Talk:Violence/Archive 1

Circumcision is not violence
Circumcision does not belong in this article. It doesn't fit the commonly accepted definition of violence: "Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing." Rhobite 19:21, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it does merit a basic reference. Many studies show that physical and/or emotional damage can exist in some men. Abuse does not go away when living cells are cut and die off, that is clear from mutilation by definition. If you want to note the controversial nature of this topic, do so, that is fair. But please refrain from simply deleting what you wish and merely forcing your POV, ie. your view that genital cutting is peaceful rather than violent. It was not peaceful when I was cut, and not peaceful for too many others. DanP 21:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Aside from your fellow activists, approximately nobody considers circumcision to be violence. Rhobite 22:10, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * If I would be you, I would quit before I would make a complete fool of myself. Claiming forcefully restraining infants and raping them by sexually mutilating their genitals is not violent, is like arguing that lobotomy does not cause brain-damage.Losers use Drugs


 * &#364;alabio 03:23, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)


 * Please understand that believing circumcision to be "rape" or "violence" is only your opinion and most people do not share it. Your group has been inserting anti-circumcision POV into an ever-widening range of articles. Now they're editing Infant and Violence, and these arguments have no place here. You have your Circumcision edit war, and you have your Genital Integrity page. The circumcision debate has absolutely no place in Violence. Rhobite 04:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * So tying down an infant an cutting off pieces of genitals is not a violent sexual assault. If I would club an adult man, tie him down, and cut off pieces of his genitals, ¿would it not be a violent sexual assault?  If you can prove that what would happen to the man would not be a violent sexual assault, I shall concede that medically unnecessary circumcision of minors is neither violent nor a sexual assault.  If you can not show that what would happen to the man would not be violent sexual assault, then do not bother writing to me.  In other words, put up or shut up.  You have not only consistently failed to prove your thesis, but you do not even try to defend it.  Just tell me, how, in your opinion can tying down an infant, and forcefully cutting of pieces of the genitals of the baby without medical necessity be anything other than violent sexual assault.  Do not both with arguments of societal acceptance, because that is like arguing that slavery is okay because it occurs in Sudan.  Please prove that would happen to the man would not fit the definition of assault and sexual assault.

"Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing."


 * Circumcision uses force exerted for the purpose of:


 * violating the baby
 * damaging the baby
 * abusing the baby


 * &#364;alabio 05:39, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Rhobite, at a minimum, it is fair to say many men and women can both feel violated by cutting rituals. You can find news articles where African boys are hunted down with helicopters. If you want to eliminate POV in this, that is good. But violence cannot be defined by your say-so, and you have not objected to abuse which is emotional and verbal classified as violent. Let's keep Genital modification and mutilation on the list, despite our differing opinions as to physical scars and damage. Sanctioned violence is not exempt for this entry, is it? DanP 14:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I refuse to be dragged into a debate, and my personal opinion on circumcision is irrelevant - as is yours. What makes you think that I disagree with you on this issue? Anyone who stands in the way of your POV edits is labelled a violent pro-circumcision loony. This isn't the case.

I refuse to let you continue to widen this argument. Circumcsion does not fit the definition of violence that I posted, because the purpose of circumcision is not to "violate, damage, or abuse." Similarly, the PURPOSE of slavery is to provide cheap labor. Its purpose is not to subjugate a people, even though that's the RESULT of slavery. If you cannot distinguish between purposes and effects, this discussion is hopeless.

You may think that "violence" is the end result of circumcision, but it is not the PURPOSE. It doesn't fit the definition, and I will continue to revert this article. Rhobite 14:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

There are many listings under violence which have a PURPOSE other than causing the abuse, take a look! But I will go farther and say the purpose is violence or it would not require restraint and cause pain or loss. Your opinion should not enter into this, as many things on the list meet your definition of non-violent behavior. Many studies clearly link circumcision as a violent act, and you can search for it yourself rather than voicing just your POV here.


 * Please name one other item in that list that does not fit the definition of violence and isn't plainly related to violence. Rhobite 20:40, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * ¿Why do you flip the issue on its head?:

"Please name one other item in that list that does not fit the definition of violence and isn't plainly related to violence."


