should also be correctly described as a personal opinion piece (it would be nice if we could find who the author is). Example:
In Australia, the president of the local branch of NOCIRC is a Sydney pediatrician, George Williams. I have debated him before medical audiences on two occasions and have found no substance to anything he has had to say. He and I were invited to a be interviewed live on Australia’s major mid-morning TV show in 2004, but he pulled out at the last minute, so a replacement had to be found to argue the ‘anti’ position. The fill-in was a doctor who is a regular medical commentator on TV. Despite this, his arguments lacked substance, compared with the case I presented based on medical scientific evidence.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Denniston is the founder of DOC. Their most vocal member, and Executive Secretary, George Hill is mysteriously not a doctor (he's a retired airline pilot). Denniston is an MD, though I don't know about Reiss.
Criticism of anything is inherently opinion. There is no need to explicitly say so.
The author of the page is Professor Brian Morris, of the University of Sydney's Faculty of Medical Sciences. - Jakew 15:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well they claim that Reiss is an MD on the web page, and I guess Denniston knows whether or not his Veep is a MD. They have no membership stats but I wouldn't be that surprised if they have one or two members and that some of them are also MDs. In Australia, for instance, ABC quotes circumcision rates as having plunged from 90% to 15% in a single generation, and this is mainly due to doctors refusing to do routine neo-natal circumcision. Dan B's criticism of the factual claim seems to be valid.

On the nature of criticism I disagree. "I have found no substance in anything he had to say" really isn't much good because it doesn't tell you or me anything except that the anonymous writer has a low opinion of whatever it is George Williams said to him. Now I'm in no way saying that this shouldn't be listed, but I am saying that it doesn't do a good job of criticising the genital integrity point of view--I'm sure I could mount a much more effective criticism just off the top of my head by giving specific references to the main tenets of genital integrity and exploring their pitfalls. Equally, I'm sure you can find far better references than that or than I could write (what I would write must in any case be disqualified as original research). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Anonymous writer"? Did you read my comment at all? Anyway, I shall mention these criticisms to Professor Morris. As far as writing criticisms goes, feel free to email them to me, and I shall publish them on the web. The page can thus be cited without original research (it is, after all, perfectly legitimate to comment on research that one has performed elsewhere). ;-) - Jakew 17:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to mention these criticisms to anybody you like. The piece is anonymous. Are you really claiming that the author is Professor Morris? Then you could certainly ask him to put his name somewhere in the article. I don't normally criticise layout, but this is a Wikipedia external reference to a rant whose first paragraph must be over five-hundred words. Another paragraph, containing, amongst other things, an extraordinarily defamatory attack on the science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke, must be around one thousand words long. A brief search on the net shows that the Sri Lanka police investigated allegations and cleared Arthur C. Clarke. The report was carried in a British tabloid newspaper.
Yes, you could quote my comments if I popped them on a website, but they'd still be original research. We should try to find sources that can be characterised as something other than "the opinion of Random J Bozo" because such sources are only useful in determining the opinion of a random bozo (such as yours truly), or a chap who sets out to discredit a prominent author using tabloid newspaper allegations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the author is Professor Morris. I know this because it is his website. See here. And it would be original research, but Wiki would not be the publisher of that research; rather, we would be citing external original research (which is allowed and encouraged). And I can't help but notice that you've just made a personal attack against yourself. Tut tut ;-) - Jakew 18:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have already mentioned this under circumcision advocacy (CA). Genital integrity (GI) in the context, where criticised, refers to persons or groups. I quote Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views I propose that these "criticism" sections and their links be move to their respective articles. Although they are not polar opposites, with regard to criticism they seem to be. So I'd like criticism of GI moved to CA, and criticism of CA moved to GI. Any objections? DanP 18:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I object. It's a crazy idea. It may not be necessary to include opposing views, but it surely makes for a more neutral, informative article. Views and criticisms should stay together for readability. - Jakew 19:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's wrong to have criticism of ideas presented. However these ones aren't really very good. They're rubbish and frankly make the anti-genital integrity people look like a bunch of idiots--which I'm sure is not what Jake intends. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Robert Blair, I've reverted your recent edit. Why?

