Talk:Circumcision/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Mutilation text

User:Jredmond removed the text ", a form of genital mutilation. If done on males it is a the" [1] claiming "revert to Fuzheado's last revert, for NPOV". Now I wonder what's so POV with calling things by their name? // Liftarn

Is there any distinct NPOV improvement by putting the genital mutilation link in the first sentence? IMHO, it's better to define the practice first and explain different POVs later ("it's mutilation", "it has cultural significance", etc.). - Jim Redmond 18:04, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The term "genital mutilation" is the prefered words to use in medicine. It's the accepted medical term for it and it's no more a POV than stating that Earth is a planet. // Liftarn

Aside from the blatantly partisan, I can't find anything on PubMed [2] or Google to indicate that "genital mutilation" is the "preferred" or "accepted" term of the medical community for the practice of circumcision. Additionally, our own Wikipedia article for genital mutilation insists that such practices are non-surgical, while the circumcision, phimosis, and paraphimosis articles recognize that there are legitimate medical uses for the practice.

Of course, if you can present specific instances from peer-reviewed medical journals that indicate that the medical community describes circumcision as mutilation, then we can discuss putting the mutilation bit back in the opening sentence. Until then, I remain unconvinced. - Jim Redmond 15:36, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My source is many the swedisg magazine Läkartidningen and they are only available online if you are a member, but one axample available is http://ltarkiv.lakartidningen.se/artNo22925 you may also want to check out [3]. You can also try searching for "MGM" or "Male Genital Mutilation". Also see Talk:Female_circumcision for a discussion about what consitutes genital mutilation. // Liftarn

There is no POV issue here. It is a very simple term with a meaning that is clear and unmistakable. If people want to argue about it, there is only room to argue in one dimension — i.e., that the particular mutilaton called circumcision is "good" or it is "bad". These two views are matters of opinion, and have no business being included in an encyclopedia, save insofar as we are obligated to report fairly on what other people believe and say. The accuracy of the term mutilate, however, is not something that it is possible to dispute.

* Mutilate: to destroy or remove a material part of — Websters.

Tannin 13:24, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, it's quite possible to dispute the term's accuracy. Language isn't a fixed thing, and even Webster's different versions vary in their definitions of "mutilate" [4].

And even if "mutilate" is an accurate term, it has a very POV connotation - that the procedure is "bad" - and as such it is not appropriate here, except in a sentence like "Opponents of circumcision classify it as genital mutilation".

I used your phrase "Opponents ... classify it as ... mutilation" in my rewrite of Genital mutilation. --Uncle Ed 16:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Finally, one article posted on a Swedish-language site and hidden from non-subscribers does not prove that The Medical Community agrees upon anything. Come to think of it, the mere fact of controversy should itself prove that doctors don't agree. As such, we should not include phrases like "and is withing (sic) the medical community seen as a form of genital mutilation", which imply agreement where there is none.

I'm still unconvinced. Keep trying. - jredmond 16:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where do you find evidence of that doctors disagree with using the term "genital mutilation"? Since it's clearly is a form of mutilation by any use of the term it should somehow be included in the article. Also the intro should be rewritten to cover both male and female circumcision (becoming gender neutral). I think the controvery over calling things what they are is due to the US bias of Wikipedia. // Liftarn

Mutilation controversy

Let's try and see where we agree first, and then describe the areas of disagreement.

• Clitoris - I think just about every Western man agrees that removing a girl's clitoris is "mutilation". It's an essential part of her sexual organs; removing it makes orgasm difficult or impossible, which in turn is highly likely to affect her relationship with her mate.
• Labia majora, labia minora - We're probably also agreed that removing or trimming the lips of the vulva is "mutilation". (Some may quibble that plastic surgery is okay if it makes them look prettier, but I don't think that's the issue here! :-)

• Foreskin - This is controversial, with advocates locked in an irresolvable conflict.
  • Many Jews (and Muslims?) and possibly some others regard removing the foreskin as a religious requirement. A significant number of believers within these faith traditions DISAGREES. I guess we better mention this disagreement.
  • Hygiene - Some people advocate circumcision as an aid to male hygiene: the smegma is less apt to collect around the penis's tip, if there's no foreskin to keep it around. It smells bad (or attractive?), they say. I daresay some who have a religious motive for circumcision cite the hygiene aspect hoping to convince people who don't accept the religious reason -- can we mention this angle, or am I just speculating?
  • Sexual function - There is considerable disagreement among fans of sexual intercourse about whether male enjoyment of sex is diminished or enhanced by circumcision. Perhaps puritans hope for diminishment?

I don't know if any of the above analysis helps. If not, then just consider this:

• Some advocates regard all infant circumcision as "mutilation" and opposed it adamantly. (I think all of agree that this is a true statement, i.e., it's true that there are advocates who regard the matter this way.)
• Some advocates deny that circumcision of male infants constitutes "mutilation". (This is also correct, isn't it? I mean, there are advocates who promulgate this point of view.) --Uncle Ed 16:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it is mutilation. However, some find the word offensive. Some words are avoided because they feel uncomfortable. For instance in Sweden I have never heard anybody use the word "piercing" when it's done in the ears. Having the ears pierces is so mainstream it's not even considered a form of piercing. Also circ is not the only form of mutilation, only the most common form. Also from another perspecive I find it odd that we have an article about female circ, but not about male. // Liftarn

You can't call it mutilation as a fact. That statement will be true or false depending on your point of view concerning circumcision. If you are against it then the definition of mutilation will fit, if are for it then the definition will not fit. Dictionary.com defines mutilation as (1) To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. (2) To disfigure by damaging irreparably. (3) To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. 1: Your foreskin is not a limb, but it may or may not be considered essential, that is dependant on your POV. 2: While circumcision is irreparable, whether it is disfigurement or damaging is again dependant on your views. 3: You are certainly excising or altering a part of you but whether that makes you imperfect or not is once again a judgement based on POV. Add to that mutilation certainly implies negativity. In the quest for a NPOV article it would be a mistake to imply negativity by calling circumcision mutilation without a qualifying explanation such as the one Uncle Ed alluded to above. --Starx 03:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Male circumcision and death

By the way, should we mention that an estimated 50-300 male babies die each year in the USA as a result of circumcision? // Liftarn

Not without a reference like this: "While American medicine keeps no systematic record, estimates of US deaths rates range to over 200 per year." [5] --Uncle Ed 16:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Deaths attributable to newborn circumcision are rare; there were no deaths in 500,000 circumcisions in New York City52 or in 175,000 circumcisions in US Army hospitals.51 A communication published in 1979 reported one death in the United States due to circumcision in 1973, and the authors' review of the literature during the previous 25 years documented two previous deaths due to this procedure.53" [6]

The above website seem sympathetic to "genital integrity", so I doubt that they're downplaying the life-or-death aspect. --Uncle Ed 17:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The actual rate of death from "medical" circumcision is unknown. A rate can be calculated from Gairdner's paper of one death in 5600 circumcisions, but that was in England in the 1940s, and it must be lower now. Grimes (1978) gave a figure of two deaths per million, but citing a 1953 study. It is certainly more than one in 1,200,000 since there is on average more than one in the US every year. The problem is that deaths indirectly due to circumcision, such as that of Dustin Evans Jr, are not attributed to it as they should be... [7] (from another anti-circumcision site)

I'm getting the idea that it's when primitive tribes do it (especially to girls) that it's so dangerous. But, we'll know when we finish the research. Anyone else want to do the googling now? --Uncle Ed 17:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

First, a quote from "Webster's Dictionary" is completely useless. Anyone can make a dictionary and call it "Webster's". You might as well say your definition is from "some dictionary". On the other hand, the "Merriam-Webster Dictionary" has a long tradition and reputation for accuracy, and the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "mutilate" as :

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>

2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE. G

Given this definition, I don't think it is neutral to use it to describe circumcision. Many people would disagree that a circumcised penis is "altered radically", "imperfect", or "permanently destroyed", yours truly included. The word mutilate has a very strong connotation of negative effect and therefore using it to describe circumcision is inherently POV.

