Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network

Go Back   Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network > FORESKIN RESTORATION > General Restoration Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendars Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 30th, 2010
Gnirednop_edicius Gnirednop_edicius is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Default Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

I just now made this modification to the below wikipedia article,

"Male genital mutilation, more commonly refereed to as" ....circumcision



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital...e_circumcision

they keep trying to NOT identify circumcision with mutiliation so they keep on deleting my addition. i tried editing the main circumcision article on wiki but cant.

edit:

i changed my edit a bit, it now reads like this, with my addition bolded:

Male circumcision, also referred to as male genital mutilation,....

edit: I see someone put it back to my original edit. fine by me. Though I think the above revision is more conservative a change as it still starts with "Male Circumcision".......

Last edited by Gnirednop_edicius; October 30th, 2010 at 17:23.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old October 30th, 2010
FalseReality's Avatar
FalseReality FalseReality is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 221
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

That's Jake Waskett your in an edit war with, he makes it his mission every single day to rid any article that even deals with circumcision of any information that might make circumcision look bad. I think he should just give up, he seems to be one of the only ones fighting for this so called cause of his.

But really mutilation is a word that has a lot of negative connotations. To deprive someone of something essential is mutilation, some would argue the foreskin is not essential, essential is (in this instance) a subjective word. Another meaning is to make imperfect by removing or altering parts, again what is your definition of perfect, it is subjective.

I personally think circumcision is mutilation, but I also think it is a subjective POV term. I wouldn't use it when arguing with a parent on circumcision of their child, as they would instantly assume I am an extremist.

I prefer the words amputation of the foreskin, because a) it has negative connotations and b) it is an objective none POV term. Jake though would remove it almost definitely because of the negative connotations.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old October 30th, 2010
Dasher Dasher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,012
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

We could call circumcision "optional removal of the foreskin for frivolous reasons". The reasons are objectively frivolous, so it wouldn't be a subjective definition. And it would avoid using the accurate but nasty "M" word.

The real history of circumcision in the U.S. has not been written yet. It looks like Wikipedia won't be reporting the truth about MGM anytime soon. Many computer geeks take Wikipedia as gospel, but Wikipedia doesn't have a lock on the Internet.

When the history of circumcision in the U.S. is finally written, I think it will report its fall as having been due to the Internet, and the bypassing of the mainstream media, with their insistence on official government sources as the only way to produce the truth (an oxymoron right there, if you ask me).

Hard-line pro-circ'ers claim that intactivists are obsessed with foreskin. But if you truly want to witness obsessive-compulsives in action, just watch the
pro-circ Wikipedia geeks constantly patrolling and censoring the circumcision article.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old October 30th, 2010
peterpink's Avatar
peterpink peterpink is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,047
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnirednop_edicius View Post
I just now made this modification to the below wikipedia article,

"Male genital mutilation, more commonly refereed to as" ....circumcision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital...e_circumcision

they keep trying to NOT identify circumcision with mutiliation so they keep on deleting my addition. i tried editing the main circumcision article on wiki but cant.
When discussing the disadvantages of circumcision with pro-circers avoid the use of the term 'mutilation'. The term 'circumcision' is really a euphemism and forced non-therapeutic circumcision is definitely 'mutilation'. (It is OK to use the term 'mutilation' for females.) Using the term 'mutilation' for male circumcision sounds very emotional to people who are culturally blind to the damage, as in the USA or for Jews or Muslims. Europeans would agree with us that it is mutilation. It is probably best to stick to the facts of what is removed and be as objective as possible. Remember that once people take a stand on an issue it is almost impossible to change them. We are the people who have changed. I know that Wiki is widely used, but unfortunately it is abused. Any serious researcher could use it as a staring point, but would then go to the original sources to check for spin. Unfortunately not all people are so discerning.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old October 30th, 2010
Gnirednop_edicius Gnirednop_edicius is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

Female cir is reffered to first as mutilation and cutting, followed by circumcision:

"Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), female circumcision, or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

I think my edit is very reasonable and and I need everyones help to make it stick.

We ought to call it mutilation because as we all know thats what it is. I spoke to someone ignorant about it yesterday. I did not immediatly use the term mutilation, but as i got into my discussion about i said "its basically mutilation, as a functional part of the body being cut off" I think its more important as least for now NOT to use the word "you" as in. "when you circumcuse, you are are cutting off a functional part..." Using "you" might make the conversation feel like a personal attack even tough its not.

take a look at these one lines of commonly used objections:

http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html

please try to think carefully about them and try to make them your own by not copying them word for word when talking with pro circ people. of course using one them word for word is better than not responding at all.

i changed my edit a bit, it now reads like this, with my addition bolded:

Male circumcision, also referred to as male genital mutilation,....

anyone know why i cant edit this page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old October 30th, 2010
Distalero Distalero is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 518
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

Seems to me that calling it "mutilation" comes at a certain point in an argument about circumcision (usually when the user of the term is losing his end of the argument), rather than as a term that stands by itself, representing the whole issue. Simple fact is, "mutilation" doesn't represent the whole.

I would rather call it (and have called it) "non consensual circumcision". This more fairly represents the heart of the issue, is less subjective and less immediately inflammatory and polarizing, and this term leads from a fundamental issue (an absent consent of the individual), to other aspects of the issue including a description of what is lost anatomically and in function.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old October 30th, 2010
greg_b greg_b is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Delaware, US
Posts: 5,556
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

I like to call it "amputation of the foreskin" for a few reasons.

Many people do not even know what circumcsion is.

And the word "circumcision" itself is a clinical type of word that hides some aspects, especially since so many in our culture think of circumcsion as just something thaty gets done in a routine way, that is no big deal.

The word "amputation", while not as contentious and value laden as "mutilation" still gets people thinking about what is done and that it is surgery and sounds a lot more signficiant than "circumcision", I feel.


Regards
__________________
Greg B.

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper...it's the candy!"
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old October 30th, 2010
z726's Avatar
z726 z726 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: California
Posts: 2,486
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

Guys, these edits you're trying to make only reflect that you're pissed off about circumcision and want to paint it in a negative light.

Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic. Articles revolve around citations, as they're meant to summarize the referenced content. When editing, try to be journalistic - treat it like a documentary, not like something on Fox News.

A more objective sounding idea would be to cite a report on the increasingly activist community opposing neonatal circumcision. I'm sure there are all kinds of news articles available, so it's certainly significant enough to be worth mentioning. All you'd really need to fit it into that small paragraph is a sentence or two, with citations.
__________________
- Z
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old October 30th, 2010
No-more-ste No-more-ste is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 85
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

I agree with greg_b I find amputation to be an unarguable description whereas the word mutilation to paraphrase Obiwan Kenobi depends greatly on ones point of view.

I find it difficult to believe now but at one time I thought what was done to me as an infant was a fortunate happening and a plus of living in a modern western society.

At one time I thought that the poor unfortunate uncut males were somehow not as fortunate as I who had the luck of getting parents who could afford to correct a terrible flaw by nature, by the grace of modern medicine.

This point of view was mine for 39 years I knew no different. If someone had told me I was mutilated I would have thought they were some kind of counter culture anti society radical with some kind of axe to grind with an unknown party and just plain crazy.

i think it was Ron whom I first heard refer to what was done to me as amputation, wow did that get my attention.

Anyway thats my two cents and for what it's worth Now that I know better I also agree that circumcision is not only amputation but mutilation as well however it may be difficult to get the later across to others where as the former is truly a descriptive thought provoking way of describing what circumcision is minus the religious conotations and clinicaly sterile,authoritative sounding description.
__________________
Thanks for the information.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old October 30th, 2010
Gnirednop_edicius Gnirednop_edicius is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 22
Default Re: Help me correct misinformation spread by Wikipedia.

you have to be smart about it when talking to people. the man i talked to seemed to be open to listening to me because his wife was expecting a boy. i did not initially the mutilation but did so after several minutes of him more or less agreeing with what else I was saying. i do not agree that mutilation depends on "ones point of view". Cutting of a permanent, normal, functional part of the body is the definition of mutilation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.