Talk:Posthectomy
Robert the Bruce will you please stop deleting information and references just because you don't like them? —Ashley Y 09:00, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Ashley Y will you please stop inserting information and references into articles so as to promote the anti-circumcision/foreskin admirer agenda. - Robert the Bruce 09:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not a posthectomy involves removing the ridged band is clearly relevant information. Please stop deleting it. The "anti-circumcision agenda" is no more than ordinary medical concern. And please read this if you haven't already. Note in particular this (emphasis mine):
- The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.
- —Ashley Y 09:09, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- OK so what you are saying is that it is important for anti-circumcision activists/foreskin admirers that the loss of the so-called ridged band is mentioned? I'll fix that. - Robert the Bruce 09:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No, the loss or not of the ridged band is relevant information no matter to whom it's important. Also please read this if you haven't already. —Ashley Y 09:29, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
- Relevant to whom? The so-called ridged band is part of the foreskin so it is self evident that if the foreskin is removed then so is the other thing. It is only anti-circumcision activists/foreskin admirers that demand it gets a special mention. - Robert the Bruce 09:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Since this article is distinguishing one kind of circumcision from another it's useful to specify exactly what gets cut and what doesn't as precisely as possible.—Ashley Y 09:38, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Proposed Redirect
[edit]This article claims that posthectomy is a specific type of circumcision. I can find no evidence for this. Posthetomy (note the correct spelling) is merely an obsolete synonym for circumcision. I can therefore see no reason for the term to have it's own page, and therefore propose that we redirect to circumcision. - Jakew 11:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)