Finally, I think that the POV problem that User:Jmabel was alluding to in Talk:Circumcision/Archive 2 is that this article focuses too much on the controversy and strong opinions held by advocates on both sides of the circumcision debate. The reality is that most people don't hold strong points of view on circumcision—like me, many people simply don't care whether or note babies are routinely circumcised or consider whether or not it is mutilation. As a circumcised male, I find much of the anti-circumcision advocates' implications that my parents and pediatrician mutilated me or that I'm in some way sexually dysfunctional not only specious, but offensive. In fact, I'd qualify my POV as being against BOTH anti-circumcision and pro-circumcision advocates, who seek to normalize society and make everyone's penises the same. But I don't see this POV represented in the article at all. Nohat 17:24, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

I regard any alteration of the natural state of an infant's body (or child's body) without a compelling medical reason to be mutilation. We know the "disease prevention" argument is entirely specious; it would be far more effective to perform routine radical mastectomies on girls for disease prevention than to perform routine circumcision on boys. The only true reasons for circumcision is for an alteration in appearance and in function. While many men seem to feel that circumcision has not affected their sexual functioning, a significant number do. Thus, while I agree that the "mutilation" thing should be couched in NPOV language, I strongly feel that that's exactly what it is by any truly objective definition. And it's clearly a COERCIVE act; that's inescapable -- the victim has absolutely no say in the matter on any level at any time in his life. jaknouse 17:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If your definition truly were objective, it wouldn't use subjective terms like "mutilate". Nohat 17:50, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

Let's not confuse "objective" with "neutral". Anyway, Jaknouse has a point of view:

• Any alteration of the natural state of an infant's body (or child's body) without a compelling medical reason is "mutilation".

Let's do a bit of research and see if we can find a published author who agrees, and then quote that source. Heck, why not quote two different sources, one medical and one civilian? There's plenty of room in the database... --Uncle Ed 18:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To destroy or remove a part of: it's that simple. If you don't like the term or feel that it is POV, that is because you are attaching your own feelings to it. Tannin 20:44, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha, ha. I wish it were that simple. The word mutilation has connotations of disfigurement and dysfunction as well. If your doctor removes a wart from your nose, are you "disfigured"? Is all plastic surgery "mutilation"? I clipped my fingernails this morning, "removing a part of" my hands -- call the mental hospital, Uncle Ed mutilated himself! --Uncle Ed

The wart is not an essential part of your body, just like a cancer. Removing them are clearly not a mutilation. Plastic surgery is indeed altering, but it's not (or at lieast isn't supposed to be) "as to make imperfect". Oh, and don't worry about your fingernails. It's not living matter and they will grow back, just as your hair. But let's say you had cut off your earlobe (a bit van Gogh here) and there was no medical reason to do so, then I would see that as mutilation. // Liftarn

I also find the word mutilate to be very negatively loaded. silsor 20:50, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

As I explained above, this definition is suspect. Allow me to give some definitions of "mutilate" from three major respected dictionaries of English:

From Merriam-Webster:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors> 2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

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

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

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

So, unless you can provide some evidence that your definition is somehow "better" or "more true" than these, or that performing a circumcision meets the criteria for "mutilate" as described here, then I suggest you cease using the dictionary definition argument, as we've clearly shown it doesn't support your argument. Nohat 21:01, 2004 Mar 18 (UTC)

I agree, and I am completely against circumcision. Let's use the term "mutilation" with attribution, as it implies certain conclusions (foreskin=essential, removing foreskin=makes body less perfect) which are at the very center of the circumcision debate.—Eloquence 20:54, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, those extra definitions simply support my point. To deprive of a limb or an essential part: a circumcised penis has been deprived of the foreskin (usually including the ridged band) and always including a non-trivial quantity of nerve tissue. To cut off or destroy (a limb or organ): the same applies. Which part of the words "cut off" don't you understand? Tannin 21:13, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What part of "negative connotations" do you not understand?

