Talk:Circumcision/Archive 13

1032:

write books or publish in print sources, which does nothing to prevent those print sources from being used as sources, should they satisfy WP:RS (given the claim). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. That acuckoblah is a synonym of circumcised is far from extraordinary, and a mundane source therefore suffices. For finding a synonym to "Circumcised", and acu... yeah, you know, has the latin meaning of "uncovered penis", and it turns up in several sex lexicons, I'd say for all purposes those are reliable enough for a mere, less well known, synonym. For chrissake why are we even talking about this? We found a synonym, it may not be the most well known, but lets use it anyway. Now that I know "acusomething" is a synonym of "circumcised", I would feel cheated by any pseudo-encyclopedic article that failed to offer me that information. Just because YOU have never heard it doesn't mean nobody has ever used it. You live and learn, you know?

1533:: The more information you have, the better are your "filters". Essentially, by adding information, you remove junk, and vice versa - the two seemingly seperate things end up being the same. Wonderful, isn't it? Or lets say you have "dubious facts". How do you remove them? Mind you, you want to remove the "dubious" part, not the "facts" part. You remove that by adding information. Eventually the "dubious facts" will turn out discredited or corroborated. The "value" of an information is again information with a value itself. Even when you have known, discredited things in the article, its still better than not having them in the article at all - Someone from Backwards County, Alabama might not yet know that this particular bit of information he clings on has been discredited, and an article that simply omits that discredited bit of information is not as useful to him than one that clearly tells him "Dude, that particular idea is bull". 3086:

presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions.64-66 This finding was recently confirmed.68 In another contemporary study, nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son. Deferral of discussion until after birth, combined with the fact that many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived, contribute to the high rate of elective circumcision.67,68 Major factors in parental decision-making are the father's circumcision status, opinions of family members and friends, a desire for conformity in their son's appearance, and the belief that the circumcised penis is easier to care for with respect to local hygiene.

1558:

subjectively. But ultimately, as reasonable people, given the same information we must come to the same conclusions. That is the whole point of dialectic debate - Exchange information (arguments) until a solution to the problem (different information <- value judgement <- subjective opinion) is found. Whether or not many people come from Backwards County, Alabama, is not relevant - If the information was not notable, that would mean there would never be a single person to which that bit of information was useful. That would further mean, that person from Backwater County, Alabama, could never have showed up in the first place. This is simple statistics: The probability of something happening is 1 (100%) when it actually happens. Purely since this bit of information is notable to someone, it may be notable to someone else as well.

108:

keeps everything in place so that the doctor can remove the foreskin with a scalpel. The clamp provides hemostasis (pressure frequently described as 'crushing') to minimize blood flow to the area) and in the case of GOMCO, a surface against which the docotr can cut (the bell that goes between the foreskin and the glans). I think this is an important difference, so I'm going to clarify the procedures part, unless someone else beats me to it or someone can provide a good justification for the phrase about the clamp cutting off the foreskin. I'd be more bold and just do it, but this is such a touchy page, I thought I'd talk it out first.

3423:

fear on the infant's face in every available picture of the procedure led some editors to argue that it would bias the reader against the procedure, and the image was replaced with one of an operating room in which nothing was visible but the backs and tools of the doctors, the baby being completely obscured. An image of a young (if I remember correctly, Turkish) boy being circumcised was also removed on the grounds of being too disturbing. If you're interested in reopening that debate, I'd welcome it. It's been some time since it was discussed, and it's possible that the consensus of the editors may be different this time.

4358:

Christianity 5.2.1 Coptic Christian 5.3 Hinduism 5.4 Sikhism 5.5 Islam 5.6 Judaism 5.7 Tribal traditions 6 Ethical issues 6.1 Consent 6.2 Emotional consequences 6.3 Legality 6.4 Religious circumcision of minors 7 Medical aspects 7.1 HIV 7.2 HPV 7.3 Hygiene 7.4 Infectious and chronic conditions 7.5 Penile cancer 7.6 Phimosis and paraphimosis 7.7 Urinary tract infections 8 Prevalence of circumcision worldwide 8.1 United States 9 See also 10 References 11 External links 11.1 General information 11.2 Circumcision techniques 11.3 Circumcision opposition 11.4 Circumcision promotion 12 Further reading

764:

adoration thereof - see the links. "The real world" is thus exactly an argument why the synonym should be mentioned in the article. Spreading information is the purpose of wikipedia. Here we have a synonym for being circumcised belonging to an article that is in desperate need for a richer vocabulary about that state. Remember the "circumcised vs natural" wars? That problem would be reduced if there were actually more words - outside gym shower room talk - to describe the state of circumcision. Addition of the synonym (and subsequent, occasional use) would be without a doubt beneficial to the article as a whole.