  • 1989 AAP: "authored primarily" is incorrect. Schoen was the chair of that committee, but there were many members.
  • 1989 AAP: " improperly cited a methodologically flawed" is incredibly POV.
  • 1989 AAP: "(meaning benefits that exist in possibility but not in actuality)." is not only POV but wrong. "Potential benefits" has a similar meaning to "potential complications" - that they could occur (and will, statistically), but aren't guaranteed to benefit a given individual.
  • 1989 AAP: "Although this statement carefully avoided recommending circumcision," Carefully avoided? POV.
  • 1989 AAP: "it was an embarrassment to the AAP" very POV.
  • You have censored relevant links.

I can't even edit junk like this inclusion. Reverted. - Jakew 22:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Schoen showed up at the meeting with the statement already written.

If you read the statement, you will see that the methodological flaws were acknowledeged but he still used it as though it was a perfect study. This is improper.

If you will read the 1989 AAP statement you will not find an actual recommendation for the operation.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/#a1989

That is factual not POV, and anyway this is about genital integrity, not about circumcision. Remember that.

Robert Blair 23:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Firstly, do you have a source for Schoen having used the committee as a "rubber stamp"?
Secondly, it is correct that the '89 statement does not recommend the operation. Why not replace "carefully avoided", which sounds almost like an accusation, with "did not" - "did not recommend circumcision". That's NPOV.
I know this is about genital integrity, but it is not advertising space for these groups. It is important to remain neutral. - Jakew 02:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I'm sure it would be possible for you to edit to include factual information and exclude non-fact, instead of reverting something just because you disagree with the way it is presented. It isn't that hard. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I would edit, Tony, as I indicated by saying "I can't even edit...". here, for example, I took some POV edits that were bad but had some usable content and rescued them. However, there are situations where an edit is so awful that you simply can't do anything with it. As in this example, where there might be perhaps one or two salvageable words left after excising the POV pushing. Have a look, perhaps you'll see what I mean. - Jakew 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The AAP issued yet another statement in 1989, authored primarily by Edgar J. Schoen, M.D., which improperly cited a methodologically flawed report on urinary tract infection to argue that neonatal circumcision has "potential benefits" (meaning benefits that exist in possibility but not in actuality). Although this statement carefully avoided recommending circumcision, it was an embarrassment to the AAP, and it set back the genital integrity movement.

  • In 1989, the AAP issued an addendum to its 1975 statement [6]. The committe was headed by Schoen. Citing "new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome", the AAP stated that male circumcision of newborns "has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks."

Leave whoever wants to do so to fill in on the organisations that may have criticised this AAP policy statement and on what grounds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I admire your patience, Tony. I have two points about the resulting paragraph:
  • Change "an addendum" to "an update". It's a new document.
  • What on earth does the revised version have to do with anti-circumcision (or to use the euphemistic term, "genital integrity")? And if it has nothing to do with anti-circumcision, why on earth is it included at all?

- Jakew 23:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I took the word Addendum from the AAP document which I had open at the time. A change of AAP policy would of course have an impact on the genital integrity movement's perception of its success. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Realistically, they're probably feeling rather hopeless, due to the unchanged circumcision rates over the past 20 years (fig 1), and the number of studies revealing medical benefits of circumcision. I doubt you would argue that we include those too. - Jakew 23:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! Why on earth not? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I get the distinct impression that I am the only person wanting to decrease the amount of redundancy at Wikipedia... - Jakew 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. But what use would be an article about genital integrity without some kind of indication of how successful the movement has been so far? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I somehow doubt that our activist friends will permit such a thing (they usually like to give the impression that rates are dropping like a stone, presumably in hopes of influencing sheep-like people), but I've no objection to such an inclusion myself. - Jakew 02:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If what you write is factual what can they object to? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify: do you mean literally "what can they object to", or do you mean "what can they reasonably object to"? Please see history of, for example, Male circumcision or Medical analysis of circumcision for details of what I'm talking about. - Jakew 02:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with unreasonable objections--ignore them. Only the reasonable objections--ones that can be explained and understood by other people not closely involved--matter. If you find that people are still objecting to additions that you think are reasonable, there are several good ways to get more reasonable people to visit the article and add their thoughts to the discussion.

This is what I find so frustrating about the ways in which things seem to be conducted on the circumcision-related threads. It's as if the participants were determined to drive away reasonable people with their edit warring and wild accusations. Small wonder that some editors end up wondering why their reasonable edits are being rejected by a small number of people whose determination to ensure that their strongly held point of view is represented outweighs the repelling effect of the shenanigans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1989 AAP and others

Robert Blair, in two edits ("add history and websites." and "more additions to history section."), you've actually replaced the NPOV version agreed here with your own POV version, with no explanation and no note in the edit summary. If you object to the NPOV version, could you please explain why? You have not responded to my list of objections above... I wish you would discuss these things.

I've also added some notes about interpretation, to avoid slanting the discussion. I've also removed the statement about the Canadians rejecting Schoen - to my knowledge, Schoen wasn't even approached.

The paragraph beginning "The genital integrity movement entered the 21st century stronger than ever, and continues to grow in strength." is ludicrously POV, and reads more like an advertisement than a scholarly article. I've done my best with it, but it should really be removed. I've removed the second sentence ("The percentage of boys and girls whose genital integrity has been protected continues to increase. ") because it does not appear to be true.

I've also added a comment about the effectiveness of the mgmbill.org site. ("To date, the bill has not been accepted or endorsed by any politician.") - Jakew 15:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I tend to agree with you on all but your point on "The percentage of boys and girls whose genital integrity has been protected continues to increase. ". Protection, as handled by legislative and judicial bodies, is not identical to intactness -- they are pretty much semantically independent. One can be circumcised, and later recieve legal protections (perhaps viewed by some as having less utility at that point). Alternatively, one can have legal protection, and still be mutilated regardless. Unless percentages are substantially impacted by global migrations, it's fair to say legal protections have not decreased in any regions (do you know of any?). Whereas in some, they can be said to have increased (no matter the limited effectiveness). I do not see any problem with the sentence with regard to children. DanP 19:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jakew:

If you read the CPS 1996 statement, you will see that they cited Poland, but they did not cite Schoen. This is accepting Poland, but rejecting Schoen. They did not have to approach him. He had already published but they ignored it. The citation is:

Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(18):1308-12.

There are more ways to protect children than by legislative action. Parents protect children by refusing to sign consent forms for circumcision.

Robert Blair 22:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of wording etc.

I have done some editing to clarify the wording at several points, to add a little extra information and to qualify the use of the word 'intactivism'. The purpose of this was not to push any barrow except that of clear writing. I saw no reason to cloak the obvious conflict between circumcision advocates and the genital integrity movement in obscure wording. It is a fact that I think we can all agree on, whatever our opinions.

I think the main addition I made was to say that there is a widespread movement in Africa to abolish the practice of female gential mutilation. I have not documented this fact, but will do so a little later.

I think the main reorganisation was to group most of the material on female genital mutilation under one heading.

I hope that this will be a positive contribution to the article. Michael Glass 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ribbon image concern

The caption for the ribbon image states: "(Image courtesy of NoHarmm.Org and used with permission)". However, all images in Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. This means, among other things, that we can freely edit and/or reuse the image elsewhere. Can someone confirm that NOHARMM have granted permission for the image to be licensed under the GFDL? If not, we have to remove it. - Jakew 14:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With permission is okay. The article woman has two pictures with permission.

--

— Ŭalabio 08:02, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Accusation of anti-semitism & islamophobia

Previous articles on wikipedia which have since been deleted included a large number of citation about concern about media bias in favour of circumcision and against the Genital Integrity movement. In particulair the fear that academic and media organization have of being labelled as anti-semitic etc. if they seem to endorse Genital Integrity. Do you think that some of this should be included in this article? Sirkumsize 04:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted sentence and proper noun usage

The following sentence was deleted:

  • A minority of genital integrity supporters do advocate voluntary adult circumcisions.

I don't believe this is contradictory. Genital integrity is a principle usually applying to children and is not synonymous with intact. It does imply the genital's owner gets to choose. This perspective is common in some places like Africa, where puberty/adult circumcision is sometimes valued, but involuntary circumcision is not. (see for instance [7]) My point here was not to emphasize their support of adult circumcision is a form of genital integrity (one might try to make such an argument though), but rather my point was to highlight that they are entirely compatible and there are self-admitted pro-circ individuals who clearly fit into this category.

With regard to Intactivism, I am OK with it capitalized or in quotes when introduced in the article. But really, run a Google search for "lactivist" (breast feeding activists) and that word is rarely automatically capitalized as a proper noun in any articles. But genital integrity, I am thinking now should definitely not be capital, as the words are real words, we are not referring to a proper thing (the Association for Genital Integrity, etc.), and we never automatically capitalize political constructs (pro-choice, pro-life) when they are mentioned in a non-organizational context. DanP 13:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fact that other people cannot use English properly is no excuse, Dan. We should strive for excellence.
As for Genital Integrity, it ought to be capitalised, like Green politics. Lowercased, genital integrity has a different meaning (literally, integrity of the genitals). It is not a philosophy, nor a movement, just an attribute. It cannot hold opinions. Genital Integrity, on the other hand, is very different, and is what the article is about. - Jakew 17:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But Green is properly the name of the party, whereas one could say a "green party" (lower cased) if it's meant to carry a meaning of the same principle and not the organization itself. Remember, communist and socialist are not capitalized unless one refers to a unique and specific organization who labels themselves by that term. Also, one would not say a "Green thumb" or a "Green public policy"(capitalized) unless one were speaking strictly of the political party and not a concept. If you refer to the article on capitalization, these things would have to be proper nouns in the first place. They are not, because they do not indicate unique entities. It is valid to say "pro-lifer" or even "spammer" (despite Spam being a trademark) using entirely lower case. If you're saying genital integrity is a proper noun, I don't feel thats defensible unless you're refering to some entity (the "Genital Integrity Association",etc.). DanP 12:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dan, one should not say "Green thumb" because here we mean the colour green. "Green public policy" could be argued either way. If you mean the public policy of the Green party, it should be capitalised. If it adheres to the principles of that political movement, it depends upon whether you regard the term as generic (I would capitalise it, personally). If a trademark, you should capitalise it. Genital Integrity is used as a proper noun. It's really a shortened form of "The Genital Integrity Movement" (as can be seen from sentences such as "Genital Integrity does not oppose...". Were this article about "genital integrity" in an alternative sense, it would be a lot shorter, but it is really about the Genital Integrity aka Intactivist aka anti-circumcision movement (note that the last is not capitalised, as it is purely descriptive). - Jakew 16:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I doubt "green thumb" means your thumb is green. I will admit that I've gone back and forth a few times on capitalization with a handful of topics. There were times I did capitalize things that shouldn't have been. But in this case, I really think we should get someone else to moderate who is an expert in linguistics, as our fields of expertise don't seem to mesh well on this one. Is there any objection to that or putting my sentence back in that was deleted? Note that I used "genital integrity supporters" in the sentence, not "genital integrity activists". There seem to be no intactivists who are staunchly promoting either circumcision or sex-reassignment for adults, but it is theoretically possible. But one can clearly find supporters of leaving kids intact among pro-circs. Any thoughts on whether the scope is stated correctly in my sentence? DanP 14:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think "green thumb" (or fingers) refers to the typical colour of a plant, but yes I'm quite happy to ask someone who knows more about the subject. Perhaps one of the contributors to capitalization (had to force myself to use American spelling there) can help?
I think it was Michael Glass who removed the sentence. It's a bit awkwardly written, but I don't have a major objection. As for 'intactivists' promoting adult circumcision, yes they do exist. One posts fairly regularly at some of the pro-circ mailing lists. I'll put you in touch if you like - just drop me an email. - Jakew 15:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Scope of the definition

Yes, I did remove the sentence because I felt it was contradictory. I think it is more accurate to say that such a person opposes the circumcision of underage children but approves of the circumcision of adults. Michael Glass 28 June 2005 10:57 (UTC)

Michael, genital integrity is having the right to stay intact. The group of people I'm identifying don't just oppose a procedure like it's contraindicated or a bad idea or something, but believe it's the child's right to choose in adulthood. That is a different shade of meaning. Also, there are other kinds of opposition to circumcision or sex-reassignment that have nothing to do with genital integrity. Take for instance someone who opposes all medical technology, but doesn't really care about the kid from a rights perspective. My point is that the definition of genital integrity in this article does include some pro-circ and pro-sex-change individuals who distinguish between rights and preferences. DanP 28 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Dan, I believe that the term 'Genital Integrity' implies a belief that the natural state is to be preferred, at least in most instances. This would make it a bit like 'natural childbirth' which would normally imply a preference for a normal delivery, unless there was some overriding need, such as the safety or well-being of the mother or the child or both. 'Genital Integrity', as I see it, implies a preference for people's genitals being left as Nature fashioned them.

This does not mean that adults cannot choose something different for themselves, or that genital surgery cannot be resorted to in case of need e.g., in the case of testicular cancer, or to correct a congenital anomaly e.g, an undescended testis or hypospadias repair. But it does imply that the vast majority of people would be better off if their genitals were left as nature fashioned them. So, the use of the word 'integrity' implies more than a right to an intact body until one is old enough to change it to suit the latest fashion. It implies or states that the natural condition of one's genitals is what should normally be preferred. Michael Glass 29 June 2005 06:12 (UTC)

Michael, According to Tim Hammond's definition:
Physical integrity and self-determination are basic and universal rights recognized
by numerous international human rights treaties. The Genital Integrity Ribbon is a
compassionate expression of solidarity among children's rights advocates, as well as
a sign of one's commitment to protecting, for all individuals, these fundamental human rights.
According to the ICGI:
We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body.
Without sexual, racial, or religious prejudice, we affirm this basic human right
These are clearly rights-based, not preference-based. A man who is circumcised by free choice (regardless of outcome) clearly always had the right to stay intact, and thus still has genital integrity. I do not think we have data that extends this term to mean a physical state or even a preference. That would be genital intactness, not genital integrity. Perhaps keeping the intactivism article was desirable after all? DanP 8 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Dan, but this is just plain ridiculous: "A man who is circumcised by free choice (regardless of outcome) clearly always had the right to stay intact, and thus still has genital integrity."
Integrity. "The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness." [8]
This, my friend, is why "genital integrity" has a different meaning from "Genital Integrity". The former describes a state. The latter, as can be seen here, doesn't have an accepted meaning even among anti-circers! Michael argues that it (G.I.) is a belief that the state is desirable. Dan argues that it is a belief in the right to the state.
Perhaps you'll see why I prefer the term anti-circumcision. So much more straightforward. - Jakew 8 July 2005 11:38 (UTC)

What we are dealing with here is analagous to the debate over anti-abortion/pro-life and pro-abortion/pro-choice. Different people, depending on their ideological stance will prefer different ways of describing their own beliefs and the beliefs of those they disagree with. Of course, Jake would prefer the term 'anti-circumcision'! As for the different ways of viewing genital intactness and genital integrity, this could be partly a difference between American and Australian English, so I wouldn't read too much into it. I, too, believe that people have a right to stay in one piece.Michael Glass 8 July 2005 13:14 (UTC)

We can have differing opinions and still build a consensus. You both have very good points. Jake, with regard to the definition, I took the dominant one, according to the sourced I cited using "rights" as a basis, to be #1 "Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code", like Scientific Integrity in Policymaking (which is capitalized only because it is the name of a report). Although I wish you would read proper noun and realize that genital integrity by itself is not the name of a book, a political party, or derived from a person's name, and that the term stands for a generic concept just as circumcision advocacy, social contract, or viridian design movement. We don't get a proper noun just because two words are used together. We need some unique group or thing (like "Genital Integrity Ribbon") which is a specific entity, not a generic concept. Anyway, on the definition side, obviously if integrity has three definitions, then genital integrity surely has three as well. This is more than intactness, even forced foreskin retraction is considered contrary to genital integrity but probably not on the grounds of staying "whole or undivided". DanP 8 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
Dan, Genital Integrity is a name for a specific entity - namely, the movement and philosophy behind it that we're discussing. It is not, however, purely descriptive, like 'circumcision advocacy'. As I've tried to point out, when used in a purely descriptive manner, it just means integrity of the genitals. It doesn't even state a position on whether this is a good thing!
It is only when it is used as a proper noun that Genital Integrity acquires the meaning discussed in the article. Then, it is the name for the set of ideas including, apparently, the idea that genital integrity is desirable, and the idea that people have a right to it.
As for your statement that "forced foreskin retraction is considered contrary to genital integrity", I think you are incorrect. Looking from an outsider's perspective, it seems that GI advocates generally disapprove of foreskin retraction, but this doesn't seem to be inherent in GI itself. Plenty of non-GI campaigners also advise against premature, especially forced, retraction. It seems to be supportive background material, if anything, rather than a core 'message'.
Random thought: instead of a rigid definition, perhaps it would be useful to treat GI as an umbrella term for a bunch of ideas and so on, maybe with subheadings for GI Movement, GI Ribbon, ICGI, etc.
Michael, I'm just curious. You say "of course" I would prefer the term anti-circumcision. Why? - Jakew 9 July 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Jake, I said 'of course' because of your position is in favour of circumcision. I have seen you use this term to label people. As I said before, I find this problematical because it tends to stigmatise people's views. Michael Glass 9 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

Jakew, it is not a specific entity no matter how it is viewed by either side. Perhaps you see genital integrity as the capitalized Root of All Evil, but that does not make it so. A "movement and philosophy" is not automatically capitialized no matter how specific the meaning. We do not capitalize capitalist, socialist, fiscal conservative, or social democrat unless your talking about an organization by that name. The philosophy, or a general group who has such a philosophy, is still an ordinary noun no matter how narrow or wide its scope. Of course, you're right on not having a rigid definition, because there will be more than one point-of-view. Even umbrella terms like women's rights or alternative medicine are not proper nouns, no matter how they are promoted, no matter what is inherent in them, no matter what peripheral conceptualizations are tied to them, and no matter how they are seen by "outsiders". Obviously, if you were to try to make Wikipedia dictionary-perfect, one must replace circumcision with forced genital mutilation in most of the articles, as that is what has been actually promoted by your side (ie. the procedure performed on oneself is not promoted, but rather it's doing it to others under restraint that circumcision advocates pretend is semantically identical). Although, I'm glad we could find common ground on some of these aspects of the article. DanP 11:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan, once again you overlook the difference between purely descriptive labels (eg., "fiscal conservative") and those with an artificial meaning (eg., "Green party" or "Genital Integrity"). As I have tried to show, if one uses it as an noun-adjective pair, it only means integrity of the genitals, and has no other meaning. The time may yet come when it enters the English language as a generic term, but that hasn't happened yet.
Secondly, circumcision always means circumcision. Forced genital mutilation can mean many things, and many would disagree that circumcision is one of them, myself included. Infant male circumcision, or if you must, infant male genital alteration, would be accurate.
A final point: I think most people would agree that advocating self-circumcision is highly dangerous and irresponsible. Perhaps you meant electing circumcision for oneself? - Jakew 18:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Jakew, no it doesn't always mean the same thing. I wish you would play by the same rules you invent. Circumcision can mean male or female. It can mean adult or child. It can mean frenulum, glans tissue, shaft skin, or any of the above. It does not always mean one act, or any one type of abuse. Most importantly, why are you even referring to circumcision? Genital integrity opposes any infringement of the right to stay intact, and does not contain the word circumcision. So you are sort of proving my point that you've violated your own doctrine of opposing artificial meaning (and non-artificial meaning comes from????). I hope we can see eye-to-eye on this point at least.
Forced genital mutilation is actually more specific and accurate when you speak in terms of the rights of genital integrity, which is exactly what this article refers to. I have no idea what you're getting at on the other stuff. The "oneself" I referred to indicates the lack of reflexive nature of the advocacy, not the execution of the procedure. That is why I said "promoted", not "performed". Let me emphasize that "green party" is not capitalized if it's not a party by that actual name. If one says "the Democrats are a very green party", that is not capitalized to "Green Party". It doesn't matter that they don't turn "green" into the Hulk, or have green thumbs, it only matters that the meaning is not a specific organization, but a general concept. The capital "Green Party" is reserved only for the organizations with that name, which "genital integrity" is clearly not limited to such organizational meaning any more than pro-life or pro-choice are. DanP 00:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Electro-Anarchy

Excuse me for butting in, maybe this has already been covered, but why does a particular fringe group deserve such a large portion of this article's time? Is that appropriate? Would it be appropriate to fill half the article on "Pro-Life" with the extralegal antics of Operation Rescue nuts, or to hijack "Animal Rights Movement" with a detailed list of the crimes of the ALF? It seems to me like someone was attempting to construct a strawman here. -Kasreyn 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There's a two-sentence article called Association for Genital Integrity that I think should be merged with this article. Benami 03:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Johntex\talk 03:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Jakew 12:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Geocities link

um WTF, a geocities link (didn't even realize Geocities still existed!)? Lordkazan 16:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the links, (both pro and anti) are extremely poor. Often amounting to one persons opinion and their take on the 'evidence'. To quote one such source:
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_record.html#anchor1r
"It is nowadays thought that the foreskin might have served as some kind of protection from shrubs, rocks etc. when our ancestors were still walking around naked and "all fours". In other words: it is a by-product of evolution [1]. Since this is no longer the case, the foreskin has become a liability: instead of offering any "protection", the warm and moist area under the foreskin acts as an ideal breeding ground for a host of bacteria, fungi and germs which are known to be responsible for a variety of diseases and infections [1], [2], [20]."
That is, as an item, the most laughable tract I've seen in a long time. It certainly should qualify as some form of pseudo science, or at least an abusive use of "fact". For instance all body parts are a "by-product of evolution". He concludes instantly then that as we're bipedal creatures who wear clothes (presumably) we no longer require it and it is "a liability" then quoting 3 seperate reference sources put together by the very "pro" circumcision group this guy supports. Circular logic a-go-go! The human body itself is a hive of bacteria, fungi and germs - the penis no more so. His "Allegation 2" is in itself completely unsubstantiated, and inaccurate (as are many of the others - including the use of the inflammatory comparing in Allegation 8 of FGM to the 'removal of the whole penis' clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of what is involved in FGM (i.e. not the complete removal of the vagina).
The Circinfo link meanwhile is actively sponsored by a pro-circumcision organization/lobbyist. Geocities one is so poorly founded and based, quite literally, upon information on Circinfo and the other above link, that it's little more than a Mirror with a few extra links.
The links section could do with an extensive pruning to remove what are little more than poorly substantiated and/or argued pieces of "evidence" clubbed together making bold accusations of "myths" and "lies".--Koncorde 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That is one laughable passage :D stripping the geocities link Lordkazan 14:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a web directory

Excluding critics and neutral sites, I count 26 external links. Many of these are little more than duplicates of others, offering no additional information. Few are encyclopaedic.

I therefore propose to identify the 10 most useful sites, and keep those but delete the rest. Would anyone care to nominate sites to be kept? Jakew 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

10 seems like a good number. As for specific links, I think that the links to NOCIRC, NOHARMM, and MGMbill.org are among the most useful. Christopher 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've been bold and chosen 10, including the ones you mention. It may not be the best selection, but it is at least a selection. Jakew 10:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks to be a good selection of the links. Good job Lordkazan 13:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Archive 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGenital_integrity_Archive2_5090.html"