Template:1911 talk

what is mutilion all about?

If we wish to take the view that the term "mutilation" is pejorative rather than simply descriptive, a lot more than circumcision will have to be removed from this article. Any tribal practice of body modification, for example, could not be considered mutilation because as a pejorative it is POV. Female genital cutting would also have to be removed, and so on. I would propose that we stick to the descriptive form "excision of functional tissue" and that the language of the article be edited to reflect that. Tomyumgoong 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we are not in a position to redefine the English language. Though they vary in the details, dictionary definitions invariably define mutilation as cosmetic or functional harm. If listing FGC, for example, is POV (and I have to agree), the answer is to remove it, not to make the article still worse by adding more POV.

My own view is that the article is little more than a dictionary definition plus some POV, and it would probably be best to delete it on those grounds. Jakew 11:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously any cosmetic statement is POV. What is the point of view in stating that removal of the foreskin also oblates the function of the foreskin? Tomyumgoong 11:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It presupposes that the foreskin has a function, and that the function of the penis is degraded following its removal. Jakew 12:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The functionality of the foreskin is not a hotly contested issue in the medical literature. You might contest that the penis is somehow better without its function, but that sounds like POV. Tomyumgoong 23:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The functionality, if any, of the foreskin is hardly a matter of established fact and widespread agreement, otherwise one would not see some authors describe it as a 'vestigial organ'. I would agree that stating or implying that the penis is better without the foreskin is POV, as is stating or implying that it is worse. Describing circumcision as mutilation does imply that it is worse, and thus violates WP:NPOV. Jakew 09:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions of "some authors" do not make the position that a body part is not functional established fact. Most authors, and all western pediatric associations respect the functionality of the foreskin in their discussion of circumcisison. Perhaps there is something to be gained in removing that function in some circumstances, as we see in the sole study of AIDS and circumcision in AIDS ridden africa. However, as the sole tissue in the penis with a concentration of the specialized sensory modalities it comprises, the tissue is functional. "Vestigial" is highly pov given modern scholarship. Tomyumgoong 07:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that there is not widespread agreement that the foreskin is not functional. Incidentally, there was not a 'sole study' but more than 40 studies, of many different types, the latest simply being a randomised controlled trial.

As a matter of fact, there is only one study supporting your argument, and that merely postulated that the foreskin is specialised sensory tissue. Last time I checked, there was a difference between theory and fact.

Regardless, Wikipedia prohibits original research, and arguments over whether circumcision is mutilation or not do not belong here. Our role is simply to report on what others have stated. Jakew 09:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should make a distinction among willing body modification, as might happen by adults in various tribes, and unconsented mody modification such as neonatal circumcision and female genital cutting and the amputation of limbs by African warring parties. Both are broadly "mutilation" but have a distinct prominence. Tomyumgoong 08:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. It is a Point of View that any body part is vestigial. It is also incorrect to say that the foreskin lacks function, as it is mucosal. Moreover, the article already (over)states the fact that there is some oppositition to the idea that circumcision is mutilation. What is the problem? Tomyumgoong 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a point of view that it's vestigial. It's also a point of view that it has function, and it's a point of view that circumcision is mutilation. Hence, policy requires us to state none of these as fact, but simply to discuss the various points of view that others have raised in reliable sources. Jakew 21:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a point of view that the forekin is a mucosal covering of the glans which contains many (specialized) nerve endings. This is a biological fact. What is your problem with the wording in the version from which you are reverting? Tomyumgoong 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may enjoy reading [[1]] Tomyumgoong 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am quite familiar with that article. I'm puzzled, though, about why you suggest reading a bunch of contradictory statements. Jakew 09:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about mutilation, to the extent that it is anything more than a dictionary definition. A brief mention that some feel that circumcision (or ear-piercing, or tattoos) are mutilation is fine. Rewriting the article to center on the topic is POV pushing, in my opinion, and I think your edits are taking a big step in that direction. Nandesuka 21:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I simply placed female and male circumcision in the same context. Their differential treatment is POV. The article did not center on circumcision in its stable version before you removed the practice from the list of mutilating procedures. It has since been properly restored apparently by the community. You should carefully consider who is pushing POV here. Tomyumgoong 21:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's do that. Your edit combined female genital cutting and circumcision, implying that the people viewing the two as mutilation are the same. The example given for FGC, however, is Amnesty International, which explicitly voted to reject a 'male genital mutilation resolution'[2] (thus making the assertion that they regard both as mutilation false). Many other notable organisations, including the WHO and UN, describe FGC as mutilation but do not describe circumcision as such. It may well be that you regard both as mutilation, but the article is not about you. The two require treating separately.

Additionally, you removed a cited example of an author disagreeing with the claim.

Finally, in the second paragraph, you inserted a reference to circumcision, such that it read "ritual mutilation, frequently in the form of circumcision". Here, you cause the article to declare that Wikipedia considers circumcision to be a form of mutilation. This is POV.

In conclusion, it is clear that you are indeed POV pushing.

It is interesting to note that Sophia's edit was the first to identify that some hold the view, rather than endorsing it. Since it did not violate WP:NPOV, it remained. Your previous attempts were reverted because they did not conform to policy. Jakew 09:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Jakew that FGC and circumcision need to be treated differently as FGC as practiced by some is a much more extensive procedure sometimes resulting in the loss of virtually all external genitalia. In the UK FGC is generally viewed as mutilation but circumcision is seen as unnecessary unless medically required. They are not viewed as equivalent procedures and I would not like to see FGC somehow trivialised by making it seem the female form of circumcision which it is not. As with all these practices we must make it clear that it is a POV to regard them as mutilation as obviously some people do them for what they see as positive reasons. The Amnesty link is important as I know they view involuntary FGC (as is very often the case) as a breach of human rights - the declaration of human rights in the west is seen to "trump' cultural practices. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, your comment reminded me of the following comments by the UNFPA:

Some organizations have opted to use the more neutral term 'female genital cutting'. This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term 'mutilation' demeaning, since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers. The use of judgmental terminology bears the risk of creating a backlash, thus possibly causing an alienation of communities that practice FGM/FGC or even causing an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGM/FGC. In this respect it should be noted that the Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices (ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights) recently called for tact and patience regarding FGC eradication activities and warned against the dangers of demonizing cultures under cover of condemning practices harmful to women and girls. [3]

This might be worth noting in the article. Jakew 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my countering systemic bias hat on I would say it is definitely worth adding. It is a bit long but it's information dense so summarising it would mean throwing out useful stuff so maybe the best place for it is the FGC article itself? I've had a quick look and didn't see it there but maybe I missed it. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some tribes practice ritual mutilation, frequently in the form of circumcision, as part of an initiation ritual.

I've removed the frequently in the form of circumcision until we can find reference justifying singling out circumcision in initiation rituals. I have no idea if this is the most frequent form of initiation rite - I must admit I thought it was tattoos but I could very well be wrong. I'll have a look for a quote later but if others have any I would appreciate the saving of time as real life is in full flow today! Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 07:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, as it happens, circumcision really does come up a lot as the form of ritual mutilation used for initiation ceremonies. Here are just a few quick links to support this:

http://www.ecotopics.com/articles/boys.htm

http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/eth.2003.31.2.172

http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/142.html

http://www.wmich.edu/dialogues/texts/darkchild.html

http://www.bartleby.com/196/170.html

http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/foamycustard/fc009.htm

Based on this, do you see any reason NOT to restore the removed text? Al 07:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling circumcision mutilation endorses one particular POV. Jakew 07:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of those six, only the last describes it as mutilation. The rest use impartial, neutral terminology. Jakew 08:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is needed to make this factual and NPOV is a RS link stating that circumcision is the most common form of mutilation for an initiation" or something like that as that will justify singling it out. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, though in order to avoid endorsing one point of view, we would have to say something like "according to X, circumcision is the most common mutilation performed as an initiation ritual". Jakew 10:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sophia 10:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomyumgoong,

I'm temporarily removing the following contested sentence, since we seem unable to agree on it.

• Many view female genital cutting as mutilation with respect to what they perceive as deprivation of the function of the excised tissue and the often involuntary nature of the procedures,[4] and some have made similar arguments concerning circumcision,[5] though others disagree.[6]

Your version:

• Female genital cutting [7] and circumcision[8] may be viewed as mutilation due to the often involuntary excision of functional tissue, though some cultures and individuals view the practices as natural or beneficial. [9]

There are several problems with your version:

1. "[Female genital cutting]] [10] and circumcision[11] may be viewed" - this implies that the two are only considered together: that a given individual either regards both as mutilation, or neither. In fact, FGC is commonly referred to as 'mutilation', but the term is rarely applied to male circumcision, and only then by anti-circumcision activists.
2. the term perceived is lost, thus arbitrarily endorsing this belief and consequently violating WP:NPOV.
3. "though some cultures and individuals view the practices as natural or beneficial. [12]." - this claim is not supported by the source cited. In fact, this article addresses the issue of male circumcision as mutilation, noting, for example, "Denniston, Hodges, and Milos (1999) note that Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines mutilation as "[d]isfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of any conspicuous or essential part of the body." Male circumcision, they say, is the injurious and appearance-altering removal of a conspicuous body part and thus unquestionably constitutes mutilation. But this sort of argument begs the question. It assumes that circumcision disfigures and injures. Yet this is exactly what is in dispute in debates about whether circumcision constitutes mutilation."

Jakew 18:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it that someone put docking here. --Yancyfry jr 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know where this should be but am placing it here for easy retrieval by interested persons. This was removed from docking, when it clearly didn't belong. Merge here or at a more appropriate article? Quill 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In times when even judicial physical punishment was still commonly allowed to cause not only intense pain and public humiliation during the administration but also to inflict permanent physical damage, or even deliberately intended to mark the criminal for life by maiming or branding, one of the common anatomical target areas not normally under permanent cover of clothing (so particularly merciless in the long term) were the ears.

In England, for example, various pamleteers attacking the religious views of the Anglican epsicopacy under William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, had their ears cut off for those writings, e.g. in 1630 Dr. Alexander Leighton and in 1637 still other Puritans, John Bastwick, Henry Burton and William Prynne.

In Scotland one of the Covenanters, James Gavin of Douglas, Lanarkshire, had his ears cut off for refusing to renounce his religious faith.

Especially in various jurisdictions of colonial British North America, even relatively minor crimes, such as hog stealing, were punishable by having the ears nailed to the pillory and slit loose, or even completely cropped; a counterfeiter would be branded on top (for that crime, considered lèse majesté, the older mirror punishment was boiling in oil).

Independence did not as such render American justice any less bloody. For example in future Tennessee, an example of harsh 'frontier law' under the 1780 Cumberland Compact was 1793 in when Judge John McNairy sentenced Nashville's first horse thief, John McKain, Jr., to be fastened to a wooden stock one hour for 39 lashes, and have his ears cut off and cheeks branded with the letter "H" and "T".

An example from a non-western culture is Nebahne Yohannes, an unsuccesfull claimant to the Ethiopian imperial throne, who had ears and nose cut off but was then released.

I have reverted the following addition to the article's second paragraph:

• Involuntary genital modification such as female genital cutting and male circumcision are also sometimes viewed as mutilation

There are several problems with this addition.

While it is doubtless true that some people view FGC and circumcision as mutilation, the article is not an exhaustive list of procedures that at least one person views as mutilation. Indeed, such a list might constitute undue weight in cases where we concentrate on the few who view procedure X as mutilation rather than those who do not. This article is about the concept of mutilation, and specific procedures are valuable when they help explain this concept, but it is not essential to include them all. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and there is no particular reason why Wikipedia needs to note the fact that some people hold this view. We need to consider two things: a) does inclusion benefit the reader's understanding of the concept, and b) is it compatible with WP:NPOV?

Another problem is the implication that the world can be divided into two groups: those who view FGC and circumcision as mutilation, and those who view neither as mutilation. But of course many people regard FGC as mutilation but do not consider circumcision to be mutilation. The fact that both are given as examples of "involuntary genital modification" adds to this problem, reinforcing the idea that these are members of an indivisible class, and oddly suggesting that whether a procedure is voluntary or not is a critical factor. Jakew (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let us make the article more, rather than less exhaustive Tomyumgoong (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As many cultures, and a large portion of extant humanity, consider involuntary circumcision a removal of efficacious tissue, and in some cases a latent mark of slavery, it is certainly due mention as mutilation insofar as it is considered by some cultures. A fair and encylopedic dialogue would include any mention you might conjur. The lack of other contributions does not make the inclusion of the widespread view of circumcision as ablating function less encyclopedic.

If you have an agenda, you are not being a good editor.

Tomyumgoong (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to assert that entire cultures view circumcision as mutilation, I hope you have some good sources. Jakew (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have readded Male circumcision and Female genital cutting to the article under the list of procedures some consider mutilation. Previous discussions have stated that runs afoul of Wikipedia's POV policies but I think it is clear that is not the case.

The definition of the word mutilation according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com is: 1. to injure by tearing or cutting off a limb or essential part; maim 2. to damage a book or text so as to render it unintelligible 3. to spoil or damage severely

The penis is injured when the foreskin is cut off and the foreskin is clearly damaged severely. The AAP article I cited makes it clear that medical organizations do not recommend infant male circumcision for medical reasons, that they consider it a cosmetic cultural practice or religious practice.

I copied the AAP citation from the wiki entry on circumcision, unfortunately I could not find an AAP citation on the female genital cutting entry.68.229.87.128 (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]