460:

CA-MRSA and coagulation defects, while your view is that it shouldn't. In this way, my view is anti-circ as compared to yours, yours is pro-circ as compared to mine. If we had a neutral page to compare it to, we could speak of where our views deviate from it, but no such page exists at this time, or at least we don't agree on its identity. From the point of view of TipTp, you're pro-circ. It's all relative, unless you have some fixed point to measure from. Personally, I don't consider myself anti-circ, but I do recognize that I am anti-circ relative to some other views.

2553:

underlying ulterior motive is to increase the number of penises present on wikipedia not for information, merely for your own personal amusement. Obviously this has also struck a chord with other editors of the article. I believe with statistical analysis tools not yet invented for Wiki's history features, we could determine how many times you have edited the article, versuses the other samplings, and would be able to make a judgement about that based on the fact that I am guessing (with some accuracy) that you are the "owner" or "hijacker" of the article.

893:

article on it (hint: a source is more than someone using part of the term. It actually has content which should be used. As a minimum, this requires at least one editor to have a copy to work from). Furthermore, it's baffling that you raise the topic now, since as a result of the discussion, you stated: "I have changed my opinion. The arguments brought forward on this page have convinced me to wait for the arrival of the book, do some additional research, and then recreate the page, rather than to undelete the current article. I retract my motion."

3609:

explicitly denied any involvement (and it's not like he's made any effort at all to hide his identity behind the IP's he's been forced to use in order to post on Talk pages), and no evidence of sockpuppetry has been offered. Therefore, any blanket revert is premature at best. Besides, the changes were good, and that matters more than anything else. I fully expect JakeW to violate Knowledge rules by reverting my changes without sufficient explanation, but I hope he won't live up to these expectations. Hasn't it been long enough already?

2482:

uses American dialect, largely because routine neonatal infant circumcision, especially many of the cases under discussion, are American in origin. If the article's editors had a consensus of using British english, I would obviously have quoted the OED's definition of circumcision instead. I do not have an OED handy and they're too greedy to allow free access online, so I can't immediately provide the definition; I'll look it up next time I'm at the library. Seriously, the nonsense objections some people raise...

1429:

believe in standards of notability. I want to thank you for inspiring me to think about it, though, because you've led me to question myself and nail down exactly what I feel. I'd say that an item is "notable" if a.) it has been widely reported on and/or discussed by reputable sources (consensus determines what is reputable), or failing that, b.) a significant majority of editors of the article consider it notable. One editor should definitely not have the power to ipso facto declare an item notable or not notable.

449:. I want an article that maintains a neutral point of view, that is based on reliable sources, and that has no original research. None of those desires in any way boil down to wanting a "positive view of circumcision." Since you've made that characterization several times in several places, I think it's important to point out that it is false. The safest way to avoid making mistakes like the one you are making is to simply not comment on other editors at all — focus on the article instead. 31: 1870:

that has "Circumcision" all over it, would actually refer to "Circumcision"? In deed, the notion that this book's author is Brenda love is Original Research: It could actually be titled "Brenda Love" and written by "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices". How would we know? Amazon.com is definitely not a reliable source on that matter! Ahem. If you're not convinced of the meaning, let me translate the synonyms mentioned, hopefully correct:

1434:"We" have not argued over this term, you've argued with Jake and Nandesuka. I really don't care, honestly. Nor do I have anything against the inclusion of TJB; pared down a bit and merged with the article on the X-Men or the animated series, it would do fine. I feel Jake falls on the exclusionist side in this article, and you and Alienus fall on the inclusionist side. And that's fine by me; I've already said my piece. Best wishes, 2631:

at the page history before your arrival, you'll note that Jake was not waging a one-man war against the other editors here the way you are. His edits were supported by several other editors, such as Nandesuka. I've generally tried to stay neutral in this page's politics and wars, but I can certainly recognize when partisans of either side - specifically I'm thinking of TipPT and Jake - are

1415:

criticising about you (you opposed inclusion of the word), Jakew and Nandesuka's philosophy is, that if the entirety of wikipedia editors followed this strategy, there would eventually not be anything to read or edit on Knowledge at all. Therefore I ask you: Change your underlying strategy, otherwise you will harm Knowledge in the long term.

1399:'s definition of what constitutes a scientific theory. However, if anyone - anyone at all - wanted to take care of writing and maintaining the string theory article, keep it fair, neutral, verifiable and all that, then I say, good luck to you. Because I may not find it notable, but someone else does, and someone else is going to maintain it. 2528:) has nothing to do with my definition of the term. Both American and British dialect forms agree on the proper definition of the term to be used on Knowledge, based on their primary definitions: circumcision specifically and unambiguously refers, by default, to the procedure as performed on males. Are we done yet? 477:

It ain't; it leads to absurd conclusions such as characterizing someone who really doesn't care about some topic as "pro-that-topic" or "anti-that-topic." That's why I continue to suggest to you that you'll be much more productive if you constrain yourself to talking about content rather than about editors.

3561:, by JakeW, on his grounds that it is not well-sourced. It's still in the article source as a comment, at least. Anyhow, I think Dabljuh won several people over to his position, but many of those people (like you and me, perhaps) are "sensible" enough not to touch the article itself with a ten-foot pole. 3761:

Inclusion of: "Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa. For example, a "low and tight" circumcision which includes a frenectomy might be expected to diminish sensation more than a "high and loose" circumcision. Finally, loss

3585:

the article, with a little help from his friends, Nandesuka and Jayjg. There have been no legitimate objections raised to the mention of acucullophallia, and no consensus to remove it, yet JakeW has done everything in his power to keep it out of the article. What's funny is that the word just means

3226:

Don't play games. Med Assoc's in the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India, and Germany ... so far, explicitly do not recommend. Several are linked below. Why don't you find ONE medical assoc that states otherwise? The paragraph lead sentence does primarily reflect (US) assoc controversy.

3160:

still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns." It does not state that this is true elsewhere (or "where traditionally practiced"). If you want to make a broader statement,

3133:

I came back here looking for debate ... "Authoritative medical associations worldwide do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision (see external links below),(disputed — see talk page) but where traditionally practiced, circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations,

3099:

What really bothers me is that daily washing with water prevents problems (otherwise considered a "benefit" of circ's) ... THAT should be in the first page under "medical aspects." I read that STD's (including HIV) can likewise be reduced (similar to circ results) by washing and urinating after sex.

2552:

From the discussion regarding homosexual egos (to Jakew): You are the evidence of your own homosexual, homoerotic tendency toward males. Since you are the "top editor" of the article, thus "owning" it, it is obvious to me from a lengthy trend in the bias of the article toward male genitals, that your

2227:

You know, I don't know anything about "homosexual ego" or anything. I don't personally agree with Jake's views, and I feel he raises the bar on notability higher than on any other Knowledge article I've seen, perhaps unrealistically high. But he is also one of the best-educated and most intelligent

1459:

Here's a challenge: Take all information that is found when googleing "Circumcision". Sum it up, removing redundancies and so forth. No copy & pasting either, since that's a copyrights violation. Make it so there's a bit of order in it. Impossibly huge amount of work that might actually result in

1154:

issues here. Various forces (I have no idea what the sides are and what their arguments and issues are) seem to be pulling at this article and discussing on the talk page without actually listening to each other. If one sentence causes this much tumult, it is certainly a symptom of a larger problem

476:

The problem with your generalization is still there: it's false. I'm not taking insult. I'm just saying that what you are saying isn't true. The problem with generalizing "relative to" someone with a strong point of view that it suggests that that is an appropriate yardstick by which to measure.

432:

TipTp was on a wikibreak and asked about the current consensus. I think it was fair for me to answer. I don't think that this answer was in any way uncivil or constituted a personal attack or otherwise violated the rules. If you think there is a factual error, feel free to step in and correct it.

196:

I don't want to get into an edit war so will leave a comment here, and request that there at least be given some consideration to my request (even if others have put forth the same request in the past) - it is why can't we remove the image? It hardly contributes anything in my eyes and is disturbing.

117:

Ah, now it's been reverted back apparently because the reverter is in an arbitration that requested they refrain from editing this page. I guess I'll just wait and see what else happens at the hands of the more experienced wikipedians; I admit I'm a bit intimidated by all the action on this article,

5204:

One example is the claim that: "Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa." This conflict's with Masood's findings, in which 38% of men reported increased sensitivity. In addition, it's almost certainly OR, and also makes the

5040:

The sexual effects of neonatal circumcision have not been studied. Loss of erogenous tissues and attendant sensitivity varies with the amount and location of excised or damaged mucosa. Specifically, the frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive," thus contributing to

4262:

Ok, Alienus, this should be entertaining. Let's take one example. Please explain, referencing appropriate parts of the policy, why 'the deviant's dictionary' conforms to Knowledge's criteria for a reliable source in this context. In doing so, please demonstrate that it not only match the 'good', but

3589:

I don't really understand his behavior, except perhaps that it was based on confusing acucullophallia with acucullophilia, with the latter being a paraphilia that he might find embarassing. If so, that misunderstanding has long been corrected, so I'm at a loss as to what reasonable motives he might

3543:

I'm also wondering where the heck the word went and when it was deleted. It's not in any of the last 50 revisions that I see. I thought we had that one nailed down finally. Did it get swept away just because Dabljuh got blocked and can't defend it? There's no way that could be right. If Dabljuh

3340:

Medical aspects section reads as a propganda piece and is based off many ancient and now refuted studies - such as the bogus claim of a lower incidence of UTI, etc - the latest medical science indiciates that there are no medical benefits of non-theraputic circumcision beyond what can be obtained by

3194:

I added a {{fact}} tag after the comma, to reflect the fact that no reliable source (as far as I know) has surveyed all authoritative medical associations worldwide. I also amended the second part of the sentence to reflect the source cited: "in the United States circumcision is often chosen largely

2481:

about? Knowledge's manual of style and naming conventions clearly indicate both American and British dialect usage are equally appropriate and acceptable. Specifically, the guidelines state that in an article especially relevant to America or to Britain, to use the associated dialect. The article

1547:

the way things are, just pointing out that, as Knowledge currently stands, a certain amount of subjectivity prevails. If someone from Backwards County, Alabama tries to insert discredited information, he gets reverted because the consensus is for including it. If too many people editing an article

137:

I removed the information about using a dorsal slit with the Mogen clamp, because one doesn't, and added back details how it is actually used. I didn't think this would be controversial, as the techniques are quite standard among practitioners, but this time I added copious citations for the curious

2849:

To be clear, I am referring to the addition of "acucullophallia". Someone added it but the usual suspects reverted it. As a habitual restorationist, I restored it once I found that it had some easily-found citations. This led to a week-long battle, which Dab handily won with a book citation. In

2630:

A personal attack is "you are unfit to edit this article because of your views", or, translated, "you are too immature to keep your personal views from being reflected in your editing". This is untrue. Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by "not the thoughts of the community". If you'll look

2563:

Without such tools (or, I suppose, even with them) you are merely making personal attacks without substantiation. There is nothing wrong with an editor making the majority of edits to a page if he happens to be well-informed on the topic (which Jake is) and constructive in his editing (which seems

1798:

Incidentally, the page I mentioned is the first one of the glossary. That is, very brief explanations of words for easier overview. There is no actual entry on "Acucullophallia" in the encyclopedic part - There is one about Circumcision, however, where "Acucullophallia" is mentioned as a synonym of

1402:

I wanted to illustrate to you how your aequivalency of 'notable' = 'inclusion in Knowledge' is flawed. You, me, anyone can find anything and everything not notable enough to include it in Knowledge. You can always find someone who considers something not notable. What you cannot find is someone who

1327:

No offense intended, but: so? Just because some other editors have been lax in their attention to notability requirements does not mean we must also be so. You need a better argument for saying "acucullophallia is notable" than "Knowledge article x includes equally non-notable things." In fact,

1031:

It is unreasonable to ask for a print source when a large number of online sex-lexicons mention acuckoowhatever. (Searching for the term I found more sex lexicas than I believed existed) making it very clear the term is not just the product of a wikipedian's fantasy. Also, wikipedians may well also

892:

I remember that discussion, yes. Apparently, Ms Love did not discuss 'circumcision fetish', but 'circumcision', and discussed something totally different from that which the (desperately defended) article was about. It is true that nobody had the book, which made it completely impossible to base an

705:

to use a more scientific sounding vocabulary - as in, detached from everyday speech and associations to avoid emotions. Synonyms like that are an important part of an article when stuff is looked up primarily by text search - if relevant words are missing, the article fails as a whole. Dictionaries

675:

First, Google offers 1,470 hits, so I doubt the word is something that editor just made up. I noticed that it shows up quite consistently in specialized dictionaries of sexual terms, which is where we expect it to be. I doubt OED is ever going to have a comprehensive list of such terms, precisely

459:

There are very few people, outside of obvious vandals, who would say (or even think) that they want articles that aren't neutral. Having said that, different people have differing notions of what constitutes neutrality. My view of a neutral page, for example, is that it should include mentions of

352:

Those pictures are definitely important. I wouldn't be against good illustrations, but I don't think they'd be as useful. I live in a house with three circumsized family members, and I don't get the chance to examine the pertinent parts, so although I understood the difference in theory, I didn't

283:

Chooserr, if you haven't, you may find it useful to look through the archived talk on this page, as the issue of the images has been discussed at length at least a couple of times here. It also may help the discussion if you can be more specific about what you find disturbing about the images. (I

107:

I noticed a revert back to (in part) "the clamp then cuts off the foreskin" but this isn't accurate, at least not so far as the link at the bottom of the article to the procedure of a GOMCO circumcision is concerned. What's up? According to that link (and as I understand the procedure) the clamp

5208:

It may be an argument for refactoring, perhaps, though it seems to be an opinion about a body part, that's been inserted here in as OR. It might belong in an article on that body part, if represented properly. If the authors did discuss circumcision, it might be worth quoting in the sexual effects

3074:

What do you mean by "first page"? What other pages are you referring to? Also, note that some consensus of other editors should be reached before removing large quantities of comment, especially when that content is the work of many months of effort by others. Have some respect that others have

2816:

I just read through the history of what it took to get a simple synonym for circumcision mentioned here and I'm astounded. Essentially, Dab had to wade through days of obstruction from a few editors who want to raise the bar arbitrarily high whenever there's information that they'd prefer to keep

2610:

A personal attack is "go fuck yourself, motherfucker" - calling someone an article hijacker is merely finding a term that is descriptive of his actions which are similar to "server hijacking" -- it does prove bias. By editing the article he is putting his own thoughts, and not the thoughts of the

1869:

In fact, the article does not mention they are synonyms at all. It just randomly puts words in parentheses there. They could mean anything! Also, I find the notion that the block of text below "Circumcision" refers to circumcision to be Original research as well. Who are you to say a block of text

1406:

What I mean to say is, if one half of the editors find anything not notable enough to mention it in Knowledge, and the other half does find it notable enough, then it should be mentioned. This could be described as inclusionist strategy or philosophy. Remember there is a difference between using a

127:

Okay, the revert of the revert complained that the changes were factually false. I'm only addressing the part that was in the procedures section: there the part that says that the clamp cuts off the foreskin is actually false (that's such a value laden word for this controversial topic; how about

5160:

a fact that they say so, but it is not necessarily a fact that it's true. Compare: "The world was construced following the orders of white mice (source: Adams D, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)" with "According to the character Slartibartfast, the world was construced following the orders of

4484:

Please be respectful of viewpoints other than your own, both of you. Describing other views or persons who hold them as 'wrong' or 'crazy' doesn't help, isn't necessary, and only creates conflict. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to express your personal

3422:

I don't understand. There are pictures of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. Or are you asking why there are no pictures of the procedure being performed? We've gone over that on this page before; I personally believe such an image should be included, but the natural grimace of pain and/or

2079:

Essentially you've performed a move and merge without gaining any sort of consensus with other editors. I feel this sort of unilateral editing is disruptive to the project. Additionally, you've reintroduced terminology like "intact" which there is a consensus against using, and sources (such as

1387:

My logical argument could be reformulated something like this: "The Juggernaut Bitch" may not be considered notable to you, or to me. But, like "Acucullophallia", a number of people do find it indeed notable. Notability on a general repository of knowledge can not be decided on whether *everyone*

773:

He has a point, there. I for one remember the petty wars over "uncircumcised" vs "not circumcised" vs "uncut" vs "whole" ad nauseum. "Acullophallic" vs. "Cullophallic" isn't a pretty solution, and maybe not even the best solution, but it's certainly one way to get terminology partisans to quiet

463:

Now, I realize that any generalization has the risk of overgeneralizing, but I do think we need to be able to speak of generalities as well as specifics if we are to understand the big picture. At no point did I intend to insult you by mischaracterizing your views, though, and I apologize if you

4357:

Contents 1 The procedures of circumcision 2 Sexual Effects 3 Risks of circumcision 4 History of circumcision 4.1 Circumcision in the ancient world 4.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century 4.3 Circumcision since 1950 5 Cultures and religions 5.1 Aesthetics 5.2

1614:

I disagree. Common word usage should be relied upon at Knowledge, where it is not structurally biased (as is claimed regarding terms such as MGM and FGM). "Circumcision" in English-speaking countries is, as far as I know, considered to default to male unless female circumcision is specifically

1414:

The right strategy to work within Knowledge, therefore, is to let other people have their way when they want to include something - that is a deeply inclusionist point of view. An exclusionist point of view only serves to harm the Knowledge as a repository of knowledge in the long run. What I am

3608:

In addition to restoring acucullophallia, I noticed that an anon IP had made a number of small, reasonable changes to the article, which Jake reverted with no explanation. Applying the principle of charity, I can only suppose that Jake decided it was a banned user or something. However, Dab has

3095:

The first page in other articles is usually an introduction to detailed information, which is contained in related linked articles. For example, under the heading "Medical Aspects" (who came up with that?) you see "Main article: Medical analysis of circumcision" Why list and detail everything

2036:

As for the probable roots, the analysis is pure OR, as I stated above (I obviously agree with it, since I offered 'a-cucullus' myself, but that doesn't stop it from being OR, as I noted at the time). As for an RfM, recent experience tells me that we'll go around in circles, with you refusing to

1428:

I disagree. There are other wikis out there, other websites out there. The information isn't going to be lost or something just because Knowledge doesn't carry it. We're not the sole guardians of truth here. We're building an encyclopedia. I consider myself a limited inclusionist, but I do

763:

There was I thinking you people wouldn't care about "the real world" and preferred "reliable sources" (that you get to pick and judge) instead! Despite the term not being very widespread, it is used in the "real world" of people trying to sound scientific about the state of circumcision and the

4163:

Both terms appear to be used only by dubious, unencyclopaedic, fetish-oriented sites (eg "the deviant's dictionary"), though having said that I have a vague recollection (sorry, can't cite a source) of having seen the 'philia' in a printed dictionary somewhere. Anyway, they don't belong in the

2580:

other identities so easily and without any significant repercussions. It's not a lack of tools, it's a lack of enough admin to deal with minor arguments. Of course, like you said, frequent editing isn't a sign of bias, but for people who do and then try to hide it, I would say it probably is.

1644:

I say we RV that shit. He rv'd not only that stupid acuccullothing we're arguing for AGES about now, he also rv'd the skin bridge picture, mgmbill, and male genital mutilation, stuff which I believe we have worked out in consensus. A weasel words tags without explanation what is objected to is

1357:

in such a way that the only possible way to interpret your use of it was that you felt it did not meet Jake's high standard of notability, and that therefore acucullophallia need not, either (ie., that you felt Jake overestimates how high the bar of notability should be set, since something as

1237:

The first is reporting on a (possibly) notable, credible, real-world usage. The second is failing to apply appropriate 'junk filters' to the net (which is a wonderful thing in that anyone can publish, but is also full of junk for exactly the same reason), failing to separate the wheat from the

2154:

of ridiculous proportions. Essentially, circumcised folks generally don't want to hear they're actually mutilated, jewish/muslim folks don't want to hear that their stupid practice should be outlawed, and the genital integrity dudes don't want to hear about "uncircumcised" when they call that

1557:

The article should mention the discredited information, display its obsoleteness in a manner that accomodates WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. That way, people from Backwards County, Alabama will not waste their energies and be tempted to add their bit of false information. All information is judged

261:

If you can find an encyclopedic image that illustrates the article in question: yes, absolutely. This issue was settled years ago. Knowledge is not censored for the protection of minors or for those with unreasonably delicate sensibilities. The article is about circumcision. There are,

3085:

Here's a good quote: "A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.63-67 Studies from the 1980s suggested that the

749:

I was deliberately avoiding addressing the idea of putting "scientific sounding" terms in articles, regardless of whether they are common English usage or actually used by scientists, since it is so ridiculous on its face. But since you call it out: it seems like a really bad idea for an

1445:

Thank you for explaining your philosophy, Dabljuh. It explains a few things. I do not agree, however. If we include anything and everything, then what results is unreadable, incoherent junk. In fact, what we end up with is the sum total of all pages resulting from an internet search on

165:

I think someone should write how jews and muslims circumcise, I am very curious and belive that there must be at least one jew and one muslim in wikipedia willing to write how it's done. I know that there is a "brit millah" article, but it has a lot of jewish customs and social things.

3537:

Perhaps if it was pointed out that the state of not being circumcised is called cucullophallia? A difference of only one letter surely wouldn't be as scary. How about "The state of being uncircumcised is also called cucullophallia, while the state of being circumcised is also called

3894:

Inclusion of "The frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive," thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity." - POV language, dubious sources (if a peