Anthere wrote:
I think the picture of the circumsized penis has nothing to do in that article and should be moved to the article about circumsision (a difficult word to spell).
If no one does it, I will (open threat :-))
Leave the photo of the circumsized penis at [[penis]]. Nothing wrong with it being there as a compare/contrast photo set with uncircumcised penis. You also allude to a very important point - a great many men (perhaps most) in the U.S. are circumsized and it has nothing to do with religion.
-- mav
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
Leave the photo of the circumsized penis at [[penis]]. Nothing wrong with it being there as a compare/contrast photo set with uncircumcised penis. You also allude to a very important point - a great many men (perhaps most) in the U.S. are circumsized and it has nothing to do with religion.
-- mav
A circumsized penis is not the natural state of a penis. It is pov to label a regular penis by describing him not being a non-natural state of a penis
A "missing" picture is not alluding the fact some penis are circonsized, the text is explaining circoncicion and there is a link to this article.
Wikipedia is not a source of information for America only. And the rest of the world does not necessarily want to hear about America only.
American men are far from being the majority of men on planet.
The fact penis are circoncized for religion or for social reasons is irrelevant to the article on penis. It is highly relevant to the article on circonsizion.
Circonsision or not circonsision is not a very important point about penis. The very important points about penis is that it allows you to 1) urinate 2) make children 3) give pleasure (controversial) 4) feel pleasure (controversial)
I would not have thought I would spend my evening with penises
Anthere wrote:
A circumsized penis is not the natural state of a penis. It is pov to label a regular penis by describing him not being a non-natural state of a penis
By that logic, one could also argue that it is POV to label a person as "bearded", or to show a cleanshaven person as an example on [[human]], as, after all, "bearded" is the natural state, and shaving is an artificial modification to this natural state.
Now one might argue that circumcision is a bad modification, while shaving is a good (or neutral) modification, but that's also a POV claim.
I think the best we can say is that some people are circumcised, and some are not, and neither is explicitly "normal", but in some parts of the world one is more common, and in other parts of the world the other is more common. So we should probably have both images, and not make a statement about which is "normal" or "natural".
-Mark
--- Delirium delirium@rufus.d2g.com wrote:
Now one might argue that circumcision is a bad modification, while shaving is a good (or neutral) modification, but that's also a POV claim. -Mark
ForYourInformation:
Shaving is considered a bad modification by many religious sects. Shaving is also discouraged by some mystics. There are lots of people who don't like shaving.
I just wanted to show that it is very difficult to say that some claim is neutral. Most claims are POV :)
How can we keep Wikipedia NPOV while most claims are POV? I think the best way is to present all claims and write "X says that Y is wrong" or "Z says that A is right", that is, reporting all POVs and giving references. When we write an article we should think "I don't know the truth, I am only a reporter, the reader will decide what is true".
--Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus