[WikiEN-l] Re: pictures of genetalia

Sat Jan 10 23:53:22 UTC 2004

I am glad you understood Alex, and explained better than I did what the 
issue was. Thanks :-)
I moved the pictures to the circumcision article.

Alex T. a écrit:
> 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
> 