Talk:Circumcision/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

The problem with language deemed offensive such as "Uncircumcised"

We should always avoid using words that are considered derogatory.

DICTIONARY ALTERNATIVE WORDS FOR UNCIRCUMCISED:

• antichristian (Webster's)
• christless (Webster's)
• crusted (Webster's)
• ethnical (Webster's)
• pagan (Webster's)
• remorseless (Webster's)
• infidel (Webster's)
• heathenish (Webster's)
• heretical (Webster's)
• merciless (Webster's)
• miscreant (Webster's)
• not purified (Collins)
• pagan (Webster's)
• profane (Webster's)
• rude (Webster's)
• undeveloped (Webster's)
• unorthodox (Webster's)
• barbarous (Webster's)
• bestial (Webster's)
• heathen (Webster's)
• miscreant (Webster's)
• ethnical (Webster's)
• unchristian (Webster's)
• uncharitable (Webster's)
• unregenerate (Dictionary.com)

UNCIRCUMCISED IMPLIES:

• Unfinished
• Incomplete
• Lacking something
• Confers a sense of inferiority
• Not Yet circumcised
• No longer circumcised

POSITIONS:

• Circumcised = Positive
• Uncircumcised = Negative

WE DON'T CALL PEOPLE:

• Un-beheaded (someone who wasn't beheaded)
• Un-wheelchair-bound (a motorcyclist who isn't in a wheelchair)
• Undead (someone who isn't dead)

OTHER PROBLEMS:

• Uncircumcised isn't a non-neutral word

SAFE ALTERNATIVES:

• Not Circumcised
• Non-Circumcised
• Without circumcision

OTHER PROBLEM WORDS WE AVOID IN THIS ARTICLE (that have the same problem as Uncircumcised):

• Mutilated
• Intact

The Dutch KNMG does not use the word "uncircumcised" in their latest policy statement. It's very clear that such a word that can be considered offense is being intentionally avoided. This is also true of the British Medical Associations statement "The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors"

In addition to this. Groups that oppose cicumcision have replaced the word "uncircumcised" with alternative words, precicely because the word is deemed offensive.

"We must stop using the word uncircumcised, which suggests that circumcision is normal. [...] Defining an intact male as uncircumcised is like defining an intact woman as 'unclitoridectomized.'"

"Term [uncircumcised] commonly substituted for the correct description of the normal condition of the penis: intact. Obviously pejorative if compared to analogous terms such as "unmastectomized," "unappendectomized," and "unclitoridectomized." Also used somewhat tongue-in-cheek but descriptively by restoring men in reference to a circumcised penis that has undergone foreskin restoration."

Jake wrote: " I'm not the one proposing to treat one kind of penis as 'normal' and the other 'abnormal'."

But that's exactly what someone is doing when they propose to use the word uncircumcised. This is precisely the reason we should avoid such a word when it's not cited in a source we are directly referencing (which doesn't apply to these images).

Again, we don't use the words "mutilated" or "intact" if they are not cited in the source we are referencing. For the same reason, we CANNOT use the word "uncircumcised", otherwise we open the floodgate to allow those words ("mutilated" & "intact") as well.--Studiodan (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

sub-section break between argument and responses to it

Okay, let's address these issues one by one. First, the list of synonyms are for the "heathen" sense of uncircumcised which, as has been noted above, is archaic and obviously inapplicable.

Next, you haven't provided any sources in support of your claim regarding what "uncircumcised" implies, so there seems little point in responding to them.

Nor have you provided any sources in support of your "POSITIONS" claim.

What we don't call people is irrelevant. The English language is quirky. Sometimes the "un-" prefix is used, sometimes not.

You haven't cited any sources under "OTHER PROBLEMS" either.

The "SAFE ALTERNATIVES" are absurd since there is nothing wrong with the word "uncircumcised". Good writing requires economy.

It is quite ridiculous to allege that the KNMG and BMA "deliberately avoid" the use of the word "uncircumcised". There is no way for us to know why words are not used.

Regarding activist groups, it is quite common for those to attempt to use language to reframe debates in their favour (hence "pro-choice" and "pro-life" in the abortion debate). Since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, we should be careful to avoid doing the same.

Finally, no, using the word "uncircumcised" does not imply that one type of penis is normal and the other abnormal. It simply describes the state of not being circumcised. Jakew (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised" so there can be hardly any doubt what is "normal". Richiez (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Both must be considered as normal. Jakew (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

unmodified? Anyway, un-cir-cum-ci-sed is considered absurd here. The absurdly overlong description may be the best option. I would not object if all fotorealistic images were removed anyway. Richiez (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How about 'Circumcised penis', and 'Penis with foreskin intact'? Mish (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

maybe this: "normal circumcised penis" vs "normal penis with foreskin". Richiez (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there is a neutral, concise, and correct term ("uncircumcised"), there is no need to look for alternatives. Jakew (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a neutral, concise, and correct term - "normal".Richiez (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And it applies to both circumcised and uncircumcised penes, so using it is somewhat pointless. Jakew (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go through your objections to the arguments one at a time.

Uncircumcised is commonly used to refer to a negative, unclean, godless state, in numerous biblical, religious and cultural references. This cannot be dismissed. A simple google search for "uncircumcised" turns up about 1/3 to 1/2 of all results in this religious and cultural negative (clearly offensive) context.

What uncircumcised implies is clear in the use of the prefix. According to Wiktionary, you are using prefix definition #1. However, the problem is prefix definition #2 which refers to "absent" or "lacking" (matching a specific religious and cultural definition of the word that is common throughout the world).

The prefix Un- is defined as a Negative prefix.

What we call people is relevant. Use of language is important. If it isn't, we can use language such as "intact" or "mutilated".

Obviously "uncircumcised" isn't a neutral word. This was demonstrated above.

The safe alternatives aren't "absurd" because there is a clear problem with the offensive word "uncircumcised".

What words the KNMG and BMA use and avoid are important to this discussion, as they represent trends from certain cultures that are not generally in favor of circumcision. Without taking this into account, we cannot maintain NPOV.

Activists groups are usually first to note offensive language that should be avoided. The very fact that this word has been noted to be offensive by activist groups alone may not be a good enough reason to avoid the use of the word, but with the rest of the evidence, it supports the fact that this word is deemed offensive by many.

And finally, yes, "uncircumcised "does imply that one type is normal and the other is abnormal by use (and definition) of the prefix alone, further supported by dictionary definitions of the word, lack of use in not circumcised cultures, use of language in general, and much more (mentioned above, and not mentioned above).--Studiodan (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, it has already been explained that the archaic religious sense ("heathen", etc) is inapplicable, because penes don't have religious convictions, and because the context of the article is circumcision, not religion.

Regarding the second, multiple dictionaries provide definitions for "uncircumcised" as well as the prefix-less "circumcised". Every dictionary definition that I've seen defines "uncircumcised" as "not circumcised" (or equivalent). I have not seen any that define it as "lacking circumcision". The interpretation that you're offering is contrary to established usage. Jayjg makes an excellent point above regarding "unambiguous", which means "not ambiguous", but does not imply that ambiguity is lacking or that ambiguity ought to be present.

It's negative in the sense of negating the meaning of the word, yes. That doesn't mean it's negative in the sense of implying that something is bad.

You haven't demonstrated that "uncircumcised" isn't neutral, nor that it is offensive.

Once again, we cannot read anything into words that aren't used by a source. This is basic logic.

Finally, activist groups are not neutral observers, and have an interest in changing society. They often choose to try to change language in order to achieve their agenda, and may deem words to be "offensive" if the words do not serve that agenda. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, however, and we are not in the business of trying to change the English language. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have strong objections to call 70% of worlds male population by names that a substantial share of the readers of this article can neither spell nor pronounce. I do even object if someone tries to provide pronunciation examples. I do not call you a homo sapiens even if it is a perfectly valid name for every one of us. You would be surprised how many people will be offended if you would dare to call them homo sapiens.

Did you realise that wikipedia has a page called uncircumcision? So this is absolutely not acceptable. Richiez (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(UTC)

Is that an argument? It makes no sense, sorry. Jakew (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So Jakew you say it is best to describe the a penis that has not been circumcised as one that has underogone uncircumcision. Is that your logic? Richiez (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Uncircumcision appears to be a redirect to foreskin restoration, though this appears to be incorrect. "Uncircumcision" is actually a noun, meaning the state of being uncircumcised (see here). "Uncircumcised" means "not circumcised". Jakew (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What is "wrong"? I can follow your argument. On the other hand you can not deny that a penis that has undergone uncircumcision is uncircumcised by definition. Richiez (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What's "wrong" is your misrepresentation of my argument. I would certainly agree that a penis that has undergone foreskin restoration has a restored foreskin, but I would question whether "uncircumcision" is the correct term to describe such a procedure, and I would think that using "uncircumcised" to describe such a penis would be unwise, due to the well-established sense of "uncircumcised" to mean "not circumcised". Foreskin restoration does not appear to be listed as a meaning of "uncircumcision" in the dictionary entry that I cited. Jakew (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcision" is not my invetnion - PMID 9623850. "uncircumcised" is not identical to "not circumcised". The definition is lets say ambiguous. Richiez (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps it is a neologism that hasn't yet achieved mainsteam usage. Either way, I haven't been able to find a dictionary listing "having undergone foreskin restoration" as a sense of "uncircumcised". Jakew (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of dictionary listings, this one here appears seriously confused. Think about it twice - does that make any sense to you? Richiez (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

---------------------------------------------------

Jake. Every single one of your arguments here fail.

Your first point is a non-sequitur to this argument. The point is that the word "uncircumcised" is an offensive word under many definitions, and they are COMMON definitions as well!

The problem with your second point is that the word "uncircumcised" is already avoided in many settings because of its offensive implications.

Calling my point an interpretation is ridiculous. I'm not offering any special interpretation by saying the word is offensive, because it's already established in the dictionary. Its offensive context is already in established use as a negative term and has been for thousands of years. Additional problems with implications of the meaning via its prefix (and the thousands of people who have a problem with the word for that reason) only add to the problem.

It's a negative in both contexts, which have been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your argument is that the word is the common word, and I've shown that it's often avoided. You missed the point.

I never said wiki is a vehicle for activism. The word is already established beyond a reasonable doubt to be offensive. The very fact that it's deemed offensive by activist groups as well only builds upon the rest of the facts. It's not a special case.--Studiodan (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2010

First of all, the reason why my first point is relevant is that the list of possible synonyms you mention all derive from the "heathen" sense. Since this sense is inapplicable, so too are the synonyms.

Regarding your second point, you haven't provided any evidence in support of your assertion that 'the word "uncircumcised" is already avoided in many settings because of its offensive implications'.

In spite of dictionary definitions failing to support your position, you're asserting that the word means something else entirely. Hence "interpretation".

Most of the rest of your post merely contains empty assertions, which is not the same as providing evidence or even arguments. Jakew (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" is misleading terminology, and doesn't belong in WP because of NPV reasons. The proper term is 'normal' or 'intact.' Same goes for other terms like amputated and unamputated. A normal, health, intact arm is just that, normal, health, and intact. It is not unamputed. Unless of course your hidden agenda is to remove arms. How often a term is used is moot, since an encyclopedia attempts to tell the truth, not be a reflection of culturalism. The intact penis is normalcy. To describe it as noy yet having been circumcised is prejudicial. I ask that all instances of the word 'uncircumcised' be removed in this article an replaced with accurate and neutral teminology. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

While I share your perspective, this enclyclopedia makes no claims to be about the truth, as that can differ between people, cultures, ages, ideologies, beliefs - and may be unknowable. That is why it has clear guidelines on accuracy, reliability and notability, etc. Mish (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank, as has already been pointed out, "normal" and "intact" are ambiguous terminology, and, in this context, "intact" in particular is specialized activist (or "intactivist") terminology, not general terminology. Speaking of ambiguous, is the term "unambiguous" misleading because it implies that "ambiguous" is normal? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unambiguous" means "not ambiguous". "Un" means "not". Another term for "activist" terminology would be "politically correct" terminology. "Un" means "not". I could say my leg is "unamputated", and that would be a good thing, yes? "Un" means "not". It's neutral, it's descriptive. "Normal" and "intact" are POV-pushing words that don't belong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Studiodan and others are correct to point to "uncircumcised"'s pejorative meanings, as documented in reliable sources. If a neutral alternative exists, like "non-circumcised," why resist it? "Normal" is perhaps not accurate enough, even though we accept its use in the female genital mutilation article; but I can't see any reason why "intact" or "non-circumcised" would be opposed unless one insists on "uncircumcised" for its pejorative undertones. There is nothing ambiguous nor non-neutral about either term. Blackworm (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "uncircumcised" is pejorative. It reverses normality, making an adulterated penis the norm, and not being circumcised abnormal. To me, 'normal' and 'intact' are acceptable and neutral. To support this position note that both are medical terms. Frank Koehler (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Non-circumcised" means exactly the same thing as "uncircumcised". The alleged "pejorative" is true of both. "Uncut" is the colloquial. They're all the same thing. "Uncircumcised" neutrally describes a condition. "Normal" or "intact" are POV-pushes. The fact that some consider "uncircumcised" pejorative is their problem, not wikipedia's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the implied analogy with female genital mutilation is bogus. The proper comparison would be if you got "Bobbitted". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that while "normal" and "intact" are PC terms and not acceptable, "natural" could work. That seems neutral. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

A natural penis as opposed to — what — an artificial one? The trouble is, all penes are natural, in the sense that they're formed as a natural product of evolution (or God's work, if you prefer), and the fact that one kind has been modified does not make it artificial. To be completely unambiguous, we need to specify precisely what is meant: a penis that has not been circumcised. And the correct, neutral, established term for that is "uncircumcised". As noted previously, avoiding that term by using contrived English such as "non-circumcised" has the effect of making Wikipedia look illiterate. Jakew (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merely a natural foreskin. But you're right. In fact, in my day, nearly all males in the U.S. were routinely circumcised (presumably for health and sanitation reasons), Jewish or not. In gym classes, the very few that were uncircumcised were the ones that didn't look "normal" to my uneducated eyes (i.e. before I had ever heard of circumcision). "Normal" is a subjective judgement. "Uncircumcised" is the proper term here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. So far every one of the proposed alternatives (normal, natural, intact, etc) has been problematic, and I suspect that's because those words don't actually mean "not circumcised". In the context of this article, however, we usually employ the term "uncircumcised" for the precise purpose of describing a penis that hasn't been circumcised, as compared with one that has been (if we don't need to compare, we'd likely just say "penis"). My hunch is that any word that means something other than "not circumcised" is likely to prove problematic, for similar reasons to those words which we've considered previously: they fail to distinguish between circumcised and uncircumcised, an uncircumcised penis might not be "intact" (etc), they're POV, etc. Furthermore, as Jayjg points out, if we accept the arguments against "uncircumcised" then we must also accept that the word "unambiguous" implies that ambiguity is the norm, that unambiguous words are lacking ambiguity, etc. Clearly those are absurd arguments. "Unambiguous" just means "not ambiguous", without such connotations. Similarly, "uncircumcised" just means "not circumcised", exactly the meaning we require, and the claimed negative connotations are illusory. Jakew (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Sure, a circumcision cannot be compared to a cliterodectomy, for which penectomy is the closest male equivalent. However, the forms of FGM that are erroniously referred to as 'circumcision' include other things that do parallel male circumcision - infibulation or the cutting down of the labia, for example. I appreciate that most males in the USA may have had their genitals surgically modified and before they became aware of their penises being any different from penises in their 'natural' state. But this is an international encyclopedia; this practice of surgically modifying male genitals tends to be a cultural and religious phenomenon in some countries, but in many countries, apart from minority communities that retain the religious practice, it is not a medical practice that affects the majority of the male population. In Europe, including the UK, it is not as common, and so not the 'norm' (i.e., not normal). I feel that referring to an 'uncircumcised' vs. a 'circumcised' penis has as many problems as referring to a 'normal' vs. 'abnormal' penis - because in some countries uncircumcised penises will be abnormal, and in others circumcised penises will be abnormal (abnormal in the dense of deviating from what is normal). With another hat on, I try to avoid terms like normal and abnormal, preferring typical and atypical - but clearly what is typical in this case varies between countries and cultures. One thing that can be said is that an penis that has not been surgically modified is 'natural', and the individual concerned has retained their genital integrity - and I guess the reverse of this is that a penis that has been surgically modified is not natural, and the individual concerned has not retained their genital integrity. These are not value-laden words, they are statements of fact - however, I have no illusions that such terminology will not be welcome on a page that is of such emotive significance to people who have been circumcised. Personally, I feel that people who have been circumcised, or who are professionally associated with the practice, are not the best people to be editing this page. It is very hard for people to detach themselves from the content when they have such a deep connection with the topic. - MishMich - Talk - 11:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mish, please try to discuss the subject rather than other editors. To propose that circumcised males should not edit this article is both offensive and illogical. Jakew (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Describing arguments as absurd, whilst useful in a polemic, as a rhetorical device, should be avoided - it can be inflammatory, and construed as uncivil. The analogy breaks down comparing ambiguity with circumcision, because one is a process and the other is a state of being. The problem is that the derogatory use of uncircumcised has developed by labeling people who have not undergone the process - it has been used as an identity. Here it is a term used to describe a penis that has not been circumcised, not a person. There may be ambiguity, and disambiguation, but no process of disambiguating a person, nor a part of their anatomy. When somebody with ambiguous genitalia, this is not referred as disambiguation - either at a personal or genital level - it is referred to a masculine or feminine confirmation. For 'uncircumcised' to make any sense, there would have to be a process it relates to; there is no process it can refer to, because no process has taken place; 'circumcised' is derived from the process 'circumcision', and a penis that has gone through that process - it is a penis minus foreskin; 'uncircumcised' does not relate to any process of 'uncircumcision', it is a hybrid of 'not' and 'circumcised'. I can be disambiguated, but not ambiguated, but I am ambiguous or unambiguous. A person is circumcised, but nobody is uncircumcised - apart from in those very few cases where they have surgery to try and restore the appearance of not being circumcised. The word uncircumcised is meaningless, as it is intended to refer to penises (and people, derogatively) who have not been circumcised - but those it it intends to refer to have never undergone 'uncircumcision'. - MishMich - Talk - 12:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To address these issues in order, first, when constructing an argument of the form reductio ad absurdum, it is entirely legitimate to identify the result as absurd. Second, your distinction between processes and states is irrelevant. The word "uncircumcised" describes a penis. The word "unambiguous" describes a word. Neither word describes a process. If attaching the prefix "un-" to circumcised implies that circumcised is the norm, then attaching the prefix "un-" to ambiguous must imply that ambiguity is the norm. Finally, you appear to be unfamiliar with the definition of the word "uncircumcised". It does not mean "the result of a process of uncircumcision", but rather means "not circumcised", deriving from the prefix "un-" and the word "circumcised". Jakew (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

obviously you haven't understood me, otherwise you would have addressed what I said. 'Circumcision' is a process, when a penis has been through that process, it is said to be 'circumcised', there is no process called 'uncircumcision' that applies to any penis other than one that has been circumcised previously, so it would be an error to describe a penis as 'uncircumcised', as no such penises exist (apart from previously circumcised penises). There are two main types of penis, those that have been circumcised, and those that have not had anything done to them. They are not 'uncircumcised' penises, they are just penises. I am unclear why we need to describe something by what it is not, rather than what it is. One is a penis with a foreskin, and the other is a circumcised penis. It is not rocket science. Your last point is completely irrelevant - circumcised is derived from having undergone the process of circumcision - so what you are calling a penis in its natural state is shorthand for 'not a penis that has been through the process of circumcision' (as you have agreed that there is no process of uncircumcision it could possibly go through prior to circumcision). That is a very convoluted way of describing something that has had nothing happen to it. Better to leave the 'uncircumcised' bit out, as circumcision is irrelevant where a penis that has not been medicalised is concerned. Just call it a penis, or if you really have to qualify as a particular type of penis (which is only necessary here because it is about circumcised penises, and not penises generally), then call it a 'penis with a foreskin'. - MishMich - Talk - 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Mish, it is not an error to describe a penis as "uncircumcised", because, as I said, "uncircumcised" means "not circumcised". Your argument makes no sense because it is predicated on the understanding that "uncircumcised" means something other than its dictionary definition.

Moving on, your statement that "There are two main types of penis, those that have been circumcised, and those that have not had anything done to them." is incorrect. Consider an uncircumcised tattooed penis: it fits in neither group, since it is not circumcised, but has had something done to it. A more correct statement is: "There are two main types of penis, those that have been circumcised, and those that have not been circumcised." Jakew (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The process of somehow restoring a foreskin (which I've heard there are ways to do) would only be called "uncircumcision" colloquially. The proper term would probably be de-circumcision or some such, i.e. of performing some kind of surgery to simulate reversing the process. As far as "types" are concerned, that "type" only pertains to circumcised vs. uncircumcised. There are lots of other ways of defining "types". And there is a third type, where they somehow managed to botch the original surgery, and additional surgery may be needed at some later time, assuming its owner cares to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided to try using a dictionary, and it looks like we are all wrong. In the four I am familiar with, half yielded no result, and those that do define it is as an adjective to refer to a person.

• Oxford - adjective - (of a boy or man) not circumcised [1]
• Cambridge - word not found (not in Cambridge American English either) [2]
• Merriam-Webster - adjective (14th century) - 1: not circumcised, 2: spiritually impure [3]
• Collins Dictionary - word not found [4]

In Google, the top hit for the word is this encyclopedia, followed by [5]

Uncircumcision is used medically to refer to the restoration process: [6]

Where it is included, in the above definitions, it refers to the traditional use as an adjective for a person, with note on one about it being derogatory - no mention for its use as an type of penis. The use here seems contrary to normal use, and is WP:OR, and given the Google result we are in danger of promoting a usage that is uncommon. It does appear that medical people still use the term, despite its ordinary usage (or lack of it), but it can hardly be argued as being a 'medical term', as it not being circumcised is not a pathology. It is about as medical a term as 'arse' (which one gastroeneterologist referred to mine as once, before making a diagnosis of Crohn's) - MishMich - Talk - 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Mish! The two dictionaries which contain the word both define it as "not circumcised", and you're claiming that to use the word to mean that is original research? That's a contender for the most ridiculous argument I've yet seen on Wikipedia. We're using the word in accordance with dictionary definitions, and checking Google and Google Scholar confirms that this is common usage, both in reliable sources and elsewhere. Jakew (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of four major dictionaries, two give no definition, two define it as an adjective meaning "not circumcised" - one says this is an adjective that applies to a person, the other does state that it is an adjective, but not who/what it applies to. It certainly does not say it is an adjective that applies to a penis. None of the four dictionaries state that. Lots of people use 'gay' to mean rubbish - but we do not use it that way here. If a usage becomes significant enough to warrant it being defined in a reliable dictionary that way, then we follow that usage - we do not seek to emphasise an unusual usage in a way that we help establish that usage. Please remove 'uncircumcised penis', and replace with 'penis with foreskin' - which is what it actually is. It cannot be uncircumcised, as it has no relationship with circumcision whatsoever, other than to illustrate what a penis that has not been circumcised looks like. And please stop trying to emphasise dubious terminology in a way that makes circumcision appear normative. - MishMich - Talk - 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised penis" gets almost 1/2 million ghits, and over 2600 gbook hits. It is common, every day English, not "dubious terminology". Please stop inventing every more ridiculous argumentation and phraseology. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Natural: adj. 2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature 8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature 11 b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society 13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature c : having a form or appearance found in nature.Dictionary link. (A few people, who fervently advocate circumcision, find the non-circumcised penis to be unnatural[7], and thus might object to this usage based on that minority POV.)

Intact: adj. 2 of a living body or its parts : having no relevant component removed or destroyed.Dictionary link. (Some people, who fervently advocate circumcision, view the foreskin as useless,[8] irrelevant, and thus might object to this usage based on that minority POV.)

Uncircumcised: adj. : 1 : not circumcised 2 : spiritually impure : heathenDictionary link. (Many people, such as the majority of all males (who are not circumcised), may believe that not being circumcised does not make one spiritually impure, and thus may object to this usage based on that majority POV.)

So all the terms seem problematic to some. There is no reason to always insist on the exclusive use of the only word that has pejorative undertones documented in reliable sources. There is no reason for the absolute banning of any other term, including obviously neutral ones like "not circumcised" or "non-circumcised," regardless of whether or not they are used in reliable sources. How some editors can continue to argue this escapes all reason, besides violating Wikipedia's policies on minority and fringe views. At the very least, all the terms appearing in the reliable sources we cite should be used. Blackworm (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained multiple times by multiple people, archaic meanings like "heathen" are not relevant to modern usages, and we don't determine common or neutral usage by pointing to unusual or out-of-context dictionary definitions. This has all been explained before, and it's unhelpful to ignore this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries list archaic terms with "archaic" (c.f., thou), and obsolete meanings with "obsolete" (e.g., siege) and this is not the case with uncircumcised's listed meaning of spiritually impure, or heathen. Also, I have heard the word used with that meaning multiple times in both direct speech and in writing. So, in a word, no. Blackworm (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For comparison I'd also like to point out that a Google search on "circumcision mutilation -female" (discussing male circumcision, excluding discussion of female circumcision regardless of whether it also discusses the circumcision of males, and using the word "mutilation") returns about 350,000 hits -- and yet some have seen fit to ban the word "mutilation" as "non-neutral" from this article for years, despite its use in reliable sources as well. Clearly there is a double standard at work. Blackworm (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg We do not determine terminology through google searches, we defer to reliable sources, such as dictionaries. If you wish to establish that uncircumcised is the best term to use, you need to avoid WP:OR in tallying up google searches, and provide a WP:RS that verifies that this is the most widely used and established and 'correct' description. It seems very odd to describe a penis that has not been circumcised in a way that relies on circumcision as its description, 'penis with foreskin is a more accurate description. It is not uncircumcised, it is a penis that has not had anything done to it. All I am hearing is why uncircumcised is such a good term to use for a penis that has never had a scalpel come near it - not why 'penis with foreskin' is a problem. It is accurate, it is neutral, and not significantly longer. What I fail to understand is why it is people who are sympathetic to circumcision who tend to seek to use a term that incorporates circumcision to denote a penis that has not been circumcised. The neutrality of this term cannot be defended, especially when there is the possibility of truly neutral terminology that can be utilised. If I were pushing for the addition of 'normal', or 'intact', or 'natural' I could understand it - but I have gone to some effort to avoid this in order to try and facilitate a compromise, yet retain an accurate description of the type of penis that has had nothing to do with this process. - MishMich - Talk - 01:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We certainly do determine common usage through google searches (among other means). This pretense that "uncircumcised" is poorly understood, or "dubious terminology", or means something else than it plainly means, based on specious original research, is not a good faith argument. If you have reliable sources that indicate that "uncircumcised" is inappropriate, unusual, or poorly understood, bring them forward. Until then, common usage, including the overwhelming usage in reliable sources, will guide our terminology here. And if you feel a need to repeat any of your already debunked arguments, instead please just review the previous comments on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "If you have reliable sources that indicate that 'uncircumcised' is inappropriate [...]" Done. It is used pejoratively to describe the spiritually unclean aspects of persons of non-circumcising faiths and belief systems.[9] Other completely neutral and completely understandable terms exist without this meaning ("non-circumcised"), so what possible reason could one have to resist their use, insisting on the word that has documented pejorative meaning? This becomes especially relevant when applying the adjective to males and not penises. Considering that there are myriad other terms dubiously banned as "non-neutral" from this article by the same editors insisting on the use of "uncircumcised," (e.g., "mutilation," "severed," "cut off," "intact," "natural," "normal"), and with contrastingly no reliable sources indicating any issues, it is clear that the standard simply changes depending on whether male circumcision is cast more or less favourably. Blackworm (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg. Using he Oxford Dictionary is WP:OR, but a Google search isn't? I'd laugh, if that wasn't sad. Try taking that to WP:RS/N and see how far it runs. Even our own dictionary gives the definition as applying to a person, not a thing. As usual you have avoided addressing my point. Do not say anything else now - just tell me what the problem with the neutral, accurate, descriptive term is, rather than inaccurate, non-neutral, medical colloquialism you seem to prefer. - MishMich - Talk - 08:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Mish, you're grasping at straws here. One of the dictionaries you cite lists "uncircumcised" as an adjective applying to a person, but that does not mean that it does not apply to a part of a person. Similarly, several dictionaries define "blond" as applying to a person, but it is equally valid to apply it to a part of a person (eg., his hair). In addition, as you admit, one of the dictionaries you cite lists "uncircumcised" as an adjective meaning "not circumcised"; this flatly contradicts your own argument that it is original research to use it in such a way. Furthermore, your argument that it is not common usage is clearly false. As Jayjg points out, there are large numbers of Google hits for "uncircumcised penis" (interestingly, there are more hits for "uncircumcised penis" than for "uncircumcised man" or "uncircumcised boy"). Jayjg is right: if you have sources to support a credible argument, bring them. Jakew (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When it's stated that a person has or has not had [X] done to them, it's assumed that the organ is or was attached to that person. For example, if I get a tattoo on my arm, I'm likely to say "I got a tattoo", although it was my arm that got the tattoo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

How is that relevant? The analogy with a tattoo would be more appropriate for somebody who doesn't get a tattoo. We don't refer to people without tattoos as having an 'untattooed arm', do we? Like, "he offered her his unatattooed arm as he began to escort her to the theatre". When somebody has had some form of body modification in some way, we tend to refer to the modification, but not the absence of modification. But, again, you have avoided answering my question. What is the problem with stating something that is accurate and neutral and uncontroversial? I can see that this will need to be escalated for feedback from impartial editors and admins. - MishMich - Talk - 11:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral, and uncontroversial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Jakew (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that you have no consensus on that - clearly not everybody sees it this way, and when this happens, it suggests it is either not neutral or accurate in some way. You thinking it is neutral doesn't mean it is. And again, you have avoided answering my question. This is a common tactic used by activists and politicians, to ignore the question asked, and answer a different question. I am taking your silence as meaning that it is accurate and neutral, but you have a preference for your own term. That is not how this encyclopedia works. - MishMich - Talk - 14:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What silence? And what valid sources state that "uncircumcised" is broadly considered to be offensive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MishMich, your question was "What is the problem with stating something that is accurate and neutral and uncontroversial?" Baseball Bugs et al argue that "uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral, and uncontroversial. Do you have any references to support your belief that "uncircumcised" is inaccurate, non-neutral or controversial? TFOWR 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is already lots of discussion about this, I have no intention re-hashing this. The question is "what is wrong with calling a penis that has not been circumcised a 'penis with a foreskin'"? Quite simple really - but the answer I get is that there is no problem with 'uncircumcised penis', which is not in the question. Obviously there is some problem with it - otherwise it would not be so important to editors (to keep it or remove it), and there would be consensus on it. So, still no answer then? - MishMich - Talk - 18:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors being offended by a term is not relevant. Our opinions are not "valid sources" for wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A simple diff will do, or better yet a reference showing that "uncircumcised" is inaccurate, non-neutral or controversial. In the absence of that, I'm minded to say that there is a consensus: the broad majority of editors here agree that "uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral and non-controversial, and that the editor who disagreed was unable to demonstrate a compelling case. TFOWR 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An answer to my question, not some other question I didn't ask, would be appreciated. It is not rocket science. "What is wrong with 'penis with foreskin'"?

• search = Yahoo - Google - Bing - Scholar

• penis = 156,000K - 52,500K - 523,000K - 256K
• penis foreskin = 2,650K - 6,660K - 10,100K - 10.4K
• penis -foreskin = 153,000K - 315,000K - 517,000K - 256K
• penis circumcised = 1,420K - 2,980K - 4,870K - 16.4K
• penis -circumcised = 155,000K - 317,000K - 538,000K - 243K
• penis uncircumcised = 1,090K - 4,130K - 9,280K - 4.5K
• penis -uncircumcised = 155,000K - 317,000K - 510,000K - 256K
• penis foreskin circumcised = 583K - 5,380K - 2,120K - 5.8K
• penis foreskin -circumcised = 2,090K - 5,530K - 8,100K - 6.8K
• penis foreskin uncircumcised = 327K - 4,550K - 5,280K - 2.5K
• penis foreskin -uncircumcised = 2,210K - 5,750K - 7,980K - 7.9K
• penis circumcised foreskin = 561K - 3,770K - 3,250K - 5.7K
• penis circumcised -foreskin = 869K - 2,280K - 1,640K - 11.8K
• penis uncircumcised foreskin = 327K - 1,640K - 5,410K - 2.5K
• penis uncircumcised -foreskin = 660K - 3,060K - 4,140K - 2K
• penis foreskin -circumcised -uncircumcised = 1,920K - 5,170K - 5,870K - 6K
• penis circumcised uncircumcised -foreskin = 123K - 682K - 268K - 1K
• penis circumcision uncircumcised = 301K - 3,730K - 3,880K - 6.5K
• penis circumcision -uncircumcised = 3,680K - 4,490K - 5,430K - 24K
• penis circumcision foreskin = 838K - 6,620K - 4,160K - 7.8K
• penis circumcision -foreskin = 3,240K - 4,080K - 3,400K - 22.5K
• penis circumcision circumcised = 657K - 4,420K - 2,750K - 20.5K
• penis circumcision -circumcised = 3,470K - 4,300K - 4,740K - 21K

As you can see, there is quite a discrepancy between the same searches on Yahoo, Google & Bing. It looks like Google is the one yielding odd results - for example, there are over 300 million hits for penis excluding foreskin, but just over 50 million hits for penis alone. The Yahoo & Bing results seem to make more sense, numerically, there is limited consistency between the three engines. They do seem to suggest that foreskin is more prominent than uncircumcised both in connection to the penis and circumcision. This is why I said that Google searches prove nothing. If they had any significance, they would not throw up bizarre discrepancies, and would more or less concur with other search engines. I have included Scholar, which also seems to point to 'foreskin' being better represented than 'uncircumcised'. However, without reading all the articles and establishing the context, this sheds little light on actual usage. I also said I am not going to re-hash arguments already stated. I suggest you try reading the thread, and other threads in the archive, that are relevant. I am not arguing it is derogatory, unless used to describe a person, I am saying it is innaccurate and non-neutral. I have wasted enough time on this already. - MishMich - Talk - 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An answer to my question, not some other question I didn't ask, would be appreciated. It is not rocket science. "What is wrong with 'penis with foreskin'"? What's wrong is that the consensus is to continue using "uncircumcised", as you've failed to show that "uncircumcised" is inaccurate, non-neutral or controversial. Filibustering can't go on forever: at some point we have to say drop it. It's over. I'd suggest mediation or an RFC if you want to keep arguing against "uncircumcised", but this article has to move on. TFOWR 21:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article cannot move on, because it isn't going anywhere - and a look at the archives will reveal why. It is not me who has a problem with 'uncircumcision' - but I do have a problem when people try to present this as neutral. It is as neutral as 'intact', which is not allowed for some reason - and now it seems we are not supposed to refer to a penis that has not been circumcised as a 'penis with foreskin'. I see 3-4 for 'uncircumcision' and 2-3 against. There is no consensus here on 'uncircumcision'. So, why not use 'penis with foreskin'? Nobody has made any objection to that. I know it sounds too easy - but sometimes solutions to entrenched problems are simply things we have overlooked. - MishMich - Talk - 22:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback request on consensus for 'uncircumcised'.

I'd suggest that if there's no further objection to "uncircumcised" within, say, the next 24 hours we move on. That gives editors who regard "uncircumcised" as non-neutral, or whatever, a chance to add their voice to yours. If there's a clear consensus, great, otherwise let's move to mediation or an RFC. TFOWR 22:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified three of the contributors to this thread who did not agree that this term was appropriate that you are suggesting there is a consensus, with 24 hour deadline to comment. This is made more difficult as I now see that one of them has been banned from Wikipedia for a week because of an edit war on this page. I would suggest that if you seriously want to get a sense of opinion, you make a new section, calling for input, and notify all those who have edited on this topic that their input is requested. - MishMich - Talk - 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus or not, they still need to find sourcing that demonstrates that "uncircumcised" is broadly considered to be offensive. Citing dictionary definitions doesn't cut it (pardon the expression), as that's called "original synthesis". This megillah originally turned up in WP:ANI a week or two ago, which is how I got yanked into it, and if PC-types try to impose their views on this article, it could easily go back there and find a wider audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As for StudioDan, whom you canvassed a few minutes ago, he was put on ice for a week and seems to have disappeared, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: TFOWR's statement: "The broad majority of editors here agree that "uncircumcised" is accurate, neutral, and uncontroversial" -- that is patently false. In this section I count Jakew, Jayjg, Baseball Bugs, and apparently TFOWR as agreeing, and Studiodan, Richiez, MichMich, Frank Koehler, and Blackworm as disagreeing. If we look at the last Talk archive, we could add JoshuaZ as agreeing and Exploding Boy as disagreeing. In total, that's a minority agreeing, not a "broad majority." This "ok, let's all agree there's a clear consensus for 'uncircumcised'" thread and 24 hour ultimatum is thus completely absurd.

Baseball Bugs' assertion above of "original synthesis" is similarly absurd. We ban all possible terms that could put male circumcision in a less-than-optimal light or suggest that the foreskin is actually a part of the penis rather than something "attached to" or "with" the penis (among the words banned: "mutilation," "normal," "natural," "cut off," "intact," "severed," "amputated"). The arguments banning those terms used no reliable sources at all, not even a dictionary, to show any kind of non-neutral usage.

This discussion should center around the article's current exclusive use of terms preferred by pro-circumcision advocates (including the medical profession that profits directly from it), and absolute banning of all terms preferred by those opposing circumcision, or even those that may not venerate the act enough or fail to suggest the fringe view that the foreskin is foreign to the penis like a mole, tumor, or parasite (e.g. "cut off," "severed" and "amputated" vs. "removed"). "Uncircumcised" may not be completely non-neutral, but it is controversial especially in the context of the other myriad banned words here. Blackworm (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I discounted Studiodan and Richiez as {{spa}}s who both seem to have been inactive for the past week, but if they're still about and still feel that "uncircumcised" is wrong, that's great too. The "24 hour ultimatum" is a suggestion, before we take this to WP:DR. This issue has dragged on for a long time, and already it's hit ANI (which is where I first encountered it). But if 24 hours is too short for you, how much time do you think we'd need to reach a consensus? 48 hours? 72? Or do you have an alternative suggestion for resolving this? TFOWR 07:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, no I do not. The discussion of which terms are acceptable and which aren't has dragged on much longer than you think; for years in fact. Invariably, the terms preferred by pro-circumcision advocates replace all other terms, with the claim being there is "no consensus" for anything else. Since this article was essentially re-written using these terms preferred by pro-circumcision advocates about four years ago, that de facto state cannot seem to ever be changed, since those eho prefer the exclusive use of those terms remain here tirelessly to argue for that exclusive use to this day, while others come and go. I don't know how many editors you need to overrule a "consensus" held by four or five editors who watch this article daily, but I've never seen enough other editors here. In any case, it is clear from this and many prior discussions that no consensus on the neutraility of terms exist, and thus this article should be flagged with POV-disputed tag, indefinitely if necessary, to indicate to the reader that editors do not agree that it's NPOV. This unfortunately is also banned by the editors preferring the terms preferred by circumcision advocates -- these editors deny that this entire dispute even exists (which I claim demonstrates incredible hubris). As far as I know, there is no mechanism in Wikipedia to address this (or maybe I simply have not seen it at work, but then it's been going on for at least four years without end in sight). Blackworm (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a mechanism to address this and issues like this: it involves taking the issue to dispute resolution. If this is, as you claim, a POV issue then I'd suggest the NPOV noticeboard would be a good first start to draw more editors into the discussion. The other WP:DR fora I suggested earlier are also appropriate venues. Indeed, I'd suggest that any mechanism which draws more editors is a positive move. TFOWR 07:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC has been tried, and it generally results in few outside editors commenting, and no consensus coming out of the discussion. Thus the de facto consensus from four years ago remains in the article. I don't object to trying it again, or the other avenues you suggest, however. Thank you for your interest in resolving the dispute, I hope you have more luck than those who have tried in the past. This is such a polarizing topic, with so many preconceived opinions of the topic, that it seems that especially in outside discussions NPOV gets thrown out the window with wild, unsupported claims; so please forgive my pessimism. One mechanism that serves not only to inform the reader that the article is disputed, but also to draw in more editors is the POV tag -- which as I said, is resisted by the editors who have the article written the way they prefer. Blackworm (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RfCs tend to be quite broad; NPOVN is more focussed in some respects. I'd still be keen to wait a day or so, but if everyone's happy with WP:DR I'd suggest we make a short post detailing the issue. Something like:

The term "uncircumcised" has drawn criticism at Talk:Circumcision. Editors are unable to agree as to whether or not it is a neutral term. The arguments advanced for and against this view are: [brief summary describing why "uncircumcised" is not neautral] and [brief summary describing why "uncircumcised" is neutral]

Waiting a day or two gives us a chance to fill in the two gaps above, which I'd suggest we do in the new sub-sub-sections below (I'd also suggest that the two sections below should be used simply to summarise: argue elsewhere! ;-). TFOWR 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And what about the terms "intact," "non-circumcised," "natural," and "normal?" That's the whole point of the dispute; not just whether "uncircumcised" is non-neutral, but whether the prior terms must all be replaced with "uncircumcised" due to their non-neutrality (or other reasons). Blackworm (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the status quo is OK, it's OK. If it's not, we move on and consider an alternative. I don't see any need to bombard NPOVN with multiple issues immediately when we can potentially deal with the issue with a minimum of drama. TFOWR 08:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Intact" and "normal" are ambiguous, and "natural" is kind of vague also. "Non-circumcised" is a word apparently coined by wikipedia editors, and which if it were a real word would be a synonym of "uncircumcised". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is still a lack of valid sourcing that "uncircumcised" is somehow non-neutral or offensive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the "status quo" is the banning of all terms except the one that also has a pejorative meaning. That is the only issue, ONE issue, and whether some other issue is "ok" or not is irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

...but most editors here don't accept that "uncircumcised" is pejorative. Hence the move to WP:NPOVN - to determine whether "uncircumcised" is a neutral, acceptable term. TFOWR 10:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a non-sequitur, exactly like the non-sequitur that concludes that if "uncircumcised" (which also means "heathen," a fact that cannot be ignored) can be neutral enough despite the pejorative secondary meaning, therefore all other terms can and must be replaced with it regardless of their level of neutrality. We do not send cases to NPOVN because "most" editors lean one way in the case. Yours is a misleading, biased, incomplete statement of the dispute, from someone firmly on one side of the dispute, and you made the statement on NPOVN ignoring the objections from the other side about your statement of the dispute. How could one expect a fair outcome from that -- and moreover, what good is a consensus there when it will not resolve the issue (of the banned terms "intact", "natural," "normal," "non-circumcised," etc.)? Why is Studiodan not allowed to point to the dictionary and thus label "uncircumcised" as POV without drawing huge criticism and comment, but Jakew is allowed to label all other terms used in reliable sources POV without any evidence at all, drawing the sound of crickets from all those who oppose Studiodan? Blackworm (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing a dictionary's secondary, and obsolete, definition of a term does not make that term itself pejorative. To claim so is what's known in wikipedia terms as "original synthesis". You need to find sourcing that "uncircumcised" is broadly considered to be a pejorative term. No one has produced any such citations so far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please bring reliable sources to back up your claim that the definition is obsolete, or strike out your statement above. As stated earlier, dictionaries list obsolete meanings with "obsolete" (e.g., siege) and this is not the case with uncircumcised's listed meaning of spiritually impure, or heathen.[10] A definition in a dictionary (indeed several dictionaries, if one were to look further) is indeed sourcing that "uncircumcised" has a pejorative meaning. Blackworm (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"2. ARCHAIC heathen."Webster's New World College Dictionary, quoted at yourdictionary.com. "ARCHAIC irreligious or heathen."The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, quoted at encyclopaedia.com. "ARCHAIC irreligious or heathen."Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th edition, quoted by diclib.com. But whether that meaning is archaic is beside the point, since a) penes don't have religious convictions, so it obviously doesn't apply, and b) the article is about the surgical procedure, so one would have to be truly perverse to interpret the word in such a way. Jakew (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC) (edited 10:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

So it seems both points of view are reliably sourced, and that there is no consensus in sources as to whether it's an obsolete meaning. As I said, I've heard people use it that way in direct speech. Regarding your a), obviously we also discuss non-circumcised males (who are not necessarily uncircumcised in the unclean sense of the word), and regarding b), taken further that's like suggesting that a psychology article referring to an "idiot" is actually just talking about someone with a low IQ, since that is the primary meaning. Blackworm (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, only one "POV" is reliably sourced, and there's a clear consensus that "heathen" is an archaic and obsolete meaning for uncircumcised. That's also why it's not actually used that way in any modern reliable sources. Your personal experiences are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One dictionary that lists obsolete meanings and fails to list the meaning of "uncircumcised" (heathen) as obsolete is a reliable sourcing for the POV that it is not obsolete. Your claims about it "not actually used that way," on the other hand, are as ridiculous[11] as they are original research. Blackworm (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in this ever-expanding megillah there was something about someone calling someone else an "uncircumcised dog". That was being touted as evidence that uncircumcised is inherently pejorative. However, if that be true, then so must be "dog". Yet it's not, in general. It's only when someone decides to use it that way. There are lots of words that can be used as insults if someone wants to. That doesn't make the word itself a POV term. It's only POV when used specifically as a putdown. This article doesn't use it as a putdown, it's merely descriptive of a condition. The term is not inherently a putdown, even though you dearly want it to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackworm, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Failing to state that a sense is archaic is not usually the same as stating that it is not archaic (though an exception to this might exist if the publishers of the dictionary included a guarantee that all archaic senses were labelled as such). Jakew (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Complete silliness, wasting my time again. "When an italicized label or guide phrase follows a boldface letter, the label or phrase applies only to that specific lettered sense and its subsenses. It does not apply to any other boldface lettered senses:" [12] Blackworm (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how and why you believe this quotation is relevant? Also, please review WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You please review WP:CIVIL, which states, "Other uncivil behaviors: Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves; [...]."

Clearly if it doesn't apply between senses, it doesn't apply to entries lacking the phrase altogether. But that's clearly obvious obvious in a formal reference work such as a dictionary, which one would presumably rely on to avoid employing an obsolete usage. See also [13]. Blackworm (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If any baiting has taken place then I'm afraid I haven't noticed. And since it appears from your explanation that the quotation is actually irrelevant, I wonder why you included it. Jakew (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I view your comments as incivil denial of relevant facts without substantial argument. Blackworm (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit heavy, i.e. I don't get what code you all are talking. I do know this though: There is no such word as "incivil". :) Meanwhile, how about answering my previous question: if someone uses the expression "uncircumcised dog", how is "uncircumcised" any more of a pejorative in that context than "dog" is? I don't think we ban the word "dog" from wikipedia just because someone decides to use it as an insult sometimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not actually ban words even if they are used in a derogatory way - we have articles about that. For example, we have an article on Nigger. We also have a page devoted to slang and derogatory terms related to homosexuality. Perhaps a way forward would be to have a page on Uncircumcised, instead of using it as a redirect to this page; there should be plenty of detail lodged in this discussion that would warrant a similar treatment to cover the derogatory, archaic, and other non-personal uses. Then we could could wikilink any usage here with the page devoted to the term. - MishMich - Talk - 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that "uncircumcised" is light years away from the N-word. "Uncircumcised" is neutral except in the minds of a few. The N-word is nearly always highly offensive. A separate page called "uncircumcision" is NOT a good idea. That's called a "POV content fork", which is often used as a way to try to build an "opposing view" article, and that's not how things are done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not by the sound of it. If this is a term that is used in a derogatory way by Muslims to refer to infidels, then that is not light years away from nigger, Paki or Yid. That is a bit like saying Nigger is derogatory, but Honky is not, as that only refers to white people. Nigger is rarely used by white people these days, and when it is, it is by a very small racist element. You will find little reference to it outside of academic papers and right-wing propaganda. As I said quite clearly (although I know you don't usually respond to what I write, but what you think I write), the page would cover the derogatory (Muslim), archaic (Jewish), and non-personal (i.e., non-derogatory use applied to things rather than people) uses. Given the misunderstandings you and others appear to have, I'd say this is not desirable, but essential. - MishMich - Talk - 22:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Honky" is nothing compared to the N-word. "Honky" is lame. "Redneck" is probably worse than "Honky", but neither one is much of an insult. (I'm a white guy, FYI). The reason you seldom hear the N-word out loud is because of the power it has... an evil power, for the most part. And I'm still waiting for an answer to this one: in "uncircumcised dog", why is the "circumcised" part any worse than the "dog" part? You don't need an article on this narrow-focused topic. The only purpose of such an article would be to try to give false notability to this thing whose primary usage merely describes a condition accurately. POV-forks are not good. The thing is, anyone can use anything as an insult. Someone might call me a Yank and think they're insulting me. That means I'm an American and they're jealous of it. It's not an insult, it's a badge of honor. Academic papers? I guess you've never seen Blazing Saddles or Pulp Fiction to name a couple. As regards Muslims, some of them have all kinds of insulting things to say about non-Muslims. And vice-versa. Why is this one "insult" anything special? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because 'dog' in itself is not derogatory. Think of fat. If I say so and so-and-so is a cunt, that is using cunt in a derogatory way. If I say so-and-so is a fat cunt, then fat is used as an adjective qualifying what sort of cunt so-and-so is, so is derogatory too. I can call somebody 'fat' or a 'dog', and that is derogatory, but these words are not always derogatory in their own right. It depends on the context. So, with uncircumcised, when used to describe a person, it sounds like that is usually derogatory. Not when describing a penis. I'm not sure what you mean by condition - being uncircumcised is not a medical condition, or a human condition. The condition is having a penis that is not circumcised - not being uncircumcised; a person is not circumcised, their penis is. Circumcision may be part of some groups' identity - but being uncircumcised is not an identity. If you can cite examples where uncircumcised is used to describe a group or individuals in a way that is not derogatory, I'd be pleased to see it. I have to be honest, I have never come across uncircumcised used to refer to a person in my life - only to a penis. This is why I think that it would be better to have a page for 'uncircumcised', where people could bring their sources, and establish an accurate and neutral treatment of the subject - rather than weighing down a talk page about a different topic, circumcision. - MishMich - Talk - 05:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Uncircumcised" by itself is not derogatory either. But like "dog" and "fat", it's possible to use it in a derogatory way. That doesn't mean it merits an article. When my father was giving me the "facts of life" talk, he mentioned "you were circumcised". That wasn't derogatory, it was factual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In principle, it could be possible to have an article about the word "uncircumcised" that isn't a POV fork, as long as the subject is clearly distinct from this article, such as if it solely discussed terminology rather than aspects of circumcision. But the standard test on Wikipedia for that is the general notability guideline. Namely, has the word "uncircumcised" received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? I have to say, I find it very unlikely that an article is warranted. Jakew (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jake, I'm raising this as a possibility - and it would not be related to the use of the term, if there is enough notability - not this page. Bugs, your father sitting you down and telling you that you were circumcised is not the same. First, would a father say "you were uncircumcised"? I doubt it. He might mention "you were not circumcised", or "your penis is uncircumcised", but he would not refer to something that never happened as if it was a historical event. You were circumcised, somebody who was not was not uncircumcised. A father might not even think it worth mentioning about something that didn't happen, just because it happens to some people. Second - nobody is saying that calling somebody is circumcised is derogatory, so why try to refute that? I have never heard of anybody calling somebody circumcised in a derogatory way. - MishMich - Talk - 11:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done a preliminary search, and while lots of references do come up to 'uncircumcised' as derogatory, this is usually not in English - it is derogatory in places in Africa, the Far East, the Middle East, etc., but using a word for 'uncircumcised' in the local language. Thinking about this, it makes sense, as in English culture there has been no cult of circumcision, so the only significance of the word would be with people who were involved in a circumcision cult settling here - or when England colonised countries in which such a cult thrived. The references in English seem to go back to the Bible, where uncircumcised is usually used in a derogatory way, that would also be a translation of Hebrew or Greek words for uncircumcised. However, until the Reformation, the Bible was only accessible in Latin, so it is hard to see how a minority group in this country could establish 'uncircumcised' as a slur in the English language. The same would apply to Islam as well; the more I think about it, the example of 'uncircumcised dog' sounds like something that would have been uttered in Urdu, Farsi or Arabic, and not said in English. Do we know whether British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan have been subjected to such remarks in English? So, I don't know where that leaves this. Whether such a page would cover derogatory words for uncircumcised or what. I know there is such a page here for derogatory & slang words for homosexual - but I am not sure I like it very much, and have done my best to remove anything that isn't in English and properly sourced. - MishMich - Talk - 12:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, and as a consequence of that we need secondary sources from which to draw. As a consequence of that, the most important question for any given topic is, "has this topic received attention in reliable secondary sources?" If it has, then there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on it. If it hasn't, we shouldn't. Regarding derogatory terms for "homosexual", I'm fairly sure that these do exist — I vaguely recall reading a very interesting scholarly article on the changing meaning over time of the term "queer", for example, so I think it is clear that the topic has received some scholarly attention. Returning to the subject, with the exception of the NOCIRC conference & NORM website, neither of which are reliable sources, I don't recall reading any secondary sources on the subject of pejorative senses of "uncircumcised" — at best we have primary sources that some editors interpret as pejorative. So I am not presently convinced that the subject has received enough attention in secondary RS to be notable. Jakew (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall reading any secondary sources on the subject of pejorative senses of "uncircumcised". And that's what WP:NPOVN said when we raised the issue there. So I'm a little surprised that this discussion is continuing. It's time to drop the WP:STICK and move on. TFOWR 12:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is non-neutral

I do not have strong feelings about this myself, although I do have issues about promoting words as being a sole form of reference when there are neutral alternatives. This is particularly the case when its use draws editing that can end up disruptive on occasions, because people find it offensive. I regard it as non-neutral, because it uses a word th refer to something that is connected with the procedure the word is derived from. People with foreskins have not been circumcised, and to describe their penis as 'uncircumcised' implies that circumcision is the norm, and a penis that has not been circumcised is deficient, it can be interpreted as 'non-circumcised', or as lacking circumcision. We do not describe the arm of somebody without a tattoo as an 'untattooed' arm, simply as an arm. We could refer to penises that have not been circumcised as what they are, a 'penis with foreskin', rather than what they are not - which is what 'uncircumcised penis' is doing.

More recent policy statements outside the US, such as the The Dutch KNMG, do not use 'uncircumcised' in their recent policy statement (2010). This is the most recent such statement available to us, Most of the statements cited from the US are about ten years old, so use language that was deemed unproblematic a decade ago. The BMA's statement "The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors" also avoids the term (2006). This suggests that in some countries there is a move away from the use of the term 'uncircumcised'.

Groups opposed to infant circumcision have also substituted other words to replace 'uncircumcised'. because the word is seen as offensive. Elizabeth Noble at the 2nd International Symposium on Circumcision, said: "We must stop using the word uncircumcised, which suggests that circumcision is normal. [...] Defining an intact male as uncircumcised is like defining an intact woman as 'unclitoridectomized.'" The Southern California branch of NORM states: "Term [uncircumcised] commonly substituted for the correct description of the normal condition of the penis: intact. Obviously pejorative if compared to analogous terms such as 'unmastectomized', 'unappendectomized', and 'unclitoridectomized'". They point out that it is "Also used somewhat tongue-in-cheek but descriptively by restoring men in reference to a circumcised penis that has undergone foreskin restoration." Groups involved in lobbying governments and public education are often the first to highlight language that can cause offense and needs to be avoided. Both the use by groups advocating alternatives to circumcision, and the omission in recent statements by prestigious national medical associations, indicate that the terms is not universally acceptable, and in this light, persisting in its use represents a leaning towards a particular POV, which this encyclopedia needs to protect itself from. - MishMich - Talk - 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOVN: brief summary describing why some editors feel "uncircumcised" is neutral

• It is somewhat bizarre to find oneself defending the neutrality of the word "uncircumcised", like defending that of the word "penis". Consequently, my argument must consist largely of a response to that of Mish.
• Let us consider the context of this discussion. In the circumcision article two images are displayed to illustrate the differences between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis. The word "uncircumcised" is used in the caption to the latter. To state the obvious, the word "uncircumcised" means "not circumcised".[14] The argument that we should avoid describing "what [a penis is] not" is fundamentally flawed in this context: the whole point of displaying the image is to show what a penis that hasn't been circumcised looks like, for comparison. In other words, the fact that it hasn't been circumcised is precisely the fact that we wish to highlight. It does not imply that circumcision is the norm, that an uncircumcised penis is deficient or "lacking" — if that were the case then the word "unambiguous" would surely have similar implications.
• Regarding policy statements, it is fundamentally illogical to base an argument on words that aren't present in a source. For example, neither source uses the word "scalpel", so should we interpret that as a "move away from" the use of that term, or as "avoidance" of it? Of course not — such an interpretation would be absurd. Moreover, it seems particularly unwise to rely upon the language used in the statement from Holland, since English is not the native language of that country. Finally, cherry-picking is a poor basis for an argument: policy statements by the American Urological Association (2007)[15] and the World Health Organisation (2007)[16] do use the word "uncircumcised".
• Regarding activist groups, it seems safe to say that such groups have an interest, not so much in identifying offensive words, but rather in identifying words that are inconsistent with their agenda. I have no doubt that replacing "uncircumcised" with POV language such as "normal", "natural", or "intact" would serve that agenda well, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for activism, and must not be used in such a way. Jakew (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on NPOVN statements

Regarding the anti-un arguments presented by MishMich:

• The prefix "un-" doesn't imply that anything is the norm. To take your example, I have absolutely no problem saying I am untattooed, and that sounds more natural to me than "nontattooed."
• Neither Dutch KNMG nor the BMA that you mention use the term "non-circumcised" either. The KNMG does have a reference to a scholarly article titled " Falling incidence of penis cancer in an uncircumcised population " The reference isn't American, undermining your claim that "uncircumsized" is culturally biased.
• The comparisons to "unclitoridectomized" etc. make no sense to me because we don't usually say "nonclitoridectomized" either. If there were a context that made such terminology relevant, I would have no problem with the "un-" version.

If it is true that "uncircumcised" is predominantly American, and "non-circumcised" is predominant everywhere else, that's a good argument to change the term. You haven't presented any evidence that that's the case. Mostly, the whole thing seems unimportant, or if you insist, nonimportant, and I wonder why people aren't working on something more productive. Noloop (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN: it is done

 Done here. Can I encourage everyone to keep comments on this page? I've directed the NPOVN folk here, and I believe my post there is as bland-as-bland-can-be, so we should be able to keep their board's watchlist free from further activity. TFOWR 11:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean, until we must present the other side of the dispute, that is whether "normal," (as used for years without incident in the female genital cutting article), "natural," and "intact," are neutral? Blackworm (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you don't feel you can do that here, by all means do it there. TFOWR 09:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrapping up

This has been at WP:NPOVN for a couple of days now, and none of the other regulars have commented further beyond Itsmejudith's comment: Not enough voices yet to say that "uncircumcised" is problematic. One person at a conference and an organisation avoiding it in a report doesn't indicate that the English language has changed. It might do in future though. appears to meet with broad support from regulars at that board.

This is an emerging issue, and I can personally believe that in a few years "uncircumcised" will have become widely deprecated. That is not currently the case, however, and for Wikipedia to deprecate "uncircumcised" while the wider world does not would be to give undue weight to what is - currently - a minority position.

So... in summary, we continue to use "uncircumcised" to reflect its usage in wider society, until such time as society-at-large changes. TFOWR 09:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Edited, re-signed. Apologies to Noloop, Slatersteven and Dailycare for missing you all out. I am an idiot. TFOWR 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Good summary and wrapup. Wikipedia is not a tool for language change -- especially language change for political and social reasons. To do so would be inconsistent with NPOV. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for arriving to the party late, this happened so fast. Considering the lack of evidence you mention, I wish to add some now. Mondofacto, an online medical/science dictionary says:

• Circumcision: The surgical removal of end of the prepuce of the penis.
• Uncircumcision: The absence or want of circumcision. (Note that ‘want’ hints a personal or cultural desire)
• Natural: Fixed or determined by nature; pertaining to the constitution of a thing; belonging to native character; according to nature; essential; characteristic; not artificial, foreign, assumed, put on, or acquired…
• Normal: (no search result found)
• Restore: To renew, rebuild, or reconstruct to a former state.
• Intact: Of a living body or its parts: physically and functionally complete: having no relevant component removed or destroyed.

My original preference was to use the opposing terms: circumcision and normal, since any word prefixed by "un-" is biased. But now, having done this search, I’ve changed my mind. Medically speaking, as you can see, the terminology is: circumcised and intact. Frank Koehler (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't that we can't find dictionary definitions; the issue, rather, is that which I note above: "uncircumcised" is not generally regarded as controversial. There is some evidence that this view may be changing, but insufficient evidence to justify deprecating "uncircumcised" here, at this time. TFOWR 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring: marginalisation of the "uncircumcised"

This is an interesting paper, [17] on the marginalisation of uncircumcised males amongst the Xhosa, and references to them as 'dogs'. It is the state of not being circumcised that gives rise to the use of other derogatory terms, though. - MishMich - Talk - 13:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I imagine the use of the word "uncircumcised" is rather rare among the Xhosa. I notice you use the term yourself, however. Given that's a subscription-only archive, could you please excerpt a bit here so we could see the point you're trying to make? Are we still discussing the use in this article in the English Wikipedia of the term "uncircumcised"? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact the activists are having to scratch around to try to find evidence in support of their claims says a lot about its notability, or lack thereof. If you search for the "N-word" being offensive, you will likely find more references than you can count. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Better examples are "Negro" and "colored people". At one time both were not considered offensive, but they are now. The United Negro College Fund and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are respected organizations, but using "Negro" or "colored people" to refer to an African American is now considered offensive. - DanBlackham (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in the way that the "N-word" is, nowhere close. Rather they are considered old-fashioned or obsolete, and are used only in specific contexts, for example Negro League Baseball. Similar to the term "Redskins", which is now only used to refer to the Washington, DC, NFL team. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was the word "uncircumcised" is closer in terms of inappropriateness to the words "Negro" and "colored person" than the "N-word". If someone used Negro to describe an African American person in a Wikipedia article, it would be inappropriate. - DanBlackham (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When you read what other people write, Bugs, I'll respond to your taunts.

Sure, I used the word - as I have said, I don't have an issue with it particularly, but I try to be sensitive to those who do. However, the article I referred to uses it a lot - and I did it unthinkingly. What I found out confirmed what I already said - in South Africa, the Xhosa, as well as people in Malawi and Kenya, have non-English derogatory words for uncircumcised - and it is the state of being uncircumcised that draws derogatory comments. From what I can see, using Google Scholar, the main derogatory use of the English word 'uncircumcised' is linked to translation of semitic words in the Bible. I still think it is fertile ground, as there is quite a bit of information about prejudice against people who are not circumcised in cultures that have circumcision cults, mainly in Africa and the Phillipines. - MishMich - Talk - 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we've finished discussing the word "uncircumcised" itself now. It's clear that we need to make a distinction between the concept and the term, and non-English words can tell us little about the English term itself. If you think it would be productive to start a discussion about prejudice against persons by circumcision status, may I suggest starting a new section for that discussion? Jakew (talk) 09:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have refactored this aspect of the discussion, to a new section, although this discussion ought to go on the talk page of the new article it pertains to, if and when that page is established. - MishMich - Talk - 12:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding an extract from the paper cited, deciding what to copy is a bit arbitrary, but:

• In this article we examine the social pressures and marginalization reported by the participants through the concept of stigma. We argue that uncircumcised Xhosa men are indeed stigmatized, even though they bear no visible attribute or mark that distinguishes them from the rest of society. In fact, it could be argued that in this case the stigmatizers are the individuals carrying marks, as they are the ones whose bodies differ from the original state. Nevertheless, we intend to show that according to Link and Phelan (2001) and Link, Yang, Phelan, and Collins’ (2004) definition of stigma, the marginalization and ostracism of uninitiated Xhosa males is a result of severe stigmatization. Link and Phelan’s definition of stigma includes the following six elements: (a) people distinguish and label human differences; (b) dominant cultural beliefs link labeled persons to undesirable characteristics (stereotypes); (c) labeled persons are placed in distinct categories so as to accomplish some degree of separation of “us” from “them”; (d) emotional reactions are present from both the stigmatized and stigmatizers; (e) labeled persons experience the loss of status and discrimination that lead to unequal outcomes; and (f) stigmatization is entirely contingent to access to social, economic, and political power (Link & Phelan, 2001; Link et al., 2004).
• The assignment of labels to human differences is the first step toward stigmatization. Although most of the visible human differences in the Xhosa culture are ignored, a great amount of attention is paid to the invisible circumcision status of adult males. Individuals are categorized into two categories: circumcised or uncircumcised. These socially created categories are taken for granted, as it is believed that men should be circumcised; in the emic sense, it is just the way things naturally should be. Therefore, uncircumcised adult males are labeled as boys, to distinguish them from men. These negative cultural beliefs or stereotypes link persons who are being given labels to undesirable characteristics. Uncircumcised adult Xhosa males are labeled as boys, which link them to culturally constructed stereotypes about adolescence. Therefore, they are believed to be immature, irresponsible, and not ready for family, tribal, and social affairs. Moreover, some of the stereotypes include laziness and dishonesty. As a result, uninitiated men are often accused of being thieves and liars. They are also stigmatized by women because they are not considered to be ready for adult relationships. (How Boys Become Dogs: Stigmatization and Marginalization of Uninitiated Xhosa Males in East London, South Africa;

Thandisizwe R. Mavundla, Fulufhelo G. Netswera, Ferenc Toth, Brian Bottoman, and Stembele Tenge; Qualitative Health Research XX(X) 1–11; Sage Journals, April 2010).

- MishMich - Talk - 23:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, as there is no consensus supporting a move. Arguments on both sides based off discussion about common usage and primary topics, and there is certainly no agreement among the community that the suggested new name would be better than the current situation, as navigation is still easy for the user thanks to the hatnote. Taelus (Talk) 09:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Circumcision → Male circumcision — Do I really need to spell it out? The current article contents only cover part of the topic indicated by the title. In anticipation of one possible but fallacious objection, Latin Wikipedia is an excellent project, but this isn't it. FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per per WP:TITLE and WP:UCN. The common term for "male circumcision" is simply circumcision. "Circumcision" gets 4.93 million google hits, the vast majority of them about circumcising the penis. Searching for "circumcision" on pages that don't have the word "male" yields 4.16 million google hits. "male circumcision" gets only 350,000 google hits. There's simply no comparison; circumcision alone is at least 12 times common. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, circumcision is very commonly used as a shorthand for male circumcision. That doesn't make it an encyclopaedic title, but an example of systematic bias. Per WP:PRECISION, male circumcision can take the title "circumcision" only if it is the primary topic, but that would be a significant judgement call to make, IMO.--FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION, and the results above, it's pretty clear that it is the primary topic, and the common name. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is that having an article on male circumcision is "vital to the encyclopedia" whereas having one on female circumcision is not (per the criteria in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). Question mark? --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, I said nothing like that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is an article on female circumcision, however it's title reflects its more usual name. TFOWR 00:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. This article purports to cover a wider topic area that it actually does and appears to marginalise the existence of female circumcision. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

True female circumcision is a rarity. Calling it "male circumcision" is redundant. It's like saying "female lesbian". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that the Latinate fallacy I referred to above? --FormerIP (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say, since I don't know what you mean by it. "Circumcision" is predominantly done to males. Saying "male circumcision" is redundant. Anytime it's done to females, it's called "female circumcision", which points up its rarity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be understood that Wikipedia is not a tool for language change. We reflect common usage; we don't try to change it. At present, the unadorned word "circumcision", as commonly used, almost invariably means "removal of the penile foreskin". Maybe that's wrong. Maybe it ought to mean "female genital cutting or penile circumcision". But that's not how the word is typically used, as a Google search will verify. Jakew (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that FormerIP is talking more about what Baseball Bug's refers to as the "rare" concept of true female circumcision. I had no idea that that existed until this thread was started, so I feel that FormerIP may have a point (assuming my assumption about FormerIP's point is correct), and that a mention of the concept in this article may be warranted (with due deference to WP:UNDUE).

Per WP:COMMONNAME I would oppose any attempt to relabel female genital cutting as "circumcision", however. TFOWR 09:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We do include a mention, in the disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article: "This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting." This approach is recommended by Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We do, but as I understand it - and this is new to me - there's FGC and there's also "true female circumcision": not cutting, which is sadly quite common, but the rarity that Baseball Bugs mentions. I do not believe that FGC should be included here, hence my italicised oppose above, but I'm open to including "true female circumcision" here (which would make the requested move moot). TFOWR 09:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is "true female circumcision", and how on earth is it performed without cutting (isn't that a contradiction in terms)? I'm perplexed by this; I have been studying the issue of circumcision (which occasionally involves FGC) for more than seven years, and I've only ever seen the term FC used as a euphemism for some or all types of FGC. I have never seen it used to describe something that isn't a form of FGC, and would like to understand what that something is. Jakew (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know! I'll need to defer to Baseball Bugs and FormerIP to answer that one. I assume - if it exists - it does involve "cutting", so apologies for the lack of clarity there: I was using "cutting" as shorthand for "female genital cutting". In hindsight I should have used "FGC" instead. TFOWR 09:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And you thought all I knew anything about was G-rated entertainment. :) When I say "true" female circumcision, I mean simply removal of the clitoral hood, which would be the exact equivalent of what's done to males. I think that is sometimes done, but it's rare. Unfortunately, the term "female circumcision" has been used ignorantly, as a synonym for a "clitorectomy", whose male equivalent would be to be "Bobbitted", not just circumcised. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, removal of the clitoral hood is technically known as "clitoridotomy" (as opposed to clitoridectomy), and is Type I FGC. As a (somewhat OR-ish) aside, it's not an exact equivalent of penile circumcision, and there cannot be an exact equivalent — the anatomy differs, so the consequences differ, and so on. But it's probably the most similar form of FGC. Jakew (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Baseball Bugs and Jakew. In that case I believe the existing link to the FGC article is sufficient, and expansion of this article is unwarranted. TFOWR 10:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This one-sided "clarification" is a bunch of WP:OR and extremely dubious assertions (e.g., "[...] I've only ever seen the term FC used as a euphemism for some or all types of FGC."). "True female circumcision" is a phrase seemingly invented in this discussion. Female circumcision is the circumcision of females. Check a dictionary, or something. Blackworm (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcision is the circumcision of females. Quite. The term "Female circumcision" is an alternative, lesser used term, for "female genital mutilation". I did think there might be some valid reason to use the term "female circumcision" apart from referring to female genital mutilation. It turns out there isn't. TFOWR 07:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you asserting that "true female circumcision" is not mutilation? That line of thinking seems out of place in this discussion. You have asserted that "female genital cutting" is its more usual name. It is not, as evidenced by Google searches well documented in discussions on that article's talk page.[18][19][20] Please strike out those claims. As Jakew and I clearly state below, that name is used due to neutrality issues. The neutrality issue with this article name is very much related; in fact it is the same issue. Blackworm (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And obviously, Jayjg's search methods are flawed in that pages with "circumcision" and without "male" may indeed be discussing female circumcision. Everyone opposing "per Jayjg" would seemingly also do well to comment on that obvious fact, lest their opposition seem weak, unfounded, blind, and automatic. Blackworm (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

One only has to examine the results to see that the overwhelming majority of results clearly refer to penile circumcision. Jakew (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you examined the results? Or just the top results? In a culture where only males are circumcised, it shouldn't be surprising that most of the top entries refer to male circumcision. Even then, many of the top results do not, and certainly not at the ratio implied by Jayjg, hence my objection. Here are some numbers from the last time Google searches were properly done: There are a good number of pages 9,080 containing both the phrases "male circumcision" and "female circumcision." If we subtract the two qualified occurrences ("male circumcision", 1,170,000 and "female circumcision" 617,000 [both with quotes for exact phrase match]) from all qualified and non-qualified occurrences (4,130,000), and re-add one set of occurrences previously included in both singly-gender qualified sets and which were subtracted twice (9,080), one obtains the correct 2,352,080 non-qualified occurrences, and (4,130,000 - 2,352,080 = ) 1,777,920 gender-qualified occurences. Blackworm (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I haven't examined every result, but I have examined a sufficient number to be convinced that "circumcision" is commonly used to mean removal of the penile foreskin. Jakew (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If you read the thread you'll see that I thought that it might not be female genital multilation, but that I now understand it is just a type of female genital mutilation. TFOWR 09:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like male circumcision is male genital mutilation! You got it. Neutrality. You'll be changing your !vote to support? Or, is it the "whether it's mutilation or not" aspect that you're voting on? Blackworm (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't be changing my !vote. I thought there might be an argument that there there was "something" not covered by "female genital mutilation". That wasn't the case. So I'm sticking to the WP:COMMONNAME - "circumcision" for males, since the female equivalent is adequately covered by the existing article. TFOWR 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's like agreeing that having an article called "male mammary cancer" and then implying that all breast cancer is female in the breast cancer article is correct per UCN, since most sources talking about breast cancer are referring to women. Blackworm (talk) 23:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose based on common names rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per common usage (see User:Jayjg's arguments above). Has anything changed since the last round of move requests? — AjaxSmack 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per common usage. In general English writing, "circumcision" indicates male circumcision. Discussions of FGM may use "circumcision" but always clarified at the first mention. --Danger (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Kaldari (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the last few times this was raised, rebutted by the cogent arguments there and above. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Female circumcision is known of. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayjg. Also, as others have noted, nothing has changed since the last time this was proposed, where detailed explanations were supplied as to why such a move is inadvisable. Jakew (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I was astonished to find Female circumcision at Female genital cutting. The common term (as shown by an advanced Google search excluding Wikipedia and the opposite term) for that is Female circumcision. That being the case, an article on Circumcision that only deals with Male circumcision is a complete misnomer. The idea of Female circumcision may be new to some editors, but for countries where large African and Middle Eastern immigrant populations form a significant proportion of the population, it is a significant news topic and issue. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you show us the Google search parameters that got you this result? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • They're given above. To clarify, Google UK Advanced Search in English for the exact term female circumcision excluding female genital cutting and Wikipedia gives 339,000 hits; for the exact term female genital cutting excluding female circumcision and Wikipedia gives 52,900 hits. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The name of another article is really off-topic here, but you might find this helpful. Jakew (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, it's a misuse of the term, by those apparently ignorant of female anatomy. "Mutilation" is also used frequently, and which frankly understates the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Until today/yesterday I'd not actually heard the "female genital cutting" - I'd always heard the (admittedly not very neutral...) term "female genital mutilation". Google has the following results for the three phrases:
      1. "Female circumcision": 380,000
      2. "Female genital cutting": 83,000
      3. "Female genital mutilation": 770,000
    • TFOWR 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Avi.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. In case it wasn't already obvious. Per, well, per most of the above. TFOWR 20:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support.Neutral Although Female circumcision is a problematic term used for Female genital mutilation, it would not hurt to have this specificity clarified the page title, as it is about Male circumcision. - MishMich - Talk - 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The term "male circumcision" is a redundancy. It's like "female lesbian". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be logical only if there were a widely-used term "male lesbian". --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Since you're not familiar with that one, let me give you a more common (and vulgar) redundancy, that I've often heard, and also seen on wikipedia when somebody gets mad at an admin or something: "gay faggot". Would you have that as a standalone expression? Of course not. Circumcision is primarily done to males. Nobody calls it "male circumcision". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself on the female lesbian thing - saying the same thing twice does give it more weight. Instead, focus on the matter at hand - that female circumcision is used, and here it is a redirect to FGM, and clearly male circumcision is used, and serves as a redirect to this article. If it were redundant, there would be no need for the redirect. Female lesbian is different, as being a lesbian is by definition restricted to females, whereas circumcision is used for certain female as well as male procedures; we may feel that is an erroneous use, but it is used that way, and we are not concerned with what is right, wrong, true or false - only what is. Female circumcision and Male circumcision are recognized in the encyclopedia as terms people will search for, and redirected to pages with content; female lesbian does not redirect to any page, because there is no point. - MishMich - Talk - 12:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There are more "male lesbians" than you might think. Regardless, maybe a better analogy is contained in the film title Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo. They wanted something that would sound more rhythmic, but "male gigolo" is a redundancy as it refers to men, and gigolo redirects to an article on male prostitution, where the "male" distinction is needed because "prostitution" unqualified means women. Just as "circumcision" unqualified means men. Common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The first comment makes no sense, as a male cannot be a lesbian (as lesbians are female) other than in male fantasies (which presumably why you made the assertion without offering any support for it). I agree, the way prostitution is arranged is poor. It should have a top level article on prostitution, with lower level articles on male and female prostitution. However, that is a different article. I take it by common usage you mean that as it is primarily heterosexual men who use prostitutes, and who tend to perceive prostitution as a female occupation, rarely thinking about rent-boys, etc.? Not sure that is a very powerful argument.

I have revised my vote to neutral. I do not think it would hurt to rename as 'male circumcision', but looking at the ICD-9/10 codes, it appears that circumcision on its own is not qualified with male there, and is located alongside other non-medical procedures such as ear-piercing, while 'female circumcision' is specifically used in connection with FGC & FGM. This suggests that medically, 'circumcision' stands for 'male circumcision', but when it is used to describe FGC it is qualified as 'female circumcision'.- MishMich - Talk - 01:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's looking from a purely medical POV, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is what the usage is in a medical source, not a POV. ICD-9/10 is a diagnostic manual, and it includes routine and religious circumcision (presumably male), as well as FGC/FGM (which includes female circumcision).- MishMich - Talk - 23:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that a medical source does not represent a medical POV? Clearly, this source is not evidence that female circumcision does not exist, so I don't think it affects the substance of the discussion. --FormerIP (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. The World Health Organisation's diagnostic manual is what it is. This is not evidence it doesn't exist, it is evidence that there is a diagnostic category for 'Female Genital Cutting' and 'Mutilation', which refers to 'female circumcision', and that the source refers to 'male circumcision' simply as 'circumcision'. Female circumcision does not exist in the same sense that male circumcision does, apart from situations where there is a prepuce around the clitoris - it could be argued that clitorodectomy could be described as circumcision in the 1971 OED sense which includes circumcision as also meaning 'circumscribed'. Shortening or excising is certainly a form of circumscribing (cutting short) a clitoris, so could legitimately be described as circumcision (but a different sort from the male sense). This is WP:OR, of course, and completely irrelevant to the discussion, and I am not aware anybody is making this argument. Even if it could be shown that female circumcision is an erronious description, that would not matter if people use it - and the WHO does use it in ICD, but only as a reference to the term within the context of a diagnostic code for FGC & FGM.- MishMich - Talk - 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Nobody calls it male circumcision? Really? How come Google, searching in English for that exact phrase, excluding Wikipedia, gives examples of 333,000 people using male circumcision? Search for that term on Google News Archives, and you will come up with examples of it being used by Reuters, CTV Edmonton (Canada), Globe and Mail (Australia), CNN, CBC News, New York Times, Star Tribune (Minneapolis), New Scientist, Boston Globe, Toronto Star, San Diego Union, National Geographic and the Jerusalem Post in the first 30 hits. Somehow, I prefer to believe those sources than a rant from Baseball Bugs. Just because you won't hear what's being said, doesn't mean that it wasn't said! It appears that among those that Baseball Bugs considers apparently ignorant of female anatomy because they use the term female circumcision are the British Broadcasting Corporation; the Muslim Women's League (would have thought they might have known more about the female anatomy than Bugs!); the World Health Organization; The Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project; the United States Department of Health and Human Services; the United Kingdom Government (when passing the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985); the Society of General Internal Medecine; the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers; the Institute for War and Peace Reporting; Amnesty International; The Population Council; the Swiss charity Helvetas; The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages; Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance; and the United Nations (in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women). Hmmm! Perhaps he isn't as informed as he makes out! Skinsmoke (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • That doesn't make any sense. Why would use or non-use of certain terminology make one ignorant of anatomy? You've made a related mistake above, when you said "The idea of Female circumcision may be new to some editors, but for countries where large African and Middle Eastern immigrant populations form a significant proportion of the population, it is a significant news topic and issue." In both cases, yYou're failing to distinguish between the concept of FGC and the name by which it is called. Returning to the subject, yes, the term "male circumcision" is sometimes used. For the concept of FGC, the term "female circumcision" is sometimes used, although less frequently in recent years and the term is somewhat controversial (as explained in the FGC article). As Jayjg points out, though, the term "circumcision", without qualifier, is used with great frequency to mean the removal of the foreskin. Jakew (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (edited 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

Why would use or non-use of certain terminology make one ignorant of anatomy? Don't ask me. It wasn't me that said it. I was quoting Baseball Bugs and refuting his argument. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Jakew would now refute Baseball Bugs' argument. Blackworm (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support In cultures where male genital cutting is a common practice and female genital cutting is not a common practice, the term "circumcision" is used to describe male genital cutting. However in non-circumcising cultures the term "male circumcision" is used to distinguish male genital cutting from female genital cutting. Wikipedia articles should present the more global POV and not be limited to the POV of cultures that practice male genital cutting. - DanBlackham (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you able to offer any evidence in support of your assertion, Dan? Jakew (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Proponents of male circumcision contend that ritual cutting of girls is not circumcision at all but barbaric mutilation, usually carried out by people untrained in medicine: babers, shamans, widwives, virtually anyone with a razor or a knife." - David Gollaher. Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000. p 189. - DanBlackham (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, your assertion was that the terminology used for penile circumcision correlates with circumcision prevalence. It wasn't about the terminology used for FGC. Jakew (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I similarly demand evidence for every single assertion made by everyone who opposes this change. For the record. Blackworm (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DanBlackham's claim is unsupported. I suggest that it is misstated. However, it seems like a simple exercise in common sense that that the commonness of "circumcision" versus "male circumcision" to refer to this article's topic as written, is dependent on the prevalence of female circumcision in a culture, not that of male circumcision. In Africa, both male and female circumcision is called "circumcision." Where female circumcision is opposed, they have different names. If unsure, here is some reading -- suggest you begin with footnote 1.[21] Calling this article "male circumcision" goes directly to Wikipedia's aim to be unambiguous, and neutral. Implying that the only kind of circumcision is male circumcision, is something for activists to be doing on their own websites, or writing to the journals that will publish them. Blackworm (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your "common sense" appears to be rather dubious WP:OR, which seems analogous to arguing that sunflowers and daisies are only given different names in northern temperate regions because both are common. Also, only a small minority of African countries speak English, so I find your claim that the word "circumcision" is used across the entire continent to be rather implausible. Jakew (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[22] Blackworm (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe that countries that practice it use the term "female genital mutilation?" No, they refer to both as circumcision. This is documented in the sources, Jake, do you really need me pull them? Blackworm (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were the wikipedia for those other countries, it might well be called "female circumcision" there. This is the English wikipedia, and "circumcision" by itself primarily means circumcision of men, and so-called "circumcision" of women is removing a woman's clitoris. It is not wikipedia's place to try to further the activist agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Other countries?" Have you looked at the linked map? It's English. Have you looked at the dictionary? It's English. Otherwise, please do tell me exactly which countries you feel the English Wikipedia is for. And please spare me your incorrect, handwaving definitions of female circumcision -- go see the FGM article and read the definition there, as accepted by the UN, the WHO, countless medical organizations, and the laws of many countries, or go back to the dictionary [23] and read both senses 1 and 2. Blackworm (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much that anyone who practices FGC refers to it as "mutilation" (or equivalent in the local language), but that doesn't imply that they refer to it as "circumcision". They might call it "excision" (or equivalent translation), or something completely different. Certainly, some people refer to it as "female circumcision", but your assertion that this is universally true is rather absurd. Jakew (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per the last time this was raised, resulting in a dispute with no consensus emerging, and not per the people trying to hijack the term "circumcision" from its true English meaning (and not a meaning in specific, male circumcising cultures). For extra reading for those enveloped by such cultures and others who may not know the topic well, I suggest the dictionary definition of circumcision and the United Nations World Health Organization and UNAIDS main documents on this article's topic, entitled "Male Circumcision" and "Male circumcision for HIV prevention." Blackworm (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: This is more than a content issue, but a contentious WP:NPOV issue as the naming of certain kinds of circumcision (especially female circumcision) is used by advocates for their advocacy goals, specifically in attempts to separate the concept of circumcision into male "circumcision" and female "mutilation." "Some use more technical and 'neutral' terms like female circucmision, clitoridectomy, or infibulation. Modern campaigns [against female circumcision -BW] in the 1970s and 1980s drew attention to the issue by renaming the problem "female genital mutilation," thus reframing the issue as one of violence against women." (Keck & Sikkink, 1998, p. 67)[24] Wikipedia is not a tool for advocacy. Blackworm (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't a tool for advocacy. The non-neutrality of the term "mutilation" was one of the reasons why we chose female genital cutting rather than "female genital mutilation". But the title of another article is, of course, off-topic here. Jakew (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So your point is? That's it's okay to use less common terms where neutrality is an issue? Thank you Jake, I agree. Unless you're saying that that only applies in a different article? One that as it happens should fall under this topic (and is not something that one might mistake for the topic implied by this article's current title, as implied by the presence of the disambiguation link and yet no other link or mention of female genital cutting in the entire article)? Or are you asserting that using "circumcision" to exclusively mean "male circumcision" is correct and neutral, but using "male circumcision" to entitle the topic of male circumcision, like the UN does, is somehow incorrect or non-neutral? Blackworm (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no inherent neutrality or accuracy problems with either "male circumcision" or "circumcision", hence per WP:UCN we choose the commonly-used term. Jakew (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Circumcision" co-opts the word to exclusively mean male circumcision, in contradiction to sources and thus is not WP:NPOV, while "male circumcision" disambiguates as called for by guideline. Blackworm (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "circumcision" has always referred to men, and it was "co-opted" to invent a misleading euphemism for female genital mutilation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources that it was "co-opted"? Its use predates the term "female genital mutilation," so how can it be a euphemism for it? Some have called "circumcision" in reference to females a euphemism in very recent years, though I've never heard it was invented with intent to mislead. I'd like a source for that. Many others do not use it euphemistically, as apparent from the sources' use of the term. Blackworm (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very odd thing to say, that the term that predated FGM was used by activists as a euphemism for FGM, when it was actually the move against FGM that critiqued the inaccurate use of circumcision to describe what is now widely regarded as mutilation of girl's genitals. FGM is described as FGC here, and female circumcision only serves as a redirect to FGC. So, in order to preserve the symmetry and maintain NPOV as well as accuracy, male circumcision should really be referred to as 'Male genital cutting', with a redirect for 'male circumcision' to that. ICD-9 lists both FGC and FGM under 628:20, and includes reference to female circumcision (and they are not activists). - MishMich - Talk - 01:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You would also do well to explain why "female genital cutting" was chosen as a replacement instead of "female circumcision," the article's previous title and more common terminology (i.e., more than FGC)? That seems the salient point, not the point we agree on that "FGM" was an inappropriate title. You opposed to return to naming the article "female circumcision," did you not? Isn't that the more common term out of the terms proposed, once we eliminate FGM for neutrality reasons? You can dodge the question by claiming it's off-topic to discuss another article's topic, but your inconsistent application of your own arguments is quite apropos, I'm afraid. You actually seem to be arguing that it is non-neutral to refer to anything done to females as circumcision -- and that seems the basis for your steadfast opposition to this change; not, in fact, the argumentation you provide. Blackworm (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Female circumcision" was rejected due to NPOV issues with that term (which are discussed in the "terminology" section of that article). I do not intend to discuss issues involving that article further. Accusations of inconsistency, hidden motives, dodging issues, etc are of course WP:CIVIL violations. Jakew (talk) 09:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this circular argument is still going on. I'm fairly certain the reason they want to include female so-called "circumcision" is to help further their activist agenda that seeks to misleadingly equate circumcision of men to also being "genital mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see Bugs still defers to ad-hominem argument rather than reason. (Irony) I'm fairly certain the reason they want to avoid reference to "male" or "female circumcision" is to help further their activist agenda that seeks to misleadingly avoid association of circumcision of men with "genital mutilation" of women.- MishMich - Talk - 00:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And I don't see anyone denying it. I wasn't born yesterday. I checked in my 1994 Webster's and it calls female circumcision the removal of the female foreskin, not removal of the clitoris. So calling removal of the clitoris "circumcision" is factually wrong; it's just a euphemism to avoid saying "mutilation", which is what it actually is. "Circumcision", a procedure done to many males, is no more "mutilation" than having a wart removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Baseball Bugs is entitled to hold whatever opinions he likes about circumcision. However, we title articles based on current use in English, not on what prejudices are held by Baseball Bugs. It has been adequately demonstrated that the term circumcision is used by many, including reputable medical and international bodies, to refer to what we call Female genital cutting. Baseball Bugs may not like that fact. Tough! It's a reality whether he likes it or not. Given that the term exists, and is widely used, the present title, unless the article is expanded to include female circumcision/genital cutting, is misleading. And before anyone accuses me of being an activist for one side or another, I have no opinions on whether circumcision of males is a good or bad thing, but I come from, and live in, England, where only 5.6 per cent of males are circumcised by the age of 17. Over here, if you are asked what your opinion on circumcision is, the natural reply is "do you mean for men or women?" Skinsmoke (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Also not an activist, also live in the UK (Scotland). It's also been adequately demonstrated that "female circumcision" is less commonly used than an alternative term ("female genital mutilation"). That's an argument for another article, however. I don't see any need to disambiguate here, and I don't see any need to deviate from WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not an activist, but I am concerned about any attempt - whether deliberate or inadvertent - to dilute "female genital mutilation" further, by equating it with circumcision. TFOWR 08:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) I think you're missing the point, Skinsmoke. It has been well established that the term "circumcision" is the common name for circumcision, so therefore per WP:UCN it is preferred. Incidentally, I think you and I must talk to different people here in England. I have always found that people automatically realise that penile circumcision is meant. Jakew (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In 1971, the complete Oxford English Dictionary ran to appx 16,000 pages, and at that time was the definitive reference for English words in this country, and many other English-speaking countries. The point of looking at how this was defined historically is because it has been stated that the terminology changed in a way that was useful to activists opposed to FGM. I am not clear that using 'female circumcision' is in some way advantageous to those who advocated an end to FGM - rather those who might support such practices. Looking at my copy of the 1971 OED, it is defined with reference to a procedure applied to the prepuce of the penis of males. There are also sections that deal with this word being used to mean spiritual purity, and both medical and ritual circumcision in Judaism. Circumcision was also understood as meaning 'circumscribed', or to 'cut short', as well as the Roman meaning to 'cut round'. From what I can tell, there was no obvious mention of female circumcision in the OED 40 years ago. That suggests such usage emerged since then, and unless somebody can provide a more accurate source that contradicts this, I have to accept that. This does not give any weight to Bugs' assertions about how it came to be applied to what (whatever it was called in 1971) also became known as FGM. My understanding is that these practices mostly took place in parts of the Middle East and the East Coast of Africa, where these practices would have had local names, and only have been raised as problematic when people who had been subjected to them accompanied parents who migrated to countries like the UK, and later became involved in the Women's Movement. I am more inclined to view the use of female circumcision as a way of describing a traditional practice in an way that would facilitate understanding amongst English speakers to whom such practices were alien and incomprehensible, rather than some sinister activist plot.

Either way, the reasons why 'female circumcision' became adopted is less important than whether it was, and whether an unqualified 'circumcision' always and only signifies 'male circumcision', and never includes 'female circumcision'. - MishMich - Talk - 09:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support as just "circumcision" refers to both male and female versions. Since this article's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about the male version the title should reflect that. Not that anybody cares what I think. // Liftarn (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose—the point about female circumcision does not prevent there being an article called "Circumcision" about male circumcision. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic? Seems fairly clear tom me. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• oppose Vast majority of people are looking for this article, the use of the term "male circumcision" is potentially POV because the term "female circumcision" is controversial and moreover use of the term "male circumcision" implies a degree of parity between the two types that is not neutral. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin There are clearly a fair number of opposing votes here, but I would ask you to consider:

• That a slim majority of opposes come from users who appear to regularly edit articles related to Judaism. There is nothing wrong with being such a user, and I'm not suggesting any impropriety, but it ought to be considered whether a cultural bias is at play here (ie the belief that "female circumcision" is a misnomer - IMO, whether it is or it isn't is not relevant for our purposes, because it is a term in common use)
• That there is a simple logic in pointing out that there is indeed such a thing (or, at least, reliable sources tell us there is such a thing) as female circumcision and, therefore, an article exclusively about male circumcision titled "Circumcision" ought to be disambiguated. I would suggest that this is too clear to ignore because of !votes. It would not be correct to say that male circumcision is a primary topic here because, apparently, 130 million women are circumcised and it would be systematic bias to ignore this fact simply because most of them don't live in North America.

Thanks.

--FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could count Jewish editors' !votes as being worth only three-fifths of a !vote. Seriously, despite saying that you're not suggesting any impropriety, you are way out of bounds here. This is practically a textbook case of addressing the editor, rather than the argument, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do it again.

Regarding your second point: the very first sentence in this article is, in fact, already a disambiguation. Nandesuka (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.