Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Comment

I have some issues with a structure that equates Female genital cutting with circumcision and "designer vaginas". If you visit Female genital cutting#History of terminology you can review a number of sources that explain the reasoning behind 30 year trend of extricating FGC from the non-analogous and euphemistic language of circumcision. Equating FGC with cosmetic surgery trivializes the cultural significance of such rituals. However, because FGC is cultural, there are some sound arguments for giving it its own category distinctly separate from circumcision and "designer vaginas", as long as it is given a NPOV treatment covering cultural and medicalization aspects. Also, the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources. As FGC is the main page (for FGC), language on this page should reflect that. Phyesalis (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The present structure (and indeed the article) is a bit of a mess. What structure would you propose? Jakew (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Kind of a mess" is exactly the phrase that went through my head. See below. Photouploaded (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment indicating that the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources is completely untrue. There is no such consensus.

The many recent changes to this article, removing information on types of female genital modification, and removing the table of procedures, seem to serve a POV purpose, expressed by Phyesalis' POV above that one cannot "equate" FGC and cosmetic surgery. Is there a reason for these changes that serves the neutral point of view? Blackworm (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed structure changes

I'm just going to separate this thread. I see this as a parent page for all these subjects, ja? So, I would separate aesthetic/individual choices of modifications (btw - no piercing or penile bifurcation?) from cultural(FGC), from circumcision (or religious/health - not offering an opinion, just sticking with the two dominant frames of ref.) and from sexual reassignment surgery (lumping this in with aesthetic may be seen as trivializing it, too). So, I see 4 distinct categories. I don't have any firm ideas on ordering these, except maybe to put them in order of section length (makes for an easier read). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, historically the "reason" for this page was to have a page called "genital mutilation" (the original name) and then to express the viewpoint that circumcision was a form of this. An attempt was made to make the title conform to NPOV, and the content really just grew from there. I don't personally see it as a 'parent article' - rather, it's an attempt to group a bunch of procedures as seen from the viewpoint that they are all modifications/mutilations of the genitals.

I think that imposing structure or narrative tends to inherently advance a POV, and would therefore suggest a simple, flat structure. I would be inclined to restructure the page as either a) a list, or b) a category. Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it (and saw that there is indeed piercing and bisection - ack!). Either would be an improvement. Making it a category seems to mitigate all sorts of issues. But if we do a list, I would support maintaining the order/organization of(A or B)male and (A or B)female and (C) sexual reassignment. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with the idea of moving towards a list/category structure. The previous version was really a mess. The lede was badly written, the structuring of "male circumcision" / "female circumcision" / "female genital modification surgery" didn't make sense (seeing as those aren't the main categories), and then the table was filled with redirect links, and organized badly (genital tattooing was listed under "additions to tissue", alongside phalloplasty). I removed all the redirects and left only the individual articles. I also removed the bloated EL section. Let me know what you think, whether this can stay this way, where we ought to take it from here. Photouploaded (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! I think that's a huge improvement. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's strange to see Jakew calling the addition of unsourced, uncited, POV material a "huge improvement" considering his long history of guarding all circumcision-related articles against (some) such policy violations. Is this stuff going to be sourced soon, Photouploaded? I remind you of WP:V. Blackworm (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Struck out the above, as I was referring to changes Photouploaded made after Jakew's comment, as Jakew kindly pointed out on my talk page. I apologize to Jakew for my confusion and rude comment. Blackworm (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This article seems entirely superfluous to requirements, as almost all of the material covered in it is also covered in the main articles for each topic. I propose that this page be replaced with a redirect page of the 'Genital modification and mutilation may refer to:' variety, and any unique content being merged into the appropriate article. Bagofants (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Newly expanded rewrite

I have now expanded the list version, which I created, into an actual, written article. I welcome feedback. Photouploaded (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well-done. Your efforts have brought about a more concise and neutral article. I thought you did a great job on the headers and and the wording of the "sex assignment" section. Phyesalis (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of female genital cosmetic surgeries is unexplained, as they are clearly "genital modification" and fall directly within the scope of this article. Blackworm (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was lost in the transition. First I distilled the article into a list of articles. I was going to leave it at that, but then I realized that I was comfortable expanding the article, so I did so. I did so, starting from the list of articles. Vaginoplasty was included in the new version, but only in regards to sex reassignment surgery. I simply forgot the other form of vaginoplasty as all I was looking at was the list. To correct this error, I have created a small section in regards to elective plastic surgery on the vulva. Photouploaded (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Excessive POV

After reading this article, it seems to me that the text within sections "Involuntary sex assignment" and "Female genitals" is very POV. Likewise, the list within "See also" may be biased, considering which articles are mentioned. I don't have the time right now but I may elaborate on this later. What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it a POV issue, or more of a need for some choice rewording for clarity? I think the phrase "it may not be clear whether the child is female or male" could be reworded, maybe "botched" could be changed-the Reimer article states he "was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was inadvertently destroyed during circumcision." Is that better? As for Female genitals, I think the "forced" is a bit strong. Were there other issues you saw that I haven't mentioned? Phyesalis (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the see also links - they were a bit odd. Any issues? Phyesalis (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to list

Thank you, Photouploaded, for your efforts to improve the article. Perhaps we might want to consider going back to the list format that you put together here? What do you all think? Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? I put at least an hour of work into creating the article. Can't we balance the POV concerns? Photouploaded (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Phyesalis. Photouploaded, despite your good efforts to improve the article, I think that for the time being going back to the list format is preferable. Editors seem to disagree on the scope of the topic, and the entire article text is currently unsourced (see WP:V). Beginning with a list format would allow for slow, steady progress from a reasonably clean slate, citing reliable sources along the way, should editors see a need to expand on the topic. Blackworm (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I agree with Phyesalis and Blackworm. I'm not for a moment suggesting that the work you've done in converting it to prose is bad, but I think that a list format is simply more suitable than an article format. As a list, it is essentially just a guide to navigating through the encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that reverting to a list is hasty. I was hoping that people would be interested to help find sources, provide feedback and contrasting opinions, and pull it towards NPOV. Why is everyone so quick to provide negative opinions? Why not help improve the article? I never said that I could create a perfect article all on my own. I was hoping people would come together and work on it. Instead all I'm hearing is that we should can it entirely. Very disappointing response, I must say. Photouploaded (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone expects you to write a perfect article, Photouploaded, and in fact given the subject matter I think your efforts are impressive. The problem lies in the task of writing an article about "genital modification and mutilation", not in your work.

The first problem with writing about "genital modification and mutilation" is that the phrase itself appears to be completely unused in reliable sources (Google Scholar returns 0 hits for the phrase), making sourcing inherently problematic, and suggesting that any content is likely to be original research.

The article appears to be a synthesis of two topics: an attempt to enumerate procedures which alter the genitals, and the fact that some people view some of these procedures as mutilation. This itself has OR issues, but also introduces two other problems. First, there is a lack of focus: it is like trying to write an article about "rock bands of the 1980s and rock bands that some people dislike". How can you write clearly about such a subject? Moreover, how can anyone make sense of the content? Second, an article about both a set of procedures and a single viewpoint about those procedures is almost certain to become a POV fork, even if that isn't intentional.

Some of these problems could perhaps be addressed by renaming the article to "genital modification", "genital alteration", or "procedures affecting the genitals". But if we were to do this, what would such an article offer that isn't achieved through a simple category? Do we need to have articles about procedures affecting other specific body parts, too? Jakew (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The clear answer is that there would finally be a relevant place for to read about [-BW] all the scholarship comparing various modifications and mutilations of the genitals across cultures and across the sexes, including issues of risk, harm, consent, ethnocentricity of views, and gender bias.

I believe you should also disclose, Jakew, your efforts to have this article deleted from Wikipedia.[Irrelevant. -BW] Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As presented, this seems to be a writer-oriented argument (to loosely paraphrase, "I'd like to write about X, so let's have an place in which I can do so"). Would you mind reframing it in terms of the reader? How would (s)he benefit from the existence of such an article? Jakew (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how the above carried any notions of being writer- rather than reader-oriented, but I've used strikeout to recast my response at your request. Blackworm (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying. To adapt my earlier analogy, this seems like "rock bands of the 1980s, rock bands that some people dislike, and comparisons between some of these rock bands". If, as you suggest, the reader wants to learn about the comparisons, then this seems an indirect and somewhat messy structure. Do you have any thoughts about other possible approaches? Jakew (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Language links

For your information : the Finnish link is only about female sexual mutilations. This Finish article is already linked to Female genital cutting Regards--Overkilled (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion and NPOV

I expanded the male genitals section to include penile subincision. I also added that male circumcision is sometimes referred to as male genital mutilation. The term "male genital mutilation" is used in both legal and scientific journal articles [1] and in the media [2] [3].

It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to point out that female genital cutting is sometimes called female genital mutilation without pointing out that male circumcision is sometimes called male genital mutilation. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The section specifically refers to male circumcision. To say it is "also known as male genital mutilitation" is incorrect - it is referred to by that description as a pejorative, and is not a common usage term. Female genital cutting, on the other hand, is often and nearly always referred to as mutilation. The terms are frequently interchangeable, with the same meaning implied. They are not equivalent, and the phrasing that is NPOV in one instance is not neutral in the other. Avruch ^T 23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is correct because many reliable sources use male genital mutilation to refer to male circumcision. Are you arguing that female genital mutilation is not a pejorative? As far as I know, most proponents of the practice call it female circumcision. Most opponents, who view it pejoratively, call it female genital mutilation. It would be fair to point out that the term female genital mutilation is more commonly used than the term male genital mutilation, but to completely leave out the term male genital mutilation would imply that it is never used or used only by fringe sources. That would be dishonest at best. I'm not trying to argue that either term (FGM or MGM) is neutral. I'm arguing that to leave out the term MGM and to include the term FGM is not neutral. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Its worth it to note that the male circumcision article, to which the note on this page is merely an introduction, does not use the phrase "male genital mutilation" in its own (very long) introduction. My feeling is that the prevalence of the word "mutilation" in reference to male circumcision is much, much lower than similar references to female circumcision. The point is that including the phrase in one instance is not equivalent to including it in the other - in one its an accepted and normal usage in most sources, and in the other it is not. One way to look at it is this: how often do you see male genital mutilation used descriptively to refer to male circumcision where the subject of the piece is something other than how male circumcision is wrong? Avruch ^T 00:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that articles on FGM and MGM should have neutral titles (e.g. Female/Male genital cutting/modification rather than Female/Male circumcision or Female/Male genital mutilation) and should have neutral sections on the range of terms used by proponents and opponents. If you feel that way, it would be fair to point out that MGM is used less frequently than FGM. I'm beginning to see the term MGM appear in neutral articles from neutral sources (such as the Economist article that I linked). I think that MGM is coming into common usage just as FGM has largely replaced "female circumcision" over the last few decades. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the compromise wording is fine. Avruch ^T 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that female circumcision is an archaic term? JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think archaic is totally accurate, although the term certainly isn't very common at the moment.Avruch ^T 01:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Avruch, this seemingly open debate of appropriate weight to differing terminology exists here and at Talk:circumcision and related articles. I generally agree with JCDenton2052 about "male genital mutilation," and the word "mutilation"'s absence from the circumcision article is, it seems, an oversight related to the debate there. It occurs in sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] Further, female circumcision is still a common term, and current dictionaries [8] and other sources[9] view circumcision as something done to members of either gender (or both genders, or all). As an example of the dispute, some believe the circumcision article should be called male circumcision as a circumstance of the ambiguity combined with inappropriate weight (neutrality), and the seemingly current use in international and professional fora of the disambiguating "male circumcision."[10] [11] [12] [13] Blackworm (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the "compromise" edit. While I agree that the sentence is technically verifiable, the problem with it is that it gives undue weight to a neologism that is not widely used. (Unfortunately the wording "some academics" contributes to this problem further, as it gives the reader no clues as to whether "some" means three academics and a dog or whether it means that the term is in widespread usage.)

Let's look at some numbers. Using Google Scholar, I find 324 hits for "male genital mutilation" and 51 hits for "male genital cutting". To put that in perspective, there are 56,500 for circumcision (of which 6,100 contain the exact phrase "male circumcision"). Clearly, neither of the first two terms are widely used in academic writing, and when compared with "circumcision" or "male circumcision" it is clear that for every author using one of the first two terms, an awful lot of authors do not.

The question is, is the fact that a (relatively) small number of authors use these terms significant enough or notable enough to belong in this article? It's important to bear in mind that NPOV contemplates the inclusion of significant viewpoints in proportion to prominence; giving excessive weight to extreme minority viewpoints (whether explicit or expressed through promotion of novel terminology) in effect causes WP to act as a soapbox for that viewpoint rather than a neutral encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I still maintain that it's a violation of WP:NPOV to give the terms for female genital modification used by supporters (female circumcision) and by opponents (female genital mutilation) without giving the terms for male genital modification used by supporters (circumcision or male circumcision) and by opponents (male genital mutilation). On top of that, excluding the term male genital mutilation completely ignores the anti-male genital modification movement, which is not an extreme minority viewpoint. Finally, male genital mutilation is coming into use among neutral, non-academic sources (such as the Economist article that I linked). JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there are several problems with your argument, JCDenton2052.

The first problem is a weak division of terms into "supporters' terms" and "opponents' terms". Sadly this division isn't remotely accurate: while it is doubtless true that the term "X mutilation" is used by opponents of both procedures, the term "X circumcision" seems to be used by both those in favour and those opposed (eg. PMID 18063640). But even if the split were accurate, it would be somewhat strange to insist on pairs of terms for every procedure. In many cases, perhaps most cases, there is a single, easily-recognised, common term. In the case of FGC, however, it seems to be the case that there are in fact several widely-used terms. To illustrate that, consider some more searches. For consistency with my earlier searches, I'll use Google Scholar with no restrictions on publication date. The results are: "female circumcision" 8870, "female genital mutilation" 10,400, "female genital cutting" 3,210.

The second problem seems to be an underlying assumption (unstated) that NPOV requires that topics should be treated equally, even when the facts about them differ. That's not the case. Given two topics, NPOV requires equal treatment of them only if they are treated equally in the literature. A well-intentioned attempt to impose "fairness" on the topic can, in fact, result in distorted and non-neutral coverage. In this particular case, while the term "female genital mutilation" is already in widespread use, that is not true of "male genital mutilation", and implying that terminology used for FGC and circumcision is symmetrical would be misleading to the reader.

I'm afraid I can't make sense of your argument that the term is needed in order not to ignore the anti-circumcision viewpoint. It is difficult to understand how this viewpoint could be ignored when the section already includes a sentence which explicitly discusses it: "The bioethics of neonatal circumcision are a subject of intense debate, with circumcision advocates promoting it as beneficial, and supporters of genital integrity opposing it as harmful and/or a violation of the individual's human rights." (emph added).

Finally, both the Economist and ScienceDaily articles you linked seem to be unusual. In Google's News archives, I found a grand total of three hits for "male genital cutting" and 86 for "male genital mutilation" (many of which seem to be letters rather than full articles), compared with 1990 for "male circumcision" and 22,100 for circumcision. Whether the term is becoming more common is of course unknown, and in any event does not affect us: our role is to reflect current usage in sources, not to anticipate trends. I would also point out that in both articles, the text discusses work by another author who uses the term "male genital mutilation", and the term is thus partly attributed to the original author ("...he suggests that male-genital mutilations are actually intended..." "...Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds..."). Jakew (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you should consider not using "RVV" to revert good faith edits that disagree with your attempt at WP:BRD. You may not like it, but it is emphatically not vandalism to revert you. Avruch ^T 23:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, your argument that male genital mutilation "is referred to by that description as a pejorative," may be correct, but the same is true of female genital mutilation, and yet the doesn't stop us from using that terminology, even to refer to the mildest pinprick of female genitals, or even procedures that involve no cutting nor deformation of genitals. That objection is thus, void. On your other objection, that it "is not a common usage term," that is debatable, and the mere fact that it is debatable makes the objection irrelevant -- its minority usage may easily be presented and/or explained to the reader. When we become afraid of the mere reproduction of terms used in the reliable sources we cite to describe things, preferring to bow to how one group of sources, even a large group, refer to it, especially on a controversial topic, one can easily see where WP:NPOV ("let the reader decide") has failed. If the reader thinks it's preposterous to refer to male circumcision as male genital mutilation, then they won't do it, and perhaps the term will disappear into oblivion and people will stop thinking of circumcision as mutilation. But that attempt to change from an old, established understanding of what mutilation is (see the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on mutilation, which discusses circumcision of males and females as mutilation[14]) is far from having been made; and I object to these attempts to remove established terminology used in reliable sources old and new, especially in this climate of extreme controversy and large amounts of activism.

Note also that Jakew's objection on the basis that referring to male genital mutilation is somehow a "neologism" is also contradicted by the 1911 article linked above. It's not a trademarked phrase, owned by some group with the words capitalized, like Female Genital Mutilation. It's male genital mutilation, which by first principles is the mutilation of male genitals. For many (see Britannica), that includes male circumcision. If the compromise wording is in error, it's that it does not fully capture the idea that some people, and not just "some academics," really do believe male circumcision is mutilation. They don't merely "refer to" it as mutilation, they consider it mutilation. Saying that they "refer to" it as mutilation somewhat implies that they are wrong, and that it is not mutilation. That goes against WP:NPOV, but then that particular problem (of misjudged weight, of ignoring major sources based on their content) has pervaded all genital cutting articles since I've started reading Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Artificial penile nodules

In Argentina, Thailand and Fiji for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs)

Unnecessary images in article

The images currently in the article depict two fairly typical genital piercings and one completely unremarkable circumcised, flaccid penis. They seem to be placed somewhat randomly. Since the article itself is largely directs readers to a number of more specific articles, I don't think the images are helpful in illustrating this wide-ranging topic. I know that gratuitous images of genitalia are one of the defining characteristics of Wikipedia, but I'm going to remove them. Readers who navigate to the linked articles will probably get to see enough penises to fill their quota. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but removing pictures of genitals from an article on genitals seems to be a really daft idea. You really seem to be arguing that there aren't enough pictures of genitals in the article anyway, if we removed all examples of information such as pictures that aren't complete, then the Wikipedia would disappear, almost none of it is complete, and hence it can all be argued to be 'random'. The Wikipedia isn't censored, and this is a good example of a way in which it isn't censored.- Wolfkeeper 02:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that these images aren't serving any useful purpose in this article. Notice that I have made no suggestion that any images be removed from the linked articles, so your suggestion that this is any sort of "censorship" is unfounded. If you feel the images should be kept, please offer some justification other than the oft-misused WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm suggesting that all articles should have a reasonable number of related images, and these are clearly related images. Your edit removed all of the images from the article.- Wolfkeeper 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary articles can and do contain images from specific articles. For example look at Bearing (mechanical) and rolling element bearing.- Wolfkeeper 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're self-evidently trying to censor the article, you've clearly admitted it by using the phrase 'gratuitous images of genitalia' in your above explanation of what you're up to.- Wolfkeeper 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Although WP isn't censored, we should be careful not to have a knee-jerk response to image removal. Put another way, there needs to be a good reason for having images other than lack of censorship. I think D.C. makes some good points that the images do seem rather arbitrary and perhaps gratuitous; on the other hand I think perhaps we ought to have at least one image to illustrate. Jakew (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He has no sensible point at all; an article about anything needs to illustrate what it is about, and pictures are an essential part of doing that. I think we should try to have about one illustrative image per section, like we try to do with well-written summary articles.- Wolfkeeper 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, please stop trying to cast this as something that it isn't. WP:NOTCENSORED means that we have an article about genital modification and mutilation even though some people would rather not encounter such a subject. It does not mean that we are free to sprinkle images of genitalia among the text without regard for their usefulness or, yes, the possibility that readers may be discouraged from going further because of a poorly chosen image. It is entirely appropriate to have images of pierced genitals in genital piercing, but I can not see their value in this summary article. By simply reverting my removal of the images you have demonstrated that you do not care that the choice and placement of images is contrary to the common sense guidance of WP:IMAGE. I have no interest in debating a kneejerk NOTCENSOREDist, so I will start an RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that these images are there because they help explain what the particular genital modification is which is pretty much all that images ever do. You're simply trying to remove them because they're pictures of genitals, and because you want them censored. You can say that that's not what you're doing on this all you like, but you're simply quacking.- Wolfkeeper 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see that logic and reason will get nowhere with you, so I'll wait for others to offer opinions via the RfC. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. To quote you:

I know that gratuitous images of genitalia are one of the defining characteristics of Wikipedia, but I'm going to remove them. Readers who navigate to the linked articles will probably get to see enough penises to fill their quota.

We all have quotas now? Why wasn't I told? You're obviously being very logical and reasonable.- Wolfkeeper 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

People, please! This isn't productive. Jakew (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Use of images in this article

Given that the linked main articles have images illustrating each particular modification/mutilation, are images necessary or desirable in this summary article? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest possible Oppose of their removal: The rfc is by somebody simply trying to completely remove all images of the article topic. Given any article topic, images are necessary and desirable.- Wolfkeeper 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• RfC Comment: Oppose removal. I came here from the RfC, and I have previously never been involved with this page. I looked at the page, and the images appear to me to not be overly sensational or graphic, and they serve a useful purpose in illustrating the material here, even if there are other, linked pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support removal - This article is essentially a summary of other more detailed articles ("main articles") and links to where the reader can find more information on subtopics contained under the broad heading of genital modification and mutilation. Many of those articles have images which illustrate their subject. Images in this article are neither useful nor appropriate. The current images are two images of pierced genitals (both of which link in the image summary to the main article in which they are also used) and one image of a circumcised penis which appears to serve no useful purpose given that circumcision is a very minor part of this article. (Note that Circumcision contains no less than 11 images, including both erect and flaccid circumcised and uncircumcised penises, if there's any question that the reader may not understand the term without an image.) To answer the suggestion that I am in some way attempting some form of censorship, I am not suggesting that these images not be used in the linked articles, nor am I suggesting that these images be deleted - I am simply suggesting that these images should not be used in this particular article per the guidance of WP:IMAGES. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:IMAGES says they should not be used, unless their omission would make the topic less informative, relevant or accurate but it is clearly the case that it would make it less informative.- Wolfkeeper 17:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be true on the linked, in-depth articles, but not in this summary article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh right. That makes sense. (hint: sarcasm) Are you a troll?- Wolfkeeper 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the sarcastic remarks. Your opinion has been noted already - perhaps you can let the RfD take its course without further comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, RfCs are for comments by editors who have not previously been part of the debate. That's the point of having them. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tryptofish, if you can find a cite for that in the guideline, I'd have no objection to removing the comments of both Wolfkeeper and myself. To avoid further cluttering this RfC, other comments can be directed to my talkpage. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was saying that to everyone involved. My apologies to you if it sounded like I meant just you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of an RfC is for editors uninvolved in a dispute to make their views known. You asked us here to hear our views - not the other way around. I should have thought that warnings to discuss matters on a talk page "Before asking outside opinion (at RfC)" made it clear enough. Not that it's a crime against humanity, but it is strange. The Rhymesmith (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. I must have had some interaction with this article or its talk page, as it is on my watch-list, which is how this came to my attention, but have not actively contributed. The images do not seem undue nor gratuitous, but informative within the context of the page. The relevant projects' discussion pages need to be notified of this RfC - Sexology, for example, has had no notification about this as yet. - MishMich - Talk - 23:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Partial support. I think that it would be going too far to remove all images from this article, but I am not convinced that the current images are particularly useful or informative to the reader, and I can understand that they may seem gratuitous. I would support their removal provided that one image is retained. Jakew (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would meet you half-way there: two images, one male and one female, both showing genital piercing. I am not sure the image of male circumcision is necessary, but if that were to be retained, it should have a female counterpart (which may be problematic). - MishMich - Talk - 18:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What if we were to join those two images, side-by-side, so that they could be presented as one, with a single caption? Jakew (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that in principle, although I am just one commentator - and I would want to be reassured that would not be WP:SYNTH. - MishMich - Talk - 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Images are not usually considered to be sources as such — if they were, we could only include images that had previously been published elsewhere. Consequently, I don't understand how WP:SYNTH, which is a policy about the use of two or more sources simultaneously, can apply. Jakew (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a joke. - MishMich - Talk - 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And the "whoosh" sound you may have heard was it going straight over my head. Jakew (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - The images are straight-forward, informative, and are not used gratuitously. I see absolutely no reason for their removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose removal -- Images are not used provocatively, and are informative and directly related to the topic at hand. No solid reasoning based on policy has been given for their removal. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose removal The only reason that this is being brought up is because the images are of genitals, which is utterly beside the point. They are germane, and, frankly, their absence would be unusual. That being said, I'd suggest the replacement of the female piercing image with an image of female circumcision - one image of piercing is enough, and female circumcision is a much higher-profile topic than voluntary genital piercing. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -- The Images look fine. They are not on topic, informative clear and non-offensive. It might be possible to find better, or additional images to improve the article. The types of genital piercing and cutting are fairly broad, and yet we have only a few limited examples. Atom (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Non-offensive" to you, your friends, family and culture maybe - but please don't pretend to speak for all of us. Let's have a little respect for people who have different backgrounds and views, shall we? Either implement a "safe search" wikipedia mode, or hide the images behind an easily toggled interface panel. Pär Larsson (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support removal or implement click-to-see It's an article about genitals. A reasonable person might expect there to be medical drawings or even pictures of genitals in such article. But if you're trying to push your idea that genital pictures should be of no concern whatsoever, I think you're a bit extreme. Put a drawing in there and leave the pictures available for those who click on a "Display image of ______". Pär Larsson (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does "Male Genital Mutilation" redirect here?

"Female Genital Mutilation" redirects to "Female Genital Cutting" which is part of a long series of articles on Violence Against Women. Is there a double standard here with regards to Male Genital Mutilation/Cutting being less notable due to its more mainstream acceptance in Arab/Muslim/Jewish religion, tradition and culture? Shouldn't "Male Genital Mutilation" and "...Cutting" redirect to the Circumcision page? How and where do issues like this end up being resolved on Wikipedia? Pär Larsson (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The main difference between the terms is that "FGM" is frequently used in reliable sources, while "MGM" is only used by a tiny number of sources (in comparison to, say, "circumcision"). A second difference is that, when "FGM" is used, it *always* refers to the set of procedures collectively known as female genital cutting. In contrast, the term "MGM", where it is used, is much broader than circumcision (if that is included at all), frequently referring to practices such as subincision and crushing of one of the testes. So it would be inappropriate for MGM to redirect to the circumcision article. Jakew (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly a strong religion-based, sexist bias being propogated through this and related articles. Regardless of how the imposition of mutilation and cutting of the flesh of, mostly, young humans / babies by adult humans is described or justified it amounts to (i) mutilation, (ii), arguably, child abuse, (iii) primitive, superstitious practice. If religions choose to treat minors and babies under their control in this way, so be it, but in the interests of facts, we should not support the description as 'mutilation' only when it is done to female babies / children and avoid the use of that same, accurate description when it is done to male babies / children, regardless of the influence and strength of the religions that practice and condone it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.219.91 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Current Issues with the Male Circumcision Portion

• 1) "Frenectomy" definition is redundant information.
• 2) "Preputioplasty" is not related information.
• 3) "Often performed on infant boys" is a bit of a stretch since circumcision is a minority practice on a global scale.
• 4) Adults who are circumcised, at any age, may engage in foreskin restoration.
• 5) Circumcision exists in other religions aside from Judaism and Islam, primarily in religions of Middle Eastern origin.
• 6) It may or may not hold religious significance to someone of the Jewish or Muslim faith.
• 7) Tribal circumcision is not mentioned.

(MurasakiSunshine (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

1. I can't see why it is redundant: this article does not otherwise define or even mention frenectomy.
2. I'd say that preputioplasty is related, and quite closely so, since both are frequently performed in treatment of phimosis. However I wouldn't strongly oppose removing this information.
3. I think "often" is quite reasonable. Infant circumcision is common in the US and Canada, and many Muslim cultures perform circumcision in infancy.
4. True. We could shorten this to "Some men engage in". In fact, we might want to remove mention of foreskin restoration altogether, since it is rather obscure and off-topic.
5. We can't reasonably expect to list every single religion in a short paragraph.
6. I don't see what the problem is here.
7. Again, we can't list every single situation in which it is practiced. This is a single-paragraph summary, not an exhaustive description. Jakew (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada's circumcision rate is less than 10% from what I found online. So, Canada is a bit of a stretch, I think. The USA and Israel are the only countries that practice it as a routine procedure. I couldn't find any evidence of other countries practicing it routinely. Muslims do not traditionally perform circumcision on infants. Middle Eastern religions would suffice to include religions which practice circumcision. Would it be possible just to restore the original paragraph I had? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

See Prevalence of circumcision#Canada. Neither the US nor Israel practice circumcision routinely, though it is common in both countries. Other countries with traditions of infant circumcision include Nigeria, Pakistan, and Iran, to name three examples. To quote the World Health Organisation: "There is no clearly prescribed age for circumcision in Islam, although the prophet Muhammad recommended it be carried out at an early age and reportedly circumcised his sons on the seventh day after birth (6). Many Muslims perform the rite on this day". I've already explained the problems with the phrase "Middle Eastern religions". Jakew (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

How about this? Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. It may also involve an intentional or accidental frenectomy. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for gangrene or penile cancer. Circumcision of males and females for nonreligious reasons in Western countries began in the 1800s, for purposes of preventing masturbation. Advocacy is often centered around prevention of HIV prevention and religion while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimated that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

If you'd like, the masturbation prevention origin can be removed if you think it's redundant information or running on too long for the paragraph. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

I'll comment on each sentence in turn:

• "Male circumcision is the removal" is mostly fine, except that the words "male circumcision" should not be bolded (we only do this in article titles, not section headings).
• "It may also involve an intentional or accidental frenectomy". Two problems here. First, the technical term "frenectomy" needs to be defined. Second, there's no need to say "intentional or accidental": it adds no more meaning than saying nothing.
• "The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely". Okay so far...
• "with Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period". This is problematic because it implies that only Americans and Jews do so.
• "In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for gangrene or penile cancer". These are extremely unlikely examples. It's much more frequently used for treatment of phimosis and balanitis.
• "Circumcision of males and females". Females are off-topic.
• "for nonreligious reasons in Western countries began in the 1800s, for purposes of preventing masturbation". Wrong. Gollaher traces it to Lewis Sayre, who employed it in the treatment of paralysis.
• "Advocacy is often centered around prevention of HIV prevention and religion". I don't think many advocate it for religion.

Jakew (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

in indonesia we do Advocacy its called sunat http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunat#Khitan_dalam_Islam and it is for religion. 118.97.128.66 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• "potentially harmful side effects of circumcision"

where the citation of this statement? all of my friend are ok with Advocacy 15:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

NEW EDIT Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum breve may be performed at the same time as circumcision. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis, gangrene or penile cancer. Advocacy is often centered around prevention of HIV while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised. And I'll re-link everything like I did in the first draft. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Also, I'd like to have another reason for advocacy of male circumcision to counterbalace the opposition arguments but I'm not sure what to add there. Lowering the risk of UTIs, perhaps? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

A few minor issues:

• "removal of the frenulum breve" should be "removal of the frenulum".
• "at the same time as circumcision" can be shortened to "at the same time".
• "initation" has a typo.
• "for phimosis, gangrene or". Change gangrene to balanitis.

Otherwise, I think it's fine.

Regarding advocacy, I think advocates typically refer to a number of diseases. Maybe "prevention of HIV and other diseases"? Jakew (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think balanitis is a reason for circumcision though since both circumcised and uncircumcised men can get it. Obviously you can't cure balanitis in a circumcised men with circumcision. I can put "advocacy is centered around disease prevention" or something like "advocacy is centered around lowering the risks of certain diseases." I don't know if I should put prevention since some things, it can't prevent 100% but it may lower the risk of.

Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum may be performed at the same time. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initiation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis or paraphimosis(?). Advocacy is often centered around (see paragraph above about wording on what to put here) while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

It's much less common in circumcised men, which is why it's often used as treatment. Here are some sources: "Most paediatric urologists recommend circumcision for acquired phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis and in boys with recurrent urinary tract infections."[15] "Medical indications for this procedure include phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis and posthitis (inflammation of the prepuce)."[16] Jakew (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stick to issues that you can only find in uncircumcised men like phimosis/paraphimosis, if that's okay with you?

• Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, usually for religious, cosmetic, or medical reasons. The removal of the frenulum may be performed at the same time. The age at which circumcision may be performed varies widely, with groups such as Americans and Jews typically circumcising in the neonatal period and African tribes such as the Maasai and Xhosa circumcising in teenage years as initiation into adulthood. In modern medicine, circumcision may be used as treatment for phimosis or paraphimosis. Advocacy is often centered around preventive medicine while opposition is often centered around human rights and potentially harmful side effects of circumcision. The World Health Organization estimates that roughly 30% of the world's men are circumcised.

This the current change I made. I chose the phrase "preventive medicine." (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC))

Large-scale studies consistently report that phimosis and balanitis are the most common reasons for circumcision. For example, "In boys with a known indication, 90 per cent underwent circumcision for phimosis, 8 per cent for recurrent balanitis and 2 per cent for other reasons."[17] "The most common medical indication for circumcision at all ages was phimosis, followed by balanoposthitis and balanitis xerotica obliterans."[18] It makes sense to list more common reasons, rather than rarer ones, and to be frank you haven't really offered a persuasive argument to do otherwise. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. I've never heard of balanitis being treated by circumcision unless it was after mulitlpe infections. Does your study have circumcision as a treatment for people after multiple infections or just one time infections? Do they specify a difference? Would "treatment for recurrent balanitis" be better if they don't specify the difference? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

Redirects from genital integrity

Shouldn't genital integrity go to bodily integrity since this page doesn't really address anything about the genital integrity movement? It just addresses genital modification. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC))

I'== Discussion of proposed new content "Four Types of Genital Mutilations" ==

New proposed content "Four Types of Genital Mutilations" sourced to http://www.self-help-sexuality.com/male-genital-mutilation.html was removed because the source is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. The website is an anonymous self-published source. Please provide a reliable source for the content. Zad68 04:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above. It's a shame the other editor, Faulknerck2 (talk · contribs), isn't discussing it here instead of edit-warring. ([19]). 88.104.5.244 (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made two sources which show the exact same things. both of them are reliable.

I have been not waging in a edit war. it's HIM. he doesn't want me put MGM in wikipedia. in each time he removes it from the wikipedia what's his problem?

Faulk (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)