Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital Integrity

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genital Integrity was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP.

IMPORTANT: See
Procedural Issues
following entries early on 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tally as of 5 Aug

[edit]

The following is a current tally on votes. For those who have yet to make their vote please add only your name to this list, save the discussion/reasoning for below. I realize that your reasoning is generally found next to your vote, but that encourages debate and the purpose of this list is to make it easyer to weed out the comments from the votes. Note that votes to Delete/Redirect have been placed under redirect; please move your name if you feel another option better suits your views. Also I have made no attempts to weed out sock puppets, moderators are encouraged to be aware of that as well as to check the integrity of this list to guard against any tampering. --Starx 17:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Keep" Votes

[edit]
  1. Ŭalabio
  2. Hugh7
  3. Acegikmo1
  4. DanBlackham
  5. Rwinkel
  6. User:DanP
  7. Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Sean Curtin
  9. Dittaeva
  10. User:Michael Glass
  11. Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. ScottyBoy900Q 05:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  14. Radoneme

Redirect" Votes

[edit]
  1. Niteowlneils
  2. Elf-friend
  3. Joyous
  4. Cyrius|✎
  5. Rhobite
  6. leandros
  7. Gregchapman
  8. Postdlf 05:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  11. Neutrality 04:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. SV 18:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Delete and redirect" Votes

[edit]
  1. Noisy 22:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Clarified my vote 08:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC))

Delete

  1. Denni☯
  2. Ianb
  3. Gary D
  4. Lucky 6.9
  5. Geogre
  6. Andrewa
  7. Starx
  8. Fire Star
  9. UtherSRG
  10. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Robert Brookes


Discussion & Votes

[edit]

Neologism. Denni☯ 20:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

  • a serious subject, but this belongs in Intactivism (where the site is already linked). Delete.--Ianb 20:22, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • ¿What do you have against leaving children intact? Why do you want to hurt children? I vote to keep. ¡Keep! Ŭalabio 20:44, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
Note: This vote comes from the only editor of the subject article. Niteowlneils 20:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Intactivism. Niteowlneils 20:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Serious subject, non-worthy content. Delete content and redirect. Elf-friend 21:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The topic is worthy of inclusion, but this seems too small to warrant its own article. I have heard "genital integrity" used as a sort of slogan, so I recommend Merge/redirect to Intactivism. Joyous 21:15, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not an article. Delete or redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?
Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed. I have seen you before, Walabio, and all I can say is that I hope I never find myself so one-track-minded on an issue as you. While I am neutral in the circumcision debate, I see intact Day as a huge joke (what are you going to do - wave your foreskin about?). Neither of these articles is acceptable for Wikipedia, either because they are (genital integrity) a neologism, and (Intact Day), a singularly unrecognised celebration. Did you not bother to read my comments? Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

The person wanting deletion has a bias against those trying to stop child-abuse, and possibly me personally.

Ŭalabio 23:37, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Just because someone does not in Genital Integrity and support Intactivism does not mean the person opposes child-advocacy. The person may just believe that circumcision is good for health:

Doctor Benjamin Spock, the famous "baby-doctor" heard in medical school the lies supporting circumcision. He did not realize that these lies exist for protecting the circumcision-fee. In early editions of Baby and Child Care, he supported circumcision. He learned the truth:

Doctor Benjamin Spock, the famous "baby-doctor" oppose circumcision in later editions of Baby and Child Care. He wrote:

"My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone."

I withdraw my claim that Denni☯ opposes child-advocacy and apologize for making the claim.

Ŭalabio 12:01, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

That is probably the most paranoid comment that I have seen on Wikipedia. Ever. Elf-friend 00:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 23:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. You'd have to be paranoid to make a subject like this your first one. Not even worth a redirect, IMO. As it is, there isn't much more than a couple of links and minimum "content." Almost a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 00:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Someone should write about the movement. It's a real movement. It's not a group I like much. However, it's out there. Geogre 01:59, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Snip. I mean delete. Brother to Intact Day and should be treated the same. Andrewa 09:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Two International Symposia on Genital Integrity have been held, in 2000 in Sydney, Australia, and in 2002, in Washington DC. Hugh7
    • Note: Hugh7's only contribution to Wikipedia has been the above comment. Could a sysop please look into whether this is a sockpuppet? Elf-friend 11:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge anything useful with Intactivism. Rhobite 18:19, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only thing worth salvaging are maybe a link or two, otherwise inactivism has a much more complete and non-POV article on the same subject. --Starx 02:23, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic seems to be sufficiently distinct from intactivism to deserve its own article. Acegikmo1 03:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please don't remove this vote as you did my Intact Day vote below, User:Walabio. I am paying attention. Fire Star 04:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the History, it looks like a simple editconflict. I suggest that a sysops annalize the logs. It might be because I stopped the load for correcting a typo in the summary. I await the annalisis of the logs.
    • Ŭalabio 04:24, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
  • I donated 100$ to WikiMedia.Org at the beginning of the year and am willing to prove it. I plan to donate another 100$ at the end of the year. Just have one of your accountants email me. I have the checkstub to prove it.
  • Ŭalabio 07:48, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If I donate say $300 this year, maybe that would increase the value of my vote (unchanged, see above)? Actually I'd rather spend the money on a very large medical dictionary to find out what a "circumsiophiliac" is. --Ianb 14:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You can't buy an article. How much you have or haven't donated has no bearing on this subject. This point is there is just no need for all of this to be spread accross multiple articles. Were not saying delete everything on the subject, we're saying it would be best if it was all in one article. --Starx 16:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic of Genital Integrity is important on it own and is distinct from Intactivism. In my opinion the article needs work, but the seeds are there for a good article. -- DanBlackham 14:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Another voter whose only contributions are to articles on the Intactivism/Genital Integrity topic. I really don't know if all of these new users (they just can't be coincidence) are sockpuppets or if Walabio is really actively recruiting some of his fellow activists to register on Wikipedia in order to vote keep (as he basically stated in his "full disclosure"). If this is the case I think we are seeing a whole new phenomenon on Wikipedia and I'm wondering how this should be handled. Elf-friend 19:47, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not speak on anyone's behalf but my own. As long as my contributions are accurate and have a neutral POV why should it make any difference if I have contributed to one topic or many topics? DanBlackham 02:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Some Kuro5hin expatriates here may remember when hundreds of Somethingawful users joined K5 in order to vote for an anti-SPEWS article. SA was in the midst of its SPEWS listing and one of their users submitted a rant to K5, causing an "invasion" of SA users. It's an interesting problem. If these people have other interests than intactivism, they should be welcomed to Wikipedia. However if their only interest is to make "keep" votes, um.. I don't know. In the real world, you have to be a citizen before you can vote. Rhobite 20:18, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 17:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to the much more intact, NPOV and encyclopedic Intactivism. --leandros 09:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect - it reads more like a pamphlet than an encyclopedia article, intactivism seems to cover the concept well enough and in a much more article-like manner. Gregchapman 02:04, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep please. If Wikipedia wants to serve the internet community as a whole, rather than just the people who regularly hang out here, its content should be above the personality dynamics of the editorial process. The fact is that genital integrity does have a large following, a rich meaning and a benign objective. It's true the page needs improvement, but that's what wiki's are all about, continuous improvement. Simply deleting the entry doesn't make the topic go away, it only diminishes the worth of the encycopedia. --Rwinkel 06:15, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that the above is from a person who has only posted onto this page with no other edits to Wikipedia. RickK 06:18, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Added initial definition and removed redirect. Intactivism is a subset of the greater issue, Genital Integrity. I look forward to seeing what others contribute to the definition concerning this widespread problem. Dan Bollinger, Exec. Dir. Int'l Coalition for Genital Integrity.
  • Keep. Genital Integrity is a broader term than intactivism. It include raising awareness and having respect for nature's design. It is not specifically a political term, but applies to an education and health care context.User:DanP
    • Note: Above user (account created on 2 August) has only 6 edits to his name, 3 of which deal with this issue. The three edits that don't were performed well after the three that do. Elf-friend 22:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What are you saying? That I'm not a real person, or that my feelings don't count? Contact me if you wish, I'd be happy to explain my sincerity. The notion of Genital Integrity has been around for many years, thanks to Tim Hammond and ICGI. Intactivism is for legal/political goals only (hence the root word of "activism"). Genital Integrity is CLEARLY a parent topic including all recognition of the integrity for genitals of all persons, including intersex persons. It is a broad SOCIAL term, not just POLITICAL as intactivism clearly is. We do not reclassify "reproduction" as "pro-life" or "pro-choice", that is dishonestly narrowing the scope. DanP 15:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Much against my better judgement, I vote Delete and redirect. The article is PoV and contains a copyright image. I don't see anything worthy of merging. Noisy 22:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Full Disclosure

Since the circumsiophiliacs, to use a medical term, seem to be trying to remove all pages devoted to Genital Integrity, Intactivism, et cetera, by voting in a block for deletion, I informed Intactivists that it might be a good idea to join the debate before we are cast out of Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.

Also, I suggested that Intactivist try to improve and expand Genital Integrity and Intact Day so that WikiPædists who might vote for deletion just because the articles are small and poorly written, might say:

"¡Hey! I want to keep this because it is significant and well written."

Since people actively try to improve the articles, I ask that one read the articles one last time on the last day of voting before finalizing your votes.

I also ask that you ask yourselves why to articles, written at different times, both with no controversy, should both be listed by the same user at the same time for deletion. I quote Denni☯:

¿What do you have against Genital Integrity and Intact Day?
Nothing, except the high-pitched shrieking of those who believe that having one's foreskin removed is like having one's brain removed.
--
Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Denni☯ seems to have an axe to grind.

Compromise

Hugh Young suggests that we should give up Intact Day for Genital Integrity as long as Intact Day remains listed on July 1. Technically, I have no authority to speak for anyone else, but since time is of the essence, I will concede Intact Day, if we can keep Genital Integrity. I suspect that other Intactivists will find this acceptable.

¿Is this acceptable to you?

Ŭalabio 02:09, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

  • No, but that's a different vote for a different page. RickK 06:21, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 20:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I wish there was some way to make it clear to everyone trying to promote their agenda, self, company, whatever, how things work on wikipedia, and how things work on votes for deletion. I love the audacity of someone trying to haggle on here, as if we needed their approval to delete and they had the authority over the articles to finalize a deal. Authors don't own pages! The community does, and if the community says it goes, it goes, no matter how much you supposedly donated. God bless online democracy. Postdlf 05:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This discussion was deleted from the VfD page without any result. If it's going to be kept, the VfD header needs to be removed. If it's going to be deleted, let's delete if before deleting the discussion from the VfD page. RickK 22:01, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect and merge into a single article. The content of the merged article should initially be about the same as the present content of Intactivism, which is succinct and reasonably neutral. The title of the article can be either Intactivism or Genital Integrity, it doesn't matter. Both are virtually the same thing. Both terms get very roughly couple of thousand Google hits. The content of the present Genital Integrity article is unacceptable promotion of a specific point of view and proponents of this cause should expect very heavy editing of this content, whatever article it appears in. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith - I agree completely. I'm currently merging the two and applying a big cntl-X to the current (fairly loopy) GI article. I've just been surfing some anti-intactivist sites to see if there is anything from an opposing viewpoint there to add into an article, but I haven't found anything of merit. Both camps claim to have the full weight of medical evidence behind them, but neither gives references. Manning 23:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: Genital Integrity vs. Genital integrity, possible source of confusion

Be aware that there are two different articles, whose titles differ only in whether the i in "integrity' is upper or lower case. Genital Integrity, which I think is what this discussion is about, is about a dozen paragraphs long in three sections with a big pink-and-blue NOHARMM logo. Genital integrity began as a redirect to Intactivism. On August 2nd, 12.222.106.253 changed it to "a definition," shown in part below. I'm guessing this was basically the beginning of what became the present Genital Integrity article, and that the authors of that article forgot that the old one was still there. That is, I don't think the old article was left in place with any underhanded intent.

I just changed it to be a redirect to Genital Integrity.

The definition that presently appears in Genital Integrity begins "Genital integrity is the legal and human rights concept that..." This defines a concept without asserting that the concept is true, and I have no problem with it. (Assuming of course that the definition is a correct statement of what the users of the term mean by it). The old article on Genital integrity began:

Genital Integrity is the human right to a complete body. Every person in the world is born with this inalienable right. Infants, children and adults shall not be the victims of forced genital excision or scarification...

That is, it asserted the existence of an inalienable right (POV) rather than asserting the existence of a group of people who believe there is such a right (NPOV).

I hope that my action will be generally seen as a simple, uncontroversial correction of a simple oversight. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the explanation and clearing up that point -- I wuz baffled.... Also for the redirect. Hayford Peirce 00:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If you insist upon merging Genital Integrity (a very important concept) and Intactivism (a movement for protecting children from Genital Mutilation), I suggest that you search this sight for unbiased medical information: The Library of Cirp.Org. You will find a collection of peer-reviewed medical articles covering over a century published in popular and prestigious Medical Journals. If you want to know about the concept of Genital Integrity and movement of Intactivism, just read the links Genital Integrity and Intactivism. If you want to know what the circumcisiophiliacs (which is a medical term for those who call themselves Circumfetishists) think about the concept of Genital Integrity and the movement Intactivism, read this: CircList.Com. CircList.Com is a den of circumcisiophiliacs. If you are willing to trust an Intactivist, I would write Michael Glass. Michael Glass has infiltrated and studied the circumcisiophiliacs. His emailaddress is: "Michaell Glass" <mglass @t mira net> I broke up the emailaddress so that spammers will not spam Michael Glass. You can trust Michael Glass as much or as little as you want. Hopefully the article will be more coherent and less disjointed than an article about both roses and Calvinism. Ŭalabio 00:22, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Procedural Issues

[edit]

Well a complete rewrite has occurred. Hopefully this might result in a page which we can all live with. Intactivism has been redirected to this page, as it is really just the name of the proponent movement (and has been identified as such). Manning 00:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While i am sure Manning is wiser than i abt WP, in more ways than i am wise abt it at all, i'm concerned his understanding of VfD procedures may have gone out of date during his extended sabbatical. This note by me does not constitute my "calling" the result on this VfD (a task i have avoided by plan, and this one would not be my first if i were to start). But i will be surprised and confused if it is not decided that this vote

  1. closed sometime between 20:13, 2004 Aug 6 and 03:00, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC, of course), and
  2. mandates that Genital Integrity not be deleted

(My impression also is that the strong support for its becoming a redirect to another title, rather than remaining an article title, should be expected to forestall further attempts to maintain that title on any article, but that is IMO no longer a topic for this page.)

Unless and until Manning states that he continues to think otherwise, i urge those who are interested in this save their effort, against what i consider the likelihood that nothing added at this point will affect the VfD status of the article in question.

Nevertheless:

  1. i've restored the link from before the ToC of VfD to the "August 1" heading that this resides under, which may unhide it for some of our colleagues, and
  2. if it's decided there is some justification for keeping/returning this item to active VfD consideration, it should IMO be done by moving it from section "August 1" to the location (at the moment, between the "August 9" heading and the Vfd Footer) that it would occupy if it were a new nomination being added at that point. This would avoid its being overlooked by those who, like me, think it is over and done with.

--Jerzy(t) 05:11, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

  • No objections, here - seems good. Thanks to whoever removed the photos (didn't check the copyvio on them). Manning 07:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More Discussion & Voting

[edit]
  • Manning unilaterally deleted and redirected the Intactivism article without a discussion or a vote. That seem to violate the established procedures for deleting articles. DanBlackham 20:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: No, Manning followed the procedures exactly. He did not actually delete the article. He merely turned it into a redirect. Anyone may edit any article and add or delete content. That includes turning an article into a redirect. Any subsequent reader can still review the decision by looking in the page history. VfD is only for discussing the deletion of entire pages because it would include the page history. If you would like to contest Manning's decision to edit or redirect, that discussion should occur on the article's Talk page. Rossami 21:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You don't pay much attention to things do you, sunshine? The Intactivism page has been redirected, not deleted, and it is fully recoverable if needs be. I made the changes because a week of arguing had achieved nothing. Hopefully as we seem to have an article that conforms to 'pedia standards (NPOV, etc) we may not need to do so. Manning 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected regarding deletion of the Intactivism article. However please explain what will happen if there is now a consensus to redirect Genital Integrity. I thought a vote to redirect meant redirecting Genital Integrity to Intactivism. However now Intactivism is redirected to Genital Integrity. DanBlackham 06:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • ¿Why merge two articles and put the result up for deletion? This seems unfair and irregular. Ŭalabio 07:29, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Because the merger is a proposed solution. As the article is still being discussed, it seems more unfair to just storm on in, make substantial changes and then say "We're done". It is still here pending consensus that the solution is acceptable. -Manning 07:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • When I pointed out CircList.Com I forgot to mention public verses private faces (I forgot about the public faux ad because I have known the truth for years). CircList.Com does appear to be neutral on the surface. Under the surface, is circumcision-pornography, and sexual discussions about how seeing a bare glans arouses. I truly meant to refer you to the discussion for the opinion of circumcisiophiliacs. This is a gallery of both discussion and links to some nasty stories with children: Some stories and discussion about circumcisiophilia often involving children on CircList.Com Michael Glass is the true expert in this field. I recommend Googling for discussions deep in CircList.Com. The point is that although CircList.Com, is as far as I can determine, the largest community of circumcisiophiliacs, it is very biased. Just remember this when writing about what circumcisiophiliacs think about the concept of Genital Integrity, the movement Intactivism, and Intactivists. The concept of Genital Integrity is that all minors have a right to no medically unnecessary genital modification. The movement Intactivism is about protecting children from medically unnecessary genital modification. Intactivists do not care what consenting adults do to their genitals. Ŭalabio 08:44, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
    • Your condemnation of the circlist site seems to be based on the fact that they disagree with you. The intactivist sites I have studied are equally, if not more, biased; one of which (circumstition.com) goes so far as to condemn the AMA and AAP simply because they take no firm stance. Manning 21:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I personally do not care whether the circumcisiophiliacs agree with me or not. The trouble is that the circumcisiophiliacs encourage parents parents to mutilate their babies with lies like circumcision prevents penile cancer (the American Cancer-Association says otherwise. Let me use an analogy: It is okay to talk about eating babies, as Swift did. It is wrong to encourage people into actually eating babies. It comes down to free-speech verses real actions. ¿How is encouraging parents to take the whole baby home more biased than encouraging parents to mutilate the baby for no good reason? ¿If one lived back in the United States of America in 1860, and one condemned one's church for being neutral about slavery, would one be wrong? Ŭalabio 01:03, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
        • You seem to be forgetting that many adults choose to get circumcised. You also seem to be under the assumption that all circumcisions are based on some kind of sexual desire. There are other reasons such as hygiene. Not everyone in this world agrees with your point of view. Sites like circlist do not endorse one position over another, they only provide facts. That is, by the very definition, unbiased. --Starx 05:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • No I do not. What adults decide to do is nether here nor there. Adults can look after themselves -- children need protection. ¿Since most intact adults (less than 10%) choose circumcision, should guardians force babies to endure a painful, mutilating, sensation-reducing procedure procedure, the baby would not elect? ¿Even if most intact adults choose circumcision, is it right to perform a medically contra-indicated procedure on a nonconsenting minor? ¿Are you familiar with Candy and Sharon?: Sharon and Candy are deaf. Out of spite -- ¡Oops! -- I mean, so their children will not feel different, they deafened their children. ¿Would their children as adults would have voluntarily chosen deafness if they could hear? No. most Ob/Gyns in the United states of America circumcise out of greed. Hygiene is a red herring. Whether people intact or mutilated, they should bathe regularly. If people cannot bathe, the last thing they need is an open wound. Circumcision is the leading cause of tetanus in Africa. I still believe that it is not nice to mutilate babies for no medical reason. CircList.Com also has circumcisiophilic pornography. Readthis nice allegory I found on an Intact site for comparison. Then explain all of the procircumcision-pornography. 11:15, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
            • There is no pornography, you simply call the pictures pornography because you do not like them. If I'm looking for information on circumcision I certainly am going to be interested in what the result looks like, hence the pictures. Sharon and Candy are a red hearing, deafening your children is not comparable to circumcision. When you deafen someone you completely destroy a sense that is essential to functioning normally in this world. Circumcision does not completely destroy a sense. Also the procedure is not painfull, any even half competent doctor uses anesthetic, and to say that doctors do it out of greed is idiotic, circumcisions are not mandatory in the US, it is the parents decision. Bathing is certainly not a red herring though, some people don't want to have to wash themselves 2 or 3 times a day to get rid of a smell that doesn't need to be there. I understand that you think it's mutilation and wrong, that's your point of view. The point of view of others is that it's not wrong and it's benificial. So the neutral point of view is to make no judgement on whether it is right or wrong, and simply present facts so that viewers of the site are free to make their own decision on the morality of the subject. --Starx 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-- Ŭalabio 03:30, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC) responds point by point to the above comment by Starx on 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) --

            • There is no pornography, you simply call the pictures pornography because you do not like them.
            • If I'm looking for information on circumcision I certainly am going to be interested in what the result looks like, hence the pictures.
              • I have nothing against seeing pictures. ¿Do you want to see pictures of the end result of circumcision? ¡Here!
            • Sharon and Candy are a red hearing, deafening your children is not comparable to circumcision.
              • ¿How is it not the same?
            • When you deafen someone you completely destroy a sense that is essential to functioning normally in this world.
              • That is what voice-trainers tell parents when trying to convince them to castrate the preteen sopranos with the golden voices.
            • Circumcision does not completely destroy a sense.
              • It just severely damages a sense.
            • Also the procedure is not painfull,
              • ¿Who told you that? This is one of the most idiotic statemes, which, I have ever read.
            • any even half competent doctor uses anesthetic,
              • Most doctors do [not.] ¿What about afterwards? for at least a week, usually a fortnight, sometimes for three weeks, the glans, frænar remnant, the remnant of the inner mucosa of the præpuce, and the futurecircumcision-scar is one big open wound. Movement hurts. Pressure hurts. Air hurts. Water hurts. Urine hurts. Fæces hurt.
            • and to say that doctors do it out of greed is idiotic,
              • The circumcision-industry is about 200-million-US$-a-year industry in the United States of America. After scaring the parents into mutilating with their lies, the doctors charge about 200US$. Why do not you read what Weasel Wiswell said back in 1987, when circumcisions in the United states of America only cost 125US$.
            • circumcisions are not mandatory in the US, it is the parents decision.
              • Parents should not consent to medically unnecessary sexual mutilation. Besides, the parents defer to the greedy lying Ob/Gyns.
            • Bathing is certainly not a red herring though,
              • Yes it is.
            • some people don't want to have to wash themselves 2 or 3 times a day to get rid of a smell that doesn't need to be there.
              • ¡That is your problem! ¡You wash your genitals too much!:
              • If you took a 5-10 minute shower, every hour, on the hour, your skin would crack and breed. If you never showered, you get sick -- and very smelly too. "Moderation in all things" When you take your daily 5-10-minute shower, just take 5-10 seconds to clean your genitals.
              • The genitals of women are harder to clean than the genitals of men. If it comes down to circumcision for hygiene, it makes more sense to circumcise women. Genitals require no more special attention or effort for cleaning than ears.
            • I understand that you think it's mutilation and wrong,
              • It is mutilation:

Mutilation

  • "an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part"
              • that's your point of view.
              • Circumcision is compliant with the definition of mutilation; so therefore, circumcision is mutilation.
            • The point of view of others is that it's not wrong and it's benificial.
              • Ethically, medically unnecessary circumcision is wrong in that it violates the rights of the child to not be abused and mutilated. Circumcision is not beneficial; no national medical organization on Earth recommends it.
            • So the neutral point of view is to make no judgement on whether it is right or wrong, and simply present facts so that viewers of the site are free to make their own decision on the morality of the subject. --Starx 14:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • ¿Could not we present to the readers an ethical analysis showing that sinse circumcision is both abuse and mutilation, it is wrong.

I'm not going to try and make sense of any of that. Please understand that community wiki pages need to be kept at least passably neat so that it's possible for people to make sense of what they are reading. --Starx 00:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The word Intactivism deserves inclusion only if it is correctly defined. What has been proposed here does not do that. From some of the fanatical ranting (above) one must assume that there is a significant psychosexual motivation behind this "intactivism" and as such Wikipedia should be careful not to allow itself to become a vehicle to further the aims of this fantical group. - Robert Brookes

  • Intactivism is a movement for leaving children with intact genitals unless medical condition mandates intervention (less than one percent of children medically need genital surgery, which is less than the number of children needing teeth with cavities filled). Intactivists believe in the concept of Genital Integrity: Genital Integrity is the believe that one should leave the genitals of children alone except for repairing medical problems. An Intactivist is a member of the movement for Intactivism believing in Genital Integrity. Intactivists oppose Human Genital Mutilation (HGM). I hope that this answers your questions. The circucisiophiliacs are the fanatics. The circumcisiophiliacs want to bare the glandes of all boys so that the boys will look perpetually sexually aroused. many circumcisiophiliacs believe that what is good for boys is also good for girls (societies mutilating the genitals of girls are a subset of societies mutilating boys). Intactivistically yours Ŭalabio 01:03, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Have Changed My Vote

  • I've just looked at the latest version of this article and find it far different from what it was originally. It now seems NPOV to me. I also did a little rewriting, mostly to smooth out the style a little. I have just changed my vote here from delete to keep. But I will change that to redirect if that seems to be the general intent of this voting. Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks Hayford for the mods - the changes were good.
  • God, this vfd page is fucking unreadable. Now that the page has been rewritten, my vote is to keep at the name genital integrity (lowercase) provided that the many repetitive external links are removed and the POV gets further toned down. -Sean Curtin 06:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Delete or Redirect - unnecessary split

[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of redirect and delete. A redirect here, for all intents and purposes is a deletion of this article. Its material is not the issue. If it is, then we need better terms than delete and redirect. Perhaps more specific titles are needed. PS: Anyone who comes out with an argument of "Why do you want to hurt children?" is a living sign of a badly formed and insincere (ignoratio elenchi) argument. -SV 18:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete says that the topic is nonsense and doesn't deserve inclusion into the encyclopedia. Redirect says that the content may be worthy but it should be (or already is) contained in a more appropriate article. With delete everything is just gone. Whereas with redirect content is merged with other articles before the page is wiped. --Starx 21:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where they are coming from?

[edit]

Elf-friend asked: "I really don't know if all of these new users (they just can't be coincidence) are sockpuppets or if Walabio is really actively recruiting some of his fellow activists to register on Wikipedia in order to vote keep".

The answer is yes, here is the evidence:

> -----Original Message----- > From: Ŭalabio [1] > Sent: 04 August 2004 05:55 > To: restore-list@eskimo.com > Subject: [RL] Re: Circumciophiliacs at Encyclopædia WikiPedia .Org take no > prisoners

For the record, I asked people on intact-l and restore-digest, last year to help me on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org. I started all of the Pro-Intactivism/Genital-Integrity-articles on Encyclopædia.Org. I tried to expose Circumfetishism on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org. If anyone wants to help, please do. I am all alone. It is so much work. I have to fight the Circumcisiophiliacs alone. An account on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org is free. You need not just work on our articles; look what else I created:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/Pangæa_Ultima

¡Pangæa Ultima! ¡Will be come soon! ¡In just 250 million more years!

My article about Pannotia is even better:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/Pannotia


I believe that we should keep the article.

Michael Glass

Keep. I've looked at the current Genital Integrity article, and I really don't think it should be deleted. From looking at the history of the article, the original version did deserve deletion -- but people took the time to fix it, and the new article is drastically different from the original. As it stands, the article looks to me like a good, NPOV article about a mildly notable topic. I also do not find redirect necessary, since that seems to have already been done (Intactivism redirects to Genital Integrity already). (And since that's already been done, what do the Redirect votes mean?)

While I find Walabio's paranoid antics on this page quite distasteful, especially his ad hominem attacks on polite people who honestly think that this page should be deleted, the article as it currently stands deserves to be in Wikipedia. However, I don't think Walabio should be allowed to edit it, because he clearly cannot stay NPOV about this issue. The article is only good now because somebody other than him took care of it. On a final note, I removed the last thing I could see that was wrong with the article, namely the excessive number of external links. Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dislike User:Walabio's methods in defending this article (and horribly failing to assume good faith), but seeing how it looks at the moment, and also that Intactivism is redirected to it, I see no reason to delete it. It could become a very interesting article. Move it to Genital integrity, though. -- Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Administrative Action

[edit]

Apologies to anyone inconvenienced or upset by the temporary disappearance of this page. As i'm not sure that i did anything that encouraged it, this is an apology in behalf of the whole administrator (or sysop) "corps". This discussion may move, but when it does it will be much more polite and orderly than that! --Jerzy(t) 22:35, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Rossami deleted this off the VfD page, claiming it's on the Old discussions page. Well, it still has a VfD heading, there has been no decision made (though the 7 days have LONG passed), and there's no link to the Old discussions from the main VfD page, so I think this needs to stay as long as the header is still on the page. RickK 23:50, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

ATTN: Administrators
Your admin colleague Jerzy(t) would be grateful for your attention to the implications of existing policy that are in the first stages of being addressed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Close vs. Extend. They are relevant here, even if i turn out to be wrong in speculating that those implications underly the actions (which i questioned elsewhere on this subpage) of a recently reactivated admin.

Separately but similarly relevant, the event i refer to elsewhere in this section is discussed in some detail at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#August 12 (end August 22), and i suggest that points made there provide context for contemplated admin action here. --Jerzy(t) 03:56, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

Why is this still here?

[edit]

There is no need for this vote anymore. Consensus, at the time, was highly in favor of a merge/redirect. A user took it upon himself to merge the article resulting in the current version of Genital Integrity. Since then the votes in favor of keep have increased signifigantly. That indicates to me that the present form of the article is acceptable. Those who voted redirect got their wish, those who voted keep still have a Genital Integrity article and thus should be happy. There aren't enough votes in the delete columb to indicate a consensus over the other two groups. It's time to delist and archive the debate. --Starx 13:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--- 

Isn't this funny

It seems that over runs of dates are allowed so that single issue groups can rally the faithful from the far corners of the internet. What is the point of voting or setting target dates? Or does this indicate that fanatics will get their way as they will just wear everyone else down and into submission. Wkipedia should get its act together!

--- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genital_Integrity&oldid=1089098448"