 * None need prove that things listed in violence are not violent. You need prove that strapping a poor defenseless baby to a circumstraint, sexually stimulating him to erection, then violently cutting off the distal end of his præpuce as he flails, screams, urinates, vomits, and defecates in not violent.  Then the mutilator violently tears the synechia separating the glans and præpuce.  Then, the mutilatormakes a dorsal slit.  Then the mutilator places a clamp.  Then the mutilator crushes violently the præpuce.  Then the mutilator cuts away what is left of præpuce.  By this time the poor innocent baby is usually in catatonic shock from the pain.  The mutilators claim that this is sleep and that the baby slept through the assault.  This is a lie.  Babies in real sleep can be waken, while these catatonic babies respond to no stimulus.


 * ¿How is this violent pædophilic sexual assault not violent? If I would pull an adult man off the street at gunpoint, tie him to a cross, cut off his clothes, stimulate his penis to erection, and then cut off pieces of his penis as he screams, would not that be violent?  Again, you refuse to defend your thesis.  You say that medically unnecessary circumcision minors is not violent because you say so.  Your say so does not cut it.  You must prove that medically unnecessary circumcision does not meet the definition violence from WikTionary:

Noun


 * 1) 	Extreme force.
 * The violence of the storm, fortunately, was more awesome than destructive.
 * 1) 	Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering.
 * We try to avoid violence in resolving conflicts.
 * 1) 	Widespread fighting.
 * Violence between the government and the rebels continues.


 * Prove to me that medically unnecessary circumcision of minors does not meet the second definition of violence. Medically unnecessary circumcision of minors is "Action intended to cause destruction, pain, or suffering."  It cannot before the health of the baby because it is medically unnecessary.  John Harvey Kellogg once wrote about circumcision:

"The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."


 * It seems that John Harvey Kellogg intended circumcision for causing destruction, pain, or suffering. Prove to me otherwise.


 * &#364;alabio 01:02, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)


 * As I said before, you are not going to drag me into a debate. So please don't waste your time on the appeal to emotion. The premise "circumcision is harmful" does not support the conclusion that you should be allowed to insert anything you want into any article - even if the premise is true. Rhobite 01:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are the one who stated that "circumcision is not violence." You started this debate.  You dragged me into this debate.  On the upside, since you concede the debate, I win.


 * &#364;alabio 02:29, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)


 * How mature. Rhobite 02:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, enough people think mutilation violates, and even you needlessly focus on circumcision alone, whereas even a scratch on another body part is violent. I say genital mutilation as whole is violent, so perhaps a non-POV compromise is to suppress the word "modification" and only show "mutilation"? Involuntary cutting is the crux of the matter, so look at the root word "violate" which is related to "violence". It is fair to say whether an act is welcomed by the subject is germaine to this discussion of violation/violence, which is why rape and assault are included as violence, and fighting is singled out in a specialized manner. Do a Google search for circumcision+violence and you will find thousands of entries. So let's find an unbiased way to do this. DanP 18:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You never answered my question. You said that other acts in that list were not intended to cause abuse. Which ones were you referring to? They should be removed. Rhobite 18:40, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I can describe them.  But I do not agree with your limitation anyway, as the very top of violence definition says "usually deliberate" and it ignores the intentions of the perpetrator.  Anyway, here the are:  The definition of Cruelty to animals includes consideration of incidental abuse for producing meat.  The definition of rape, or statutory rape, does not hold up intent to harm as an absolute criteria.  The definition of injury refers to any "outside agent or force" -- intent is not required.  And force is in there too. Property damage allows for natural phenomena, no intent needed there.  Structural violence and war seem to have political intents, and violent effects are the means.  Well there are perhaps more, but I believe most folks would still would say they are all quite possibly violence, just looking at effect alone, and that is enough to qualify according to my dictionary.  DanP 20:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the noharmm site for the reason that it more properly belongs in the appropriate "see also" topic. notice all other external links are about violence, not one of the see also topics. On the subject of whether genital mutilation belongs in this list, I'm kind of neutral. DanP, could you explain your comment at 20:08 2 Sep in light of Walabio's posted definition? definitions 1 and 3 obviously don't match. And you submit that definition 2 is not necessary? If that is the case, what is your criteria for inclusion? -Vina 01:16, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definition 2 is not absolutely necessary for inclusion, according to my Webster's dictionary which is lengthy, but focuses mainly on whether force and destruction are involved. Force and restraint are ubiquitous in genital mutilations. But Definition 2 is sufficient for inclusion, even if not necessary for it. Genital modification and mutilation includes, by definition, removal of tissue. Such tissue necessarily dies off and, therefore undergoes permanent destruction. Genital mutilation does achieve that effect and has that intent, so I cannot understand why you would exclude it without excluding other forms of violence. Both destruction and pain criteria are met w/regard to definition 2. DanP 15:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This conversation is surreal
I can't believe I'm reading this conversation. It's surreal. I've never known anyone, online or in real life, who has called circumcision "violent infant rape" before. &#364;alabio and DanP, I've seen the messages you guys leave on your talk pages encouraging one another. I honestly have no opinion one way or another on circumcision, but the strange arguments you're using and the massive emotional investment you seem to have in the infant and violence articles make you look like tag-team anti-circumcision kooks. That was rude, I know, but I'm not sure how else to describe how it looks to me. We took (your mortal enemy?) User:Robert Brookes to RFC, and maybe we need to take you "intactivists" next. This childish subversion of NPOV by a minority of contributors on both sides on the circumcision debate is getting wearisome, and people on the village pump are starting to talk about it. --Ardonik.talk 04:32, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am of the opinion that trapping down a poor defenseless innocent baby and cutting of pieces of his genitals without medical necessity is violent.


 * I am always willing to work with others. As an example, a few days ago, DanP decided that it would be good to go to infant before Robert Brookes.  The contributers of infant did not want intactivists and circumcisiophiliacs battling there.  I cut a deal making infant off limits to both intactivists and circumcisiophiliacs.  Now, when the circumcisiophiliacs attack infant, both the regular contributers and the intactivists will revert the circumcisiophiliacs.


 * It is not fair to lump all intactivists on Encyclopaedia WikiPedia.Org. DanP and I are not as extreme as it seems.  Most of what you see is opposition to Robert Brookes.  As for violence, strapping down poor defenseless innocent babies, cutting off pieces of genitals, for no medical reason, is violent.  Frankly, I fail to see how others fail to see it.  I suppose that it is like an abolitionists trying to explain to slave-owners that slavery is wrong.


 * &#364;alabio 20:23, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
 * Hi, &#364;alabio. See, where you state DanP states (sorry) in the edit summary that "deliberate mutilation is violent."  You two seem unwilling to acknowledge that there might be other people out there who emphatically do not find circumcision to be violent, or even a form of mutilation.  You want to convince people to find it as icky as you do, so you edit (well, again, DanP made the edits) completely unrelated articles to push your POV on them, knowing very well know that such actions are unwelcome on the Wikipedia.  Rhobite's reverts in this article were, in my estimation, right on the mark.
 * Enough of the "clubbing a grown man" analogies. Yes, there are many others who share your opinion.  I know.  I can also understand the frustration that you feel about Robert Brookes, having had the misfortune of conversing with him recently.  (I also understand the frustration that he feels about the behavior of "intactivists" here.)  But that doesn't make your edits here right.
 * As an example, suppose I edited the Mental illness article with an external link which provided evidence that born-again Christian neoconservative politicians were mentally ill. Suppose I also insisted on re-adding the link after it was reverted by various people.  Would I be in the right to do such a thing, even if I felt deep down in my soul that I was in the right?  If not, then how can you justify what you're doing here?  Don't you see the POV that your edits are injecting into the article?  Leave it be, start a website, and put your opinions there.  You can even edit it using the MediaWiki syntax; just use OddMuse as your wiki engine.  (Note to self: write article on OddMuse.)  But please stop using the Wikipedia as a soapbox to grandstand your ideas.  It won't work; NPOV is non-negotiable.
 * (Calming down, inhaling deeply.) Once again, I will emphasize that I do not have an opinion on circumcision one way or another, knowing only what I've read in the debates here.  All I know about, or care about, is that a neutral point of view is adhered to, and that all possible attempts to reach consensus are made.  That's what makes good articles.
 * My suggestion? Drop the heartfelt emotions and put on your editor's hat.  Add a section in genital mutilation that emphasizes that some people consider male circumcision to be a form of mutilation.  Then say why in genital integrity: avoid weasel words, add quotes by notable authorities, add verifiable studies to a ==References== section, and gracefully acknowledge the opposition (which outnumbers you.)  Read books, do research, and add their ISBNs to a ==Further reading== section.  Your opponents don't lump male and female circumcision in the same box, so take care to treat them separately.  Make your point concise and sensible (i.e., don't make yourselves look like anti-circumcision zealots), and add a small number of relevant external links.  Be sure to add pro-circumcision links at the bottom of the article as well.  If Robert Brookes or someone tries to wipe out a solid contribution like that, the change is certain to be reverted.  Let people like me who are not familiar with the debate learn something about both aspects at once and then come to their own conclusion.
 * Play the game our way, &#364;alabio. It's fun.  You'll like it.  --Ardonik.talk 00:38, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Good comment Ardonik. I only got in with this conversation after a comment that Rhobite made on Village Pump.  My first "skirmish" was on the Infant page, which I thought was handled very well by all involved. (Perhaps because Robert Rookes was not involved so the edit wars didn't start?) There's no reason why this page can't be handled calmly and NPOVly (that's not a word, is it?) I personally don't think that circumcision does not fit the dictionary definition, which DanP apparently agrees, and do not understand that if DanP uses some other definition, why he does not enunciate that other definition.  I have not reverted the see also edits because I know that if I do so, another edit war would start.  Could we come to a reasoned concensus about this?
 * I don't know much about the debate, here's my summary, with regards to the violence issue: Basically, Walabio and DanP thinks either circumcision (male) is genital mutilation (debatable issue which I don't want to get into) and that being mutilation, it is violent.  DanP, however, has acknowledged that circumcision does not meet any one of the 3 criterias proposed by Walabio, but has not responded to my request to clarify his criteria.  -Vina 02:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I said it does meet Defintion 2. But I further stated that the definition of Walabio's is cautious and limited.  Forcible circumcision is violent by other criteria Walabio did not include, and I welcome Vina to post a different definition.  A body part is deliberately destroyed by all genital mutilation, that is clear with any dictionary.  The violence article lists rape, but does not list sex.  The article lists assault, but does not list fighting.  Clearly items of a involuntary nature are viewed as violent, and there is no POV expressed by inclusion of mutilation.  Many would classify forced genital piercing of a child as a violent act, even without cutting off the tissue.  I believe the article on Genital modification and mutilation includes accommodation for those who elect to be cut.  But I can assure you that most American men did not "ask for it" as you seem to imply.  DanP 19:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * In other words, you think adding anti-circumcision links to this article is more reasonable than my suggestion? Please list specific objections; I think my request is a very reasonable one.  --Ardonik.talk 20:03, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I did not say anyone is mentally ill, or add any links against voluntary surgery, so I really don't understand the origin of the suggestion you directed at Walabio. Taking our word definitions at face value, violence includes destruction in many forms.  Genitals are no exception.  You can search circumcision+violence on Google and find plenty of clear reasoning -- not just your own personal POV.  I'm OK with adding references to such articles which explain issues of pain during the cutting and feelings of loss in a further reading section.  That is a great idea, but what does that have to do with the overall entry on violence which is broader category?  DanP 20:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that "most american Men" didn't "ask for" eating broccoli either, but that doesn't make your mom a violent person if she makes you eat it. Circumcision due to religious reasons is not violence.  Neither is a parent making a decision for circumcision to their child, either because of religious or (what they perceive) as health reasons.  You can, of course, argue whether those are valid reasons, and attempt to change people's mind (in the circumcision article, please), but a reasoned decision on the part of parents can not reasonably be called violence upon the child, whether that is an infant or not.  Once again, if circumcision can not be called child abuse or rape, then how could it qualify as being violent? -Vina 23:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Please stick to the definitions. Violence is not defined as "child abuse plus rape".  If you say mutilation is as good as broccoli, that has no bearing on whether it is violent, only whether you condone it.  According to our definitions, sanctioned violence is still violence.  Many forms of violence are advertised as justified or necessary.  But do a Google search for "child abuse + circumcision".  Enough guys feel it's child abuse.  So leave it at that, and we can leave the underlying "broccoli theory" for a different article.  That POV should be expressed under something other than violence. DanP 23:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Enough
Enough. We're talking past one another and I've always despised pedantic arguments. I gave you an actionable and (in my opinion) reasonable proposal and you're not interested in it. That's fine. It's time for Phase II &mdash; time for action. DanP, let's take it to the Village Pump so that we can determine the community's consensus on this matter once and for all. What the community decides will be what goes in. The question posed to them will be precisely as follows: "Is circumcision a form a violence, and if so, is it relevant in the violence article?" If you prefer, we can merely post the question there and set up a poll for responses here. Are you game? --Ardonik.talk 00:04, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Why do you persist with such narrow definitions? "Circumcision" is just the name of a category of cut, including voluntary or medical ones. Your suggestion is akin to asking "do you think sex is a form violence?" when you really mean rape and not sex.  Pose the question "Do you think violence includes genital mutilations?".  Or if you wish, ask, "Do you think forcibly circumcising a minor is violent".  But do not try to blur this into all circumcision of all varieties, that is not accurate or NPOV at all. DanP 00:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Another petty nitpick from DanP to change the subject. I agree with Ardonik: Enough. Rhobite 00:40, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Come on, this is serious. Either propose neutral wording for the question or I will pose it as I described above. Neither side's POV should be injected into the poll question. You'll have a chance to briefly describe the intactivist POV when we write the poll. --Ardonik.talk 01:50, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * So you would seriously rather the question posed to the village pump be "is genital mutilation a form of violence?" Why beat around the bush?  You're trying to add an anti-circumcision perspective to this article, so be straightforward about it.  Your suggestion is apparently to use the phrases "genital mutilation" and "forcibly circumcising a minor" to describe what everyone else simply calls "infant circumcision," injecting loaded terms into what ought to be a neutral question.


 * Phrasing is important. just like slaveowners, brainwashed into believing that slavery is good, the circumcisiophiliacs brainwashed people into believing that forced medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation is good.  I suggest that we ask this question:

"¿Is forced medically unnecessary ear-amputation violent?"


 * This question bypasses cultural conditioning. I also suggest that we ask this question:

"¿Is forced ear-amputation mutilation?"


 * I wish I could take credit for this idea, but Rosemary M. Romberg Wiener used the idea in this allegory. The story nicely gets past cultural conditioning.  After reading the allegory, ask yourself "¿How is cutting off pieces of ears different from cutting off pieces of genitals.  Then ask yourself how is cutting off pieces of genitals off boys different from cutting off pieces of girls.


 * Anyway, we should ask the questions about ears because it gets around cultural conditioning.


 * If any object to this, please give a reason. Please just do not say ears are not the same as genitals, but explain way they are different.  Frankly, I see them both as violent mutilation, equal in violence and mutilation, but with sexual genital mutilation being worse, because sexual genital mutilation destroys erogenous tissue.


 * &#364;alabio 09:37, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)


 * (1) We are not talking about ears. This question is specifically about circumcision and violence, and if you feel that an illustrative metaphor is helpful, you'll have a chance to write it during the synopsis of the intactivist POV during the poll.  (2) You labeled me a "circumcisophiliac" above, when I explicitly said that I have nothing invested into the argument either way.  You probably aren't aware that I'm participating in a RfC for Robert Brookes even as we speak.  I really don't appreciate your assumptions about my motives.  (3) You branded me "brainwashed," the product of "cultural conditioning."  That's vigorously insulting--how the duece do you know anything about me or my upbringing?!  (4) I don't feel that you care in the slightest about reaching consensus.  I know what your POV is already.  I know that infant circumcision is apalling to you, you consider it tantamount to rape, et cetera.  Didn't I say that you would get a chance to briefly describe your POV as part of the poll?  Do you mean to say that you honestly, really, truly believe that rephrasing my proposed question as "is forcibly circumcising a minor violent" is still neutral?  (5) Why am I not seeing gestures towards consensus on your end?  Are you interested in helping me phrase this poll, set it up, and frame both side's arguments?  Aren't you looking forward to the results--finally having the community's say decide this issue once and for all instead of simply talking past one another?


 * Ualabio, I'll write a full reply to you and DanP later. But for now, I'm going to step away from the computer and think over things before I type something that I'll later regret.  My impression right now is that, for you, this poll is a joke, because you already know that on these matters, you are Right.  Yours in genuine frustration, Ardonik.talk 21:13, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

2004-09-08T21:13, Ardonik.talk:


 * (1) We are not talking about ears. This question is specifically about circumcision and violence, and if you feel that an illustrative metaphor is helpful, you'll have a chance to write it during the synopsis of the intactivist POV during the poll.

Mutilations are generic. Basically, one mutilation is equivalent to any other of similar size. The amount of debilitation of similarly sized mutilations can very (removal of a thumb is more debilitating than the removal of a pinky).


 * (2) You labeled me a "circumcisophiliac" above, when I explicitly said that I have nothing invested into the argument either way. You probably aren't aware that I'm participating in a RfC for Robert Brookes even as we speak.  I really don't appreciate your assumptions about my motives.

I never called you a circumcisiophiliac.


 * (3) You branded me "brainwashed," the product of "cultural conditioning." That's vigorously insulting--how the duece do you know anything about me or my upbringing?!

Everyone is brainwashed, or to be more precise inculturated:

We speak the same language assemble identical peanutbutter/jelly-sandwiches, eat cows, but not dogs or people. ¿Do not we all punctuate, identically? Culture covers much of this. From Culture:

"Presently, the UNESCO defines culture as the "set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group". Culture encompasses "in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs"."


 * (4) I don't feel that you care in the slightest about reaching consensus. I know what your POV is already.  I know that infant circumcision is apalling to you, you consider it tantamount to rape, et cetera.  Didn't I say that you would get a chance to briefly describe your POV as part of the poll?  Do you mean to say that you honestly, really, truly believe that rephrasing my proposed question as "is forcibly circumcising a minor violent" is still neutral?

It would distinguish between the very few medically necessary circumcision from the mere sexual mutilations. I remember reading about a boy with a gangrenous dogbite needing circumcision. It is a good thing that the boy was intact or else the dogbite would have gone through the glans and he would have lost his glans, then he would be down a glans and a præpuce instead of only a præpuce.


 * (5) Why am I not seeing gestures towards consensus on your end? Are you interested in helping me phrase this poll, set it up, and frame both side's arguments?  Aren't you looking forward to the results--finally having the community's say decide this issue once and for all instead of simply talking past one another?

I shall abide by the group decision.


 * Ualabio, I'll write a full reply to you and DanP later. But for now, I'm going to step away from the computer and think over things before I type something that I'll later regret.  My impression right now is that, for you, this poll is a joke, because you already know that on these matters, you are Right.  Yours in genuine frustration, Ardonik.talk 21:13, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I shall abide by the decision, but I know that medically unnecessary nonconsensual circumcision is violent sexual genital mutilative rape.

&#364;alabio 02:57, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)


 * Ardonik, there is no anti-circumcision perspective given or posted in this article. I have never classified the word circumcision as violence, nor would it neutral for you to classify it is non-violent when force is involved.  Nobody is saying mastectomy is violence either.


 * But if a cut is done by force and restraint for pure spite, that is very different. It seems perfectly NPOV to include such under violence.  If you can see the differences of sex/rape, fighting/assault, you should be able to see the amputation/mutilation difference.  If you want to pose a question, do whatever is neutral focusing on the involuntary nature (ie. mutilation), but do not load it with your POV about circumcision, or imply that men "have it coming".  Walabio's point is crystal clear, your cultural conditioning should not make this issue any different that your treatment of a mutilating culture that amputates earlobes. DanP 14:43, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See also - Mutilation and genital mutilation
The current article lists Mutilation and genital mutilation in the "See also" section. Is there a consensus that the line should remain?


 * In my opinion it should stay. Information about male and female circumcision would be in the linked articles, not in Violence. -- DanBlackham 08:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The poll is directly relevant to this issue; please help us set it up so that we can determine the community's consensus. --Ardonik.talk 05:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

External links - NOHARMM
The current article does not list National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males in the "External links" section? Is there a consensus that the link to the NOHARMM web site should not be added?


 * In my opinion it should not be added. A link to NOHARMM would be more appropriate in the genital mutilation article. As Vina noted above the other external links are directly related to violence. -- DanBlackham 08:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the link should not be added. Rhobite 19:03, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, the results of Talk:Violence/Poll should help set a precedent on whether or not to include things like this. --Ardonik.talk 05:01, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there was a poll. It needs to be publicicized better. Rhobite 16:36, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I just created it last night. I could use the help of all regular contributors here in setting it up.  --Ardonik.talk 16:43, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, my mistake. I don't have much time but I'll look it over this evening and help out. Rhobite 17:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Poll
Okay, I'm back after a brief hiatus. After thinking things over, I decided to use the old "actions >> words" equation and create the poll subpage: Talk:Violence/Poll. Note that it doesn't really have a talk subpage, so to keep it clean, I'd prefer that discussions on how to improve the poll go here. I don't want to make this too formal or legalistic, so feel free to refactor the poll so it works better. Of particular interest are the voting guidelines--do you all feel that they are fair? If you feel any part of the poll is not neutral, point it out so we can word it in terms suitable to all parties involved.

As I said before, I'm not informed enough to have a stance either way on the circumcision issue, but for the purposes of this poll, I'll consider myself to be part of the "No" party--that is, the party that does not consider circumcision relevant to the violence article. I have not yet written up either party's stance; can you guys help me get all parties participating in the edit wars on the violence article involved in this poll?

When we have everything set up and agreed upon, I'll post a link to this poll in both Current surveys and the Village pump; I'm not sure if there are other places where a call for votes is relevant. --Ardonik.talk 04:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried to adhere to the survey guidelines when creating the poll page; they'll be a useful reference for future improvements. --Ardonik.talk 04:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Are we limiting it to infant circumcision? I think there should be a difference between Infant circumcision, child circumcision, voluntary adult circumcision (all instances) and forced adult circumcision. In the first two, the real question is whether parental consent removes the aspect of violence. -Vina 05:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Vina, what exactly does that mean? Sanctioned violence still counts according to the article.  Even if it didn't, a majority of guys in the US born before the 70's were cut with ZERO parental consent.  It still happens today from time to time.  And I guess you should go ahead and ask yourself if parental consent "overrides" other listed forms of violence? DanP 16:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should generalize the question to "Is circumcision relevant to the violence article?" People involved in the edit wars here will have a better idea than me about what to ask.  --Ardonik.talk 05:10, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ardonik, think for a moment. Circumcision, as a whole, was never put into the violence article to my knowledge.  Mutilation was, so please get things straight.   I know you're struggling to trivialize matters of free will here.  Violence has, at it's root, the word "violate".  Use the words "under restraint" and "against the person's will", if you wish to understand.  Many people wrongly think circumcision removes no living parts, so don't try to grab a free ride with broadly misrepresenting this issue.  Nobody is throwing a blanket condemnation of every kind of circumcision, especially chosen cuts where a person sees clear benefit, so please make that absolutely clear.  But again, I don't know what is disputed in the article in it's present form, so I don't see your motive here. DanP 16:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dan, does that mean you will not add anything to the article about male circumcision including a link to the NOHARMM web site? -- DanBlackham 17:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Dan, I think it would help if you were less confrontational. Wikipedia is not the place to debate infant circumcision.  There are other forums on the Internet better suited for that debate. -- DanBlackham 17:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to thank DanP for pointing out what should have been obvious to me. The article as it reads now seems NPOV enough, and I created the poll before realizing that.  My reasons for writing the poll were:
 * I felt that the poll was a good way to end the edit wars over this article,
 * My (in my opinion, reasonable) proposal in the "enough" section to end this conflict was deemed unacceptable, and
 * As a way to turn the negative back-and-forths going on in this talk page into useful activity.
 * When I "waded into the fray" a few days ago (when the "War over circumcision" was brought to the attention of the Village Pump), I got to know and converse with the key players in the edit wars. Robert Brookes' pro-circumcision POV is being dealt with on the one side, and so I attempted to deal with the intactivist anti-circumcision POV on the other side.  All I want is a neutral point of view, and if this article has reached it, I guess the poll won't be necessary.  Do others agree?
 * There are evidently other places where the NPOV-stick is needed &mdash; Talk:Foreskin, Talk:Circumcision, and Talk:Infant to name a few &mdash; though I won't get involved without understanding what's taking place. I think that so long as the "unite, my fellow intactivists!" group mentality that was demonstrated at Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity is sustained, you will more or less always be at war with other Wikipedians, and not just stonewallers like Robert Brookes.  I don't welcome the injection of anyone's POV into articles because our neutral point of view policy is non-negotiable (as I'm sure others have pointed out.)  Calling other Wikipedians brainwashed and the products of cultural conditioning will not endear them to your cause, and honestly caused me a great deal of disgust yesterday.
 * I welcome the contributions and knowledge that you've all contributed to the Wikipedia (in particular, the patience of User:Michael Glass in providing documentation and dealing with Robert is commendable), but I emphatically do not welcome the acidic "our way is the right way" POV that some of you have demonstrated. (If you want diffs and links to said  POV, I have more.)  --Ardonik.talk 17:39, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record, I think your proposal in the "Enough" section was excellent. -- DanBlackham 06:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unless DanP or Walabio plan to add something about male circumcision to the article (including a link to an anti-circumcision web site) or someone else plans to delete the link to "Mutilation and genital mutilation" I think the poll is unnecessary. It only widens the circumcision debate. I hope the participants here reply to my questions about "See also" and "External links". The responses will indicate if we are close to a consensus regarding the current article or not. If there is no consensus on the current article, then the poll would be worthwhile. If there is a consensus on the current article, in my opinion it would be better to end the discussion about circumcision and violence or move it to a different forum. -- DanBlackham 05:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * After reading your comments and DanP's and re-reading the article, I can't really disagree with you. Does anyone else think the poll is still needed?  --Ardonik.talk 17:39, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Surgeries to Infants
I am Wookiebaca, and I found some things in some earlier subjects (i.e. circumcision is violent) that are misinterpeted. 1. The main point of circumcision is to cause pain. That is not true. the main point of a circumcision is to cut off some skin because if left on, small amounts of urine will collect and cause the whole area to become infected.Pain is just a side effect. It's just like freezing off warts, which I have experienced. 2. Anything that includes tying down infants and causing them pain is violence. Hmmmm... ever hear of giving babies vaccines? They get tied down then and get pain, but then why aren't you complaining about that?

Also, did anyone consider anything about religious matters? The Christians do it, and my parents had me circumcised because they are Christian. Also, mutilate is too strong a word. According toWebster's New World Dictionary of the American Language mutilation is: 1. to cut off or damage a limb or other important part of a person or animal 2. to damage, injure, or otherwise make imperfect, esp. by removing essential part or parts. It is the flesh that it is connected to that is important, and mine works fine, so unless it's like a back-alley thing, I see no problem with it. Also, it's deeply rooted in tradition because it saved countless people from getting horrible infections. )--Wookiebaca 04:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Inter-relationships of circumcision and religious extremism
I'm Inviting you for starting a wide and deep discussion with "Inter-relationships of Circumcision and religious extremism " on a philosophical,Bio-logical,Psycho analitical and theological context. Sumudu G.Guruge-21st January 2007 ,'''Artist/Peace activist/Indipendent peace researcher/Thinker. '''195.50.89.236 12:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)