Amputation

If you're so adamant about including the "to cut off" meaning of "mutilate", then surely you have no objection to "amputate" - it means "to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (as a limb) from the body" [8], is used in medical texts describing circumcision, and carries considerably less POV baggage. - jredmond 22:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"foreskin amputation"? "forscinectomy"? // Liftarn

"Foreskin amputation" is one way to describe it. "Amputate" could also go into the section describing the procedure itself - "the foreskin is separated from the glans, then amputated". - jredmond 16:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mutilation

Hello, I've been reading the mutilation discussion and I think that it maybe better to do as you've been trying to do, find a word that is better suited to the situation. Mutilation has a negative connotation, and thus a likely pov problem, (from www.m-w.com):

Synonyms MAIM, cripple, dislimb, dismember, mayhem Related Word damage, hurt, injure, mar, spoil; deface 2 Synonyms STERILIZE, alter, castrate, change, desexualize, fix, geld, neuter, unsex

Perhaps use foreskin amputation like it was suggested and use the mutilation term as the "discription used by some opponents of circumcision" in the pro/con section. --ShaunMacPherson 05:40, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Amputation is correct, but because of its associations with limb removal, I could easily see someone getting the impression that circumcision involves the removal of part of the glans, too. What is wrong with "Circumcision is the surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin..."? Shimmin 20:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That would be because it IS damage to the body. I don't see how anyone can say that it isn't -- Tarquin 12:03, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Really, that's just your POV. "Damage" implies loss or harm, and since some people think that circumcised penises are superior to uncircumcised ones, calling it damage implies that circumcized penises are somehow damaged, a "fact" with which I and many others would disagree. Do you damage your hair by cutting it? A Sikh would say yes, but most people would say no. I don't see that the dispute over circumcision is fundamentally any different. Also, "amputate" doesn't really work either, because it is usually used for limbs, like arms and legs. You don't "amputate" your hair when you get a hair cut. Nohat 21:29, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between circumcision and cutting one's hair, as hair is dead tissue, lacks feeling, and has no major role in sexual intercourse. "Amputate" is defined as "To cut off (a projecting body part), especially by surgery", which I think fits the definition of circumcision. As to whether it is "damage" (defined as "loss of value or the impairment of usefulness"), I think that making an assertion either way would expose POV, but certainly the ideas presented in favor of and opposed to calling circumcision "damage" should be presented in the article. Acegikmo1 01:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the core usage of the word "amputate" is for removal essential appendages, like arms and legs, and that is what most people associate with the word "amputate". By markedly using the word to describe circumcision, you are associating amputation of arms and legs (generally considered a drastic and unpleasant thing to do) with circumcision, thereby promoting the anti-circumcision POV. Using "amputuate" is not neutral, and should therefore be avoided. Nohat 19:00, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

Actually not using the word is POV. It is a form of amputation (it's also a form of mutilation, but let's not get into that now). // Liftarn

Nohat: since some people think that circumcised penises are superior to uncircumcised ones -- well, they are demonstrably wrong. And anyway, it is still damage to tissue. If I have a life-saving operation, there is still damage done to me when they cut me open. -- Tarquin 16:36, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Many of the people who I mentioned who consider circumcised penises superior to uncircumcised one (including myself) base their belief on an aesthetic judgment. Who are you to declare that my aesthetic judgment that circumcised penises are more attractive and therefore superior to uncircumcised penises is in any way "wrong"? Furthermore, your point about "damage" to tissue is true of any surgical procedure, but this fact is not generally considered salient to the procedure. It is obvious that removing the foreskin cuts blood vessels and causes a wound that eventually heals, but calling attention to this fact is just an excuse to push the "circumcision is evil" POV. If you're going to insist on pointing that out on circumcision, you'll have to go and add it to every article on surgical procedures. Nohat 19:00, 2004 Apr 4 (UTC)

So you think aesthetics justify the removal of a body part that has a clear purpose? Do you approve of female circumcision too, because it's more aesthetic? -- Tarquin 12:13, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. You keep twisting your argument so it applies less and less to the debating what should be content of this article and more and more to simply disputing anything I have to say. Aesthetics are a justification used all the time for modifying people's bodies. Ever heard of plastic surgery? Breast enlargement? Face lift? Nose job? As for female circumcision, I'm gay, so I don't really have any opinions one way or the other on the appearance of female genitalia. However, I believe it has been shown that the negative effects of some types of female circumcision are dramatically greater than the purported negative effects of circumcision of males, so I can see there is reason to oppose those procedures. Furthermore, according to female circumcision, most such procedures are performed between the ages of 4 and 8, and unlike circumcision, which is usually performed on newborns, this is an age when the child will remember the procedure any pain that might be associated with it. Nohat 14:56, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

The child will remember the pain, but not on a conciious level. That's why anastethics is used nowdays. The pain can cause an infant to go into shock. // Liftarn

There is NO functional difference between male and female circumcision per se. The negative effects of "female circumcision" are due to: 1) that it's done coercively without consent; 2) it's usually done without anesthetic; 3) it's usually done in an unsanitary method and often if not usually results in at least some degree of infection; 4) it's usually linked with other practices such as infibulation that go well beyond circumcision. In any case, newborn baby males DO feel pain, they DO feel the irritation afterwards, and the procedure is done WITHOUT their consent in any way. Nohat, if you feel the circumsized penis is more esthetically pleasing, that is your personal preference and you are entitled to it, but many owners of circumsized penises, such as myself, DON'T feel so, but had NO CHOICE in the matter. My circumcision was forced on me, AGAINST my (now) conscious will, and it was mutilization, an invasion of my body, abusive, coercion against me, a deprival of my rights. If someone wants to be circumsized on reaching an age of rational consent, I say, fine, it's his perfect right. Mutilating babies, however, is WRONG. And it is mutilation because it irrevocably alters the state and function of a body part. -- Anon user 63.155.184.240

Uh, you haven't read anything of the NPOV argument, have you? - jredmond 16:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I admit it, the statement "Mutilating babies, however is WRONG" is POV. Also POV is a statement like ". . . I say, fine, it's his perfect right." But, if you define mutilation as alteration of the natural state and function of a body part, then most of the above is actually NPOV except for the capitalization of certain words.

Not everyone agrees to that definition of mutilate. I contend that the word is inherently POV and should not be used unless attributed to a particular belief. The statement pushes the following disputable POVs:

• Circumcision constitutes "mutilation"
• Circumcising babies is wrong
• It is possible to "coerce" a baby
• The pain felt by newborn babies is fundamentally the same as pain felt by sentient persons
• Circumcision is abusive
• Newborn babies have the right not be circumcised

etc. All of these are contestable. Nohat 19:10, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

It's not POV to state that circumcision constitutes mutilation. To say that genitaly mutilating babies is wrong is POV, soem people obviously feel that genital mutilation is OK. To state that the pain felt by babies is the same as pain felt by sentient persons is in line with current medical knowledge so it's not POV. To state that circumcision is abusive is POV, but to state that non-consentual circumcision is abusive is not. To state that newborn babies have the right not be circumcised is perhaps POV since it raised the qyestion about what a right is. // Liftarn

Nohat, you're not really making any point at all. Any statement of "X is wrong" is contestable. The point here is (at least it was) about the plain dictionary definition of the word "mutilation". The foreskin has a function: that is fact. It is removed permanently and irreversibly: that is fact. -- Tarquin 10:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is, however, not a fact that circumcision constitutes mutilation. It is merely an opinion. Using the word "mutilation" to describe some change is tantamount to condemning or holding in contempt that change. Mutilation has a negative connotation and it is impossible to use it to neutrally describe something, The only reason you want to use it to describe circumcision is because you are contemptuous of circumcision. There is nothing about the word "mutilation" that says anything about consent or removal of living tissue or that whatever is mutilated has to have a function. These are all aspects of the word that you have invented. The salient feature of the word "mutilation" is that the person who uses it is contemptuous of the change being described, and it is inappropriate to use such words on Wikipedia without clearly explaining who is holding the opinion of contempt, as it is a clear and obvious violation the Neutral Point of View policy. Nohat 14:38, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

Yes, is is a fact that circumcision (both male and female) constitutes a form of mutilation. That you don't want to accept this is your POV, but please keep the article free from your bias. // Liftarn

It's like I'm talking to a wall. What part of "mutilation" is inherently POV (or biased) do you not understand? Nohat 15:26, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

That's your POV. You are ofcourse entitled to an opinion, but just because you think something doesn't make it a fact. // Liftarn

No, it's not just my point of view. Mutilation IS an inherently biased word. The only reason you insist on using it is because you are intent on portraying circumcision in a negative light, which is a violation of NPOV policy. Nohat 15:54, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I am not "intent on portraying circumcision in a negative light", but I am interested in showing it in an unbiased light. If you have a problem with unbiased text and words I suggest you first take a look at your own bias. You whitewash certainly is POV. // Liftarn

If you're truly interested in showing anything in an unbiased light, then you'll stop insisting that we use any word which carries strong connotations. - jredmond 16:50, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as such. English is not my native language so I may miss some finer differences, but the same word in Swedish is "könsstympning" ("kön" means genitalia and "strympning" is the process of cutting something off, it has the same root as "stump") and it's a direct translation of the English term "genital mutilation". For instance the terms FGM (female genital mutilation [[9]]) and MGM (male genital mutilation) is often used. They aren't used by pro-mutilation groups and individuals, but they are often used in unbiased contexts. // Liftarn

I am astonished at the temerity of you, Liftarn, as a non-native speaker, to argue with native speakers about what words in their own language mean! I am simply dumbfounded that you would have such impudent assurance as to engage in such a heated debate using an understanding of the meaning of a word based on how it is translated to another language! Anyone who has learned a second language should know that even if words have equivalent denotations in different languages their connotations can vary dramatically, as seems that's the case with "mutilation". I'm a fairly competent Spanish speaker but I would never, ever have the gall to argue with a native Spanish speaker about the meaning of a Spanish word. For shame, Liftarn, for shame. Nohat 18:11, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you take to personal remarks. I think the problem here lies more with your bias than with the word itself. // Liftarn

Nohat may have crossed the line with those comments, but his overall point still stands: the word "mutilate" has negative connotations in English. Any word with negative connotations is inherently POV. Because it is POV, it is not appropriate for this article, except when characterizing the positions of circumcision's opponents.

If your own bias prevents you from seeing this, then this argument will continue to get nowhere. - jredmond 14:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We already have article about words with negative connotations. Some examples are genocide, rape, murder, terrorism et.c. If the use of words with negative connotations really was to be avoided they could be replaced with more neutral terms such as "multiple euthanasia", "involontary sexual intercourse", "death help" and "assymetric warfare". // Liftarn

And if you had bothered to read the articles you linked on genocide, rape, murder, terrorism, you would have found that each one contains a detailed description of the meanings of those words and how they are often used pejoratively and by whom. I'm not saying that we should not use the word "mutilation" to describe cicumcision, I'm simply saying that we can't call it that without specifying who calls it that and why. Nohat 17:51, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)

I talked to a native-English and Swedish-speaking friend of mine, and he seems to think that not only does the word könsstympning have a pejorative connotation, but that it's almost always used to describe female circumcision. He says that the word omskärning is the more usual term for male circumcision (which is sometimes specified precisely as manlig omskärelse) and female circumcision is more neutrally described as kvinnlig omskärelse. He says "könsstympning is the harsher, more loaded term". He also says "in general, Swedish society tends to look down on any circumcision as a weird process", and given that it seems Liftarn is just as likely to be biased about circumcision as I am. Now of couse, I don't speak any Swedish so I won't presume to tell Swedes how to use their language, but these facts seem to point to a potential source of Liftarn's bias but not to why he seems unwilling to concede that he's trying to push his POV. Nohat 00:46, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)

"könsstympning" is used to describe both male and female circumcision ("omskärelse" in Swedish) as well as some rarer practices. The useage of the term "genital mutilation" is advocated because it simplifies the language. If you just say "circumcision" people may think it's just the male form you are refering to. If you instead use the term "genital modification" it isn't clear what you are refering to. Try the google test and see what you find. I think I understand why you are trying to push yout POV, perhaps it's beacause I'm an "outsider" I can see the issue without your cultural bias. // Liftarn

The term "genital mutilation" is advocated because it simplifies which language? Swedish? This isn't the Swedish Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia, and what might be appropriate in the Swedish Wikipedia might not be here. Also, such arguments are evidence of your own cultural bias.

As for the "Google test", when I google "genital mutilation" (with or without quotes) I get a slew of articles on female genital mutilation, one or two on episiotomy, and a few brazenly partisan pieces on circumcision. If I google "male genital mutilation", then it's all partisan. So your Google test does nothing to prove your spurious point; if anything, it disproves it by reinforcing the evidence against the term "mutilation". - jredmond 15:59, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It proves the term "genotal mutilation" is indeed used for this type of ritual. Now do the full test and also google for "genital modification". // Liftarn

Another issue

A ritual where you simply cut the ridged band have been suggested as a more humane alternative to removing the entire foreskin. Perhaps this could also go into the article. // Liftarn

Sounds like a plan, though I'm not sure where we'd put it under our current article structure. - jredmond 16:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization

I reorganized the article, putting all the discussion of contemporary circumcision at the top, and the history at the end, rather than having the history separating two sections containing information about contemporary circumcision. I also renamed the section "The movement against routine neonatal circumcision" to "Contemporary attitudes towards circumcision", which more completely describes the content of that section. I also reorganized that section so the pro-circumcision content comes first, and the anti-circumcision content comes second. I defend this decision on two prongs: first, arguments are usually presented in PRO/CON order, but also, the pro-circumcision content in that section is only most of one paragraph, while the remaining five paragraphs are anti-circumcision, so putting the pro-circumcision content first balances the fact that it's much less. Feel free to tweak it, but if you revert it, I'd like to know why. Nohat 22:48, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph neees more work. Perhaps something like "Circumcision is the amputation of some parts of the genitalia on males and females. For the female version see female circumcision. Only the male version is discussed in the remainder of this article.". // Liftarn

Amputation is removal in general, including accidental removal. The existing "surgical removal" implies intent, which is important here. Just what do you find lacking in that phrase? Shimmin 12:09, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"surgical amputation"? Anyway, my main point is that circumcision is described as removal of the foreskin. Well, females don't have any foreskin so the description is wrong. After all this discussion about the usage of "mutilation" I also find it odd that nobody have commented on that the current text reads "Female circumcision is a term applied to a variety of mutilations performed on female genitalia". Double standards perhaps? // Liftarn

Actually, women do have the analog of a foreskin. The structure of the vulva is highly variable, and in some women it's virtually indistinguishable from the clitoris, while in some women it's quite distinct.

Where?

Quote: The United States is the only country that still practices circumcision routinely on a majority of infants for non-religious reasons.

This seems suspect, especially in light of the later discussion concerning South Korea. Additionally, a number of Pacific Island nations are mentioned in the list. Is circumcision in these nations a native practice, or was the custom instroduced by English missionary activity or medical practice? Shimmin 18:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

South Korea does not practice routine neonatal circumcision. On island nations, circumcision is a native religious practice (Christian explorers were opposed to circumcision).—Eloquence 18:42, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

"anti-circumcision"

"Many of these groups try to avoid vocabulary like "anti-circumcision" in order to avoid confusion with the adult circumcision issue; the critics of the movement, however, often use such vocabulary." This sentence is unclear: what is "the adult circumcision issue"? I think a discussion of debate over terms is appropriate, but I'm not sure what this means, so I'm not the one to clarify. Nohat 00:58, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)

I believe what's meant there is that most opponents of infant circumcision have no problem with adults choosing of their own free will to become circumsized, so they are not categorically against circumcision, thus want to avoid the term "anti-circumcision".

Council of Florence

The Council of Florence is also viewed by many, including the Catholic Encyclopedia as cementing the rupture between Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations, including Greek Catholics and Hussites. Exact opposite is true. The Council of Florence was last attempt of reconcialition of both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. There were no Greek Catholics at that time and since their establishing they were always in good terms with the pope. Hussites had nothing to do with Council of Florence. It was the Council of Basle they took part in. Since the orginal statement was meaningless, I've deleted it. -- Vít Zvánovec 12:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)