Talk:Anti-circumcision

Redirect

I am setting a redirect for the following reasons:

• The current version of this page contains:

This grouping includes a significant number whose motivation is psycho sexual and who are self-styled "foreskin admirers" in an erotic sense

No source is cited and random accusations are not appropriate here. see Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

• 'Anti-circumcision' is an in adjective form (is there really an anti-circumcision?) We should add "group" or "movement". Otherwise, if its current form is essential for whatever reason, we should set up disambiguation to indicate which instances of circumcision are opposed by various groups. Nobody is against all of them.

• pro and anti prefixes are generally prohibited by Loaded words policy.

• Gender ambiguity. Circumcision has a disambiguation page. Some will argue this one should, and there are certainly FGM groups that are specifically anti-circumcision referring only to the female variant, particularly where infibulation is uncommon (run a Google search for Nigeria anti-circumcision).

If this can all be resolved, then I have no problem with the article. Although much of this material is under genital integrity (for social and health issues) or intactivism (for legal and political issues) , and there is plenty of room for criticism in those articles for the pro-mutlation folks to dump in. DanP 23:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Arbitarily imposed redirects to suit a POV agenda are not acceptable. - Robert the Bruce 04:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Who could disagree? But you have not addressed my objections to the current form of the article. DanP 18:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You started it now you want to redirect it ... just because your plan did not work out. - Robert the Bruce 17:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me. It was Robert Blair. Personally, I believe the pro and anti labels are technically loaded words in the articles, but perfectly fine in discussion. On the street or news, yes it's fine too. In an encyclopedia article title they lack the rigor needed. We do not have an article "anti-abortion" for instance -- a title which is fine for news or casual use, not for an encyclopedia's level of specificity. I hope we can at least agree that on-the-street or in-the-news jargon is not the same level of detail. So I think we should either redirect this, or make it a disambiguation page. Otherwise, please address my objections I listed please, as this article, without nailing down the title better, seems just as strange as labeling an article pro-mutilation and suddenly forgetting about all mutilations except the specific one in mind at the time of writing. DanP 02:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

foreskin fetish

I have seen no evidence that anti-circumcision sentiments are motivated by a "foreskin fetish." I am deleting such information until support for this statement is provided.

Robert Blair 16:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Further, I respond to Robert the Bruce's latest edit with the following from 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

Any thoughts on RTB on why you're fabricating this fetish stuff? I'm also still waiting for a response on why he thought I created the article!!! DanP 21:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is supported by [1]. I have restored some links (see discussion above) and have removed those irrelevant to anti-circumcision motivations. - Jakew 23:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. The text you added was: This grouping includes a significant number whose motivation is psycho sexual and who are self-styled "foreskin admirers" in an erotic sense (see foreskin fetish). Explain please where those specific terms are mentioned in the link you mentioned, or how such views merit broad classification within the article itself? You are on thin ice here. DanP 23:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur with leaving out fetish. This is RtB's propaganda. Robert Blair 11:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge/deletion

Seriously folks, my concerns listed above still stand concerning the excessive overlap with genital integrity (and now with circumcisionists with circumcision advocacy!) and my concerns on why this article exists in adjective form. I will recommend this article for deletion (my first one ever) unless we can sort out the concerns. I am requesting comments here. Pretty please. DanP 23:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the article but redirect to genital integrity? That way searches for the more common term will still work properly.

The thought does occur that it might be best to write a (yes, Dan, multi-section) circumcision debate article that covers both positions. Any comments? - Jakew 23:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure that all makes sense, and a redirect is fine. I see nothing here that is a must for keeping except the organizational links (not all of the one's on our side are related within ICGI, but I don't believe genital integrity is a proper noun). But we would still need the genital integrity and circumcision advocacy articles as basic overview and having information about the movement or groups that is unrelated to the actual debate (ie. things like historical and biographical data). DanP 08:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you want to keep the individual articles, then I see no point in having an article on the debate (unless there is some really important information that we can give on the subject). I do think a redirect is wise, but we must include an explanation of the term "anti-circumcision" for readers at the target (please reply under Talk:Genital Integrity). - Jakew 22:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A vote

Could all those in favour of deleting the article sign "delete", followed by their signature. Could all those in favour of redirecting the article sign "redirect", followed by their signature. Could all those in favour of keeping the article sign "keep", followed by their signature.

Votes

• redirect - Jakew 02:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to genital integrity -- DanBlackham 08:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to genital integrity DanP 04:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to genital integrity —Ashley Y 05:53, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Ok. Let's give it a few more days to allow others to vote, but it looks like we're going to redirect. Since we're redirecting, I think it's vital that we include a shortish paragraph explaining the term "anti-circumcision" and why it is similar but different from gen. integ. (since you guys have spent so much energy complaining that they are different, I'm sure this won't be too hard ;-)). - Jakew 13:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert

Robert, I've partially reverted your recent revert.

• You object to erotic motivation. I have toned down the phrase, and added a link.
• You appear to object to listing of CIRP. I have no idea why, and have restored it. Please explain your objections. - Jakew 01:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My recent edit was not a revert. It was simply an edit of inappropriate material.

You have supported the statement, however, dubiously and I'll leave it alone.

As for the Circumcision Information and Resource Pages: This is exactly what it says. It is an information resource that presents articles by hundreds of authors. It cannot, therefore, speak with one voice, and cannot have one viewpoint.

It is wrong, therefore, to characterize the Circumcision Information and Resource Pages as anti-circumcision.

207.69.136.200 02:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All of those articles are there to support arguments against circumcision. Please read this page by Geoffrey T Falk, the owner of CIRP, and a self-described "non-circumcision advocate"[2]. Please try to find a page at CIRP in favour of circumcision. Please go to CIRP's recommended web links[3] and find a site even vaguely in support of circumcision. Then tell me that it isn't anti-circumcision. - Jakew 02:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Jake I admire your patience and efforts in this regard but when faced by a POV warrior you should not expect any concessions which may contribute to NPOV. Sad but true. - Robert the Bruce 05:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Jakew, some of their documents are informational and do not take a position. You know that perfectly well. While I do not agree with everything 207.69.136.200 says, I agree with their conclusion on grounds of the categorical facts. If you want to create an article on CIRP and include a view that the are biased, I have no objection. What I object to is perception of such bias, regardless of actual connection to a given article, as categorical disclaimer anytime their resources are linked. We have not done that with pro-mutilation resources -- but by your rationale, we should. If you are going to include titles or start labelling people or sites, use actual labels instead of assumed or overtly selective ones. DanP 14:46, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dan, their documents are chosen based upon whether they can be used to support a position against. They tacitly admit this:

CIRP Note: The Circumcision Reference Library chooses articles based on merit. The authors of this article argue that 
1) the foreskin is sensory tissue, and 2) removal of the foreskin by circumcision causes sensory deprivation to the brain, 
and 3) that sensory deprivation to the brain produces brain damage/reorganization, and 4) that sexual excitability is reduced, 
and 5) there is a net benefit to society. The Circumcision Reference Library believes that the first three arguments are 
meritorious and this article is included in the Circumcision Reference Library on that basis. The Circumcision Reference 
Library believes that arguments four and five lack merit.

[4] The fact is that the site as a whole is anti-circumcision (pro-genital integrity to use this euphemism if I must), but uses a subtle approach to expressing this. It is dishonest not to include the site - come on, the subtle approach isn't fooling anyone. - Jakew 14:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where do I begin? You are referring only to specific instances which has no clear motive. How is "chosen based upon whether they can be used to support a position against" the same as "The Circumcision Reference Library chooses articles based on merit"? There are plenty of articles on CIRP (which you are free to say has bias) which do not take such a position, nor are selected on the criteria you cite. There is a broad difference between an article itself having bias, and a selection process on the part of some web site having bias. You cannot take the latter to imply the former. But you and Robert the Bruce are doing just that. Am I free to do this with the references you link to by extracting pieces here and there in one article and using them to cast doubt on another? In any case you are still neglecting the fact the CIRP is does not exclusively focus on male infant circumcision, so by any measure you are creating descriptions within Wikipedia that are deliberately exclusionary or misleading. DanP 17:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...and I again ask to redirect this article. I would also like to highlight the sentence It has been suggested[5] that there are a some whose motivation is psychosexual and who are self-styled "foreskin admirers" in an erotic sense (see foreskin fetish). and propose that we add It has been suggested that there are a some whose motivation is psychosexual and who are self-styled "circumcision fetishists" in an erotic sense (see circumcision fetish). to the male circumcision article. DanP 04:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You haven't even bothered to cast a vote above yet, Dan. I also point you to the following sentence in Circumcision advocacy: "Some people claim that the pro-circumcision website CIRCLIST (http://www.circlist.com) is notable for its sexually involved advocacy of circumcision." This seems to satisfy the spirit if not the letter of your request. - Jakew 04:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I spoke too quickly. Please accept my apologies. I recommend deletion of both of them, as they are mainly inflammatory, narrowly focused, and not relevant to the broader context of the articles. And the term "some people" is perhaps excessively vague in this context anyway. DanP 04:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I'd endorse your proposal, I think, but we need to get general agreement. Want to talk to Robert Blair? - Jakew 04:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done, I hope this gets settled. I also propose deleting Some also believe that circumcision violates God's moral law. Its entire meaning is perhaps immediately attainable from the use of the word "moral" in the sentence before it, and the sentence presupposes a fixed moral law as an absolute, whereas only violation of it is stated as the relative belief. DanP 10:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point there. I'd object not only on philosophical grounds, but also on the grounds that it presupposes and implies the existence of a God, and secondly that said God is the only source of morals. I'd argue for deletion, but perhaps Robert Blair might want to take the opportunity to rephrase? - Jakew 13:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

So it looks like the decision to redirect was uncontested? Any objections to redirecting this to genital integrity? —Ashley Y 04:02, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Last chance to object... —Ashley Y 00:21, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do it. - Jakew 00:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)