[WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

Sat Jan 10 23:40:11 UTC 2004

I think you missed my point Eric. The point being that
Anthere has a perfectly valid complaint.  There is nothing
NPOV about circumsicion.  It is not a fact, it is something
that people do. As such it should not be used to slant an
article one way or the other.

No one is talking about advocacy here.  If you want to
advocate either way, then join one of the pro or anti
circumcision groups.  If you want to be objective then
don't suggest that an article about genitals should feature
genitals that have been altered by a medical procedure.

Showing a circumsicised genital, male or female, is a culturally charged
act, not something that should be taken for granted in an
encyclopedia that is trying to be neutral.  If someone wants
to write an article about circumcision, that is where a circumsized
male and female genitalia belong, just like I would not put an image
of a person being murdered in an article about some purely
private civil law topic such as breach of contract.
It is just not appropriate.

Certainly the pros and cons of circumcision should be
discussed on the circumcision page, not on a page about
genitals, male or female, otherwise, you are right Eric,
Wikipedia will be nothing more than another verison of Usenet
that is used to distort knowledge rather than clarifying
what is knowledge and what is opinion.

My main point being that Anthere bringing this up is showing that
NPOV is not as easy as some people will make it out to be.
To be culturally and socially neutral requires that one be sensitive
and non-judgemental to all perspectives, otherwise NPOV is
just another way to create propaganda that subtly controls by
using sophisticated references that are hidden while appearing
to be "objective" (whatever that means).

Hopefully you will now understand where I am coming from,
if I telegraphed my opinions and they did not register I hope
this explaination gets through.

Alex756
From: "Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller at gmx.de>
To: <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
Cc: <anthere8 at yahoo.com>; <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

> Alex-
> > Many people agree with you Anthere, even
> > in the United States. This is an issue that has
> > become galvanized because of the supposed
> > "antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though
> > moslems also practice this form of male genital
> > mutilation as a religious right of the parents).
>
> This is not the place for a circumcision flamewar. Many people feel that
> in spite of lacking a foreskin, they are fully sexually functional, and
> may even believe in the supposed medical benefits of the procedure. As a
> matter of fact, there are some recent studies which promote the belief
> that circumcision even prevents HIV. I say "promote the belief" because
> these studies are fundamentally methodologically flawed, but it is easy to
> see that people might believe them, given that they have been published in
> peer reviewed (US) journals and have received widespread (international)
> media attention.
>
> There are people who believe just as forcefully that circumcision is
> right, decent and proper as I believe that it is wrong, harmful and
> pointless, and there are internally consistent arguments that can be made
> for both sides. Few subjects are as eligible to turn into long lasting
> flamewars as this one. Please do not encourage rants on this subject -- 
> they do not really contribute to a debate about inclusion standards.
>
> Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's not a place for advocacy of any kind. If
> anything, we should talk about how to make the article [[circumcision]]
> better, not about what's morally wrong with the procedure. Otherwise we
> might as well talk about the international arms trade, social equality,
> global warming and electronic voting machines, all very serious issues.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik