Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circumciser

Circumciser
Originally an anti-circumcision rant. When the POV was removed, what remained was a dicdef. An attempt to redirect this to circumcision has already been reverted. --Ardonik.talk* 17:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. till an anti-circumcision rant.JFW | T@lk
 * Delete - weak support for redirect - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dictdef. Nobody is going to search for this as opposed to circumcision.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 17:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: no redirect, no useful content. I sure wish these people had a different cause or hobby. Geogre 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not even a dicdef. Someone who cuts a toe nail isn't a "toe nailer", and someone who cuts hair is a barber, not a "hair cutter". The intact POV pushers are taking a real delight in inventing words, like "circumfetishists" and "circumcisiophiliac". func(talk) 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Lest I be accused of circumcisiophiliaciation... My vote is still delete. func(talk) 21:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Your 'toenail' analogy is wrong.  The term 'Circumciser', ritual or otherwise, is a widespead occupational title.  Do a Google search, and you'll find its usage is common, not "invented".  It's used just as much by the proponents of circumcision.  The circumcision article, if you take the time to read it, focuses on the subject (or "circumcisee" to truly invent a term), but does not cover the personal motivations and mindset of the circumciser at all.  Attempts to remove irrelevant psychological motivations and blatant homophobic bias from the foreskin restoration article have been reverted, apparently because cultural practices are OK to criticise without justification, as long as it's not mutilating boys that is.  So now we have attempts to delete this whole article without merging the info with other articles, which is contrary to NPOV by definition.   This is typical pro-mutilation bigroty against circumcised men.  But apparently it's OK with some irrational POV agenda to psychoanalyze practice A, but permit nothing said about the psychology of practice B.  Nice.  DanP 18:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, for Edit War bait and participating in the circumcision NPOV war. Frankly, if foreskin restoration shows up here, I'd vote to kill it too.  Ideally, the war can be resolved, then an NPOV of each can be written, but as it stands, delete the lot is my vote. -Vina 18:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ¿Why would you delete foreskin restoration, a perfectly legitimate, medically accepted article about a proven procedure? &#364;alabio 05:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not warrant its own article. It's also not a word. Rhobite 19:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * The pro-mutilation lies get deeper. 'Circumciser' is not a word?  Well there is quite a bit of info about circumcisers, do a Google search.  Even Jewish mohel have their own Wikipedia article.  It's time to confess that this deletion effort is pure POV to hide this topic.  If you think the article is POV, then fix the article instead of deleting it.  If the only claim against this article is its insufficient content, I've have just added some more, and you're all welcome to do so. DanP 20:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears to be a word, but I still object. This topic doesn't warrant its own article. All of the information should be moved to Circumcision. Rhobite 21:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. RickK 19:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the West, in English at least, medical "circumcisers" are actually called "surgeons." Fire Star 20:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, instead of listing a reason from deletion policy, your reason is just because the word belongs to a larger group. So maybe delete the "circumcision" article because it falls categorically under "plastic surgery"?  Does that make the same amount of sense to you? DanP 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I, for one, smell a little "Article is biased or has lots of POV" (from the deletion policy) in the use of the specialty word "circumciser" (whereas circumcision and plastic surgery are both common surgical terms, I, who have worked for ten years in an OR, have never once used or heard used the inelegant word "circumciser") as a title for an article on what could be a pediatric or urologic as well as a plastic procedure. Interestingly, myself, I believe that most circumcisions are pointless (pardon me) in that the risks outweigh any possible advantage from the procedure. So, while I would normally be sympathetic to such a POV, I unfortunately or not believe in NPOV for our articles. We have had a lot of hot air from the Intact crowd trying to make Wikipedia a soapbox rather than an encyclopaedia. So, while I may agree with you in principle on most of your concrete arguing points, I find your political approach to be pushy, off-putting and also that it ultimately undermines your attempts here to establish articles inclusive of your POV that other editors would support. It is possible to report on issues you know about here without preaching them, and such reporting will perhaps convince more capable associates than your present approach. Fire Star 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any content that should be here should be in the circumcision article and any that shouldn't be there shouldn't be anywhere. Aside from being POV and argumentative, it's just bad. Aside: I'm confused by the comment above about "pro-mutilation bigroty against circumcised men". Are you refering to men who were circumcised as minors and who would rather not have been? Are there many men like that? &#8212;Rory &#9786; 21:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * So few cut guys are anxious to meet up and shake their circumcisers hand and say "great job obliterating most of the nerve endings. And what nice big scar.  Now I can't feel a thing!".  This is not a popularity contest, as NPOV clearly indicates.   If you are intact, then great.  I have no problem moving info to the circumcision article, though traditionally that article has grown too large and unwieldy.  Often breaking it up has been suggested, and that is why we have several articles now on related topics.  In any case, I can only ask you to change your mind, as this is not a topic that can be jammed into one article.  But obviously the drive to delete the article long before correcting it for NPOV says a lot about the pro-mutilation mindset.   Even the proponents of circumcision use the term 'circumciser' and many online articles describe the persons motives and feelings.  DanP 22:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comments at Talk:Masturbation, by any chance? I addressed this 20,000 nerves issue there. func(talk) 00:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Sigh. What a wacky place this is sometimes. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 'Keep	Circumciser is a real profession. Some religions use different titles, but so what.  Many American Ob/Gyns, who are not even licensed to practice medicine on males, are more circumciser than obstetrician or gynecologist  --  and one wonders why the price of malpractice-insurance Ob/Gyns must may for covering lawsuits and damages is so high that it puts many Ob/Gyns out of business (in most other countries (the Brazilian Gynecologist Doctor Nelson Soucasaux wrote an essay] about this), Obstetrician and Gynecologist are separate specialties, and only pædiatric Urologists would perform surgery on the genitals of children, and then only if absolutely necessary).  &#364;alabio 22:59, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
 * Urologists circumcise adults, occasionally, too. Fire Star 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I know what urologists do. My point is that the greedy Ob/Gyns, without any qualifications for  operating on males, should not be cutting pieces of the genitals of boys.  Being both Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes them  avarous jacks of all trades, masters of none.  When the Ob/Gyns take to cutting off pieces of male genitals (Ob/Gyns are not qualified to work on males), that is just greedily stupid.  When Dubya Shrub complains that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business.  I say the Ob/Gyns should get their house together:
 * Become either obs or gyns
 * No more medically unnecessary surgery of nonconsenting minors for whom they are not qualified to treat.
 * It is no wonder that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business and their rates for malpractice-insurance is so high. The Ob/Gyns reap the harvest of their own greed.&#364;alabio 02:59, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
 * Not qualified to operate on males? Funny, I had always assumed that Ob/Gyns were, you know, doctors, with real medical degrees from real medical schools and everything.... you guys do a lot better when you stick to the medically unnecessary line of reasoning, but no, you then have to start talking about conspiracies, like how each and every single circumciser and Ob/Gyn in the country is a money grubbing fiend. I'm just glad Walabio hasn't used the word frottage yet, (which is a crime, btw, not a form of masturbation). Yikes! You are all turning me into Robert Brooks! func(talk) 03:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we are getting a little off topic here. Perhaps this could be taken up on Talk:International male genitalia alteration conspiracy theories? Fire Star 05:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * ¿If you needed an emergency coronary-bypass, would you prefer a cardialogist or a neurologist to operate? Pædiatric Urologists are the ones who should operate on the genitals of children, and only if absolutely necessary.  Indeed, Pædiatric Urologists often [ complain about stupid Ob/Gyns circumcising without checking for Hypospadias, thus making a bad situation worse.  For your information, frottage means to rub.  If someone rubs up against his own pillow, it is not a crime.  If one attacks another person and rubs up against the victim that is assault and is a crime.  I know one thing for sure; involuntary medically unnecessary circumcision is worse that some weirdo rubbing against a leg like a dog. &#364;alabio 05:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
 * Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Circumciser" is a word, as is "mohel" and the other words in other cultures. Although the present article contains material that is critical of circumcisers this is not in itself a ground for deletion. Rather it is a ground for other material to be added that would give more information about the role of the circumciser in various cultures.Michael Glass 01:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dictionary definition, nothing more. --Viriditas 04:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic is covered in the circumcision article. -- DanBlackham 06:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Change back to redirect and protect if necessary. Livajo 12:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to circumcision and protect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. At its best, this can never become anything but a dicdef or redirect. Moreover, it invites all the anticircumcisionists out there to come and vent their anger. Maybe it's time we create Opiniopedia. Binadot 14:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any useful information here should be incorporated into the Circumcision article; the only bit that can't be incorporated is the 'Psychological aspects' section, which is deeply POV and does not have enough credible evidence to support it. If 'Circumciser' were to be an article in its own right, surely there should be some more information on the roles of circumciser in different cultures, not to mention those roles' histories. There isn't any of that here (and I doubt there ever would be of the article were left). Katherine Shaw 14:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Concur with Katherine Shaw. --Improv 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * merge with circumcision and redirect, as appropriate. Kim Bruning 22:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just more from the monomaniacal anti-circumcision zealots. There is lots more of there POV stuff that needs to be looked at. - Friends of Robert 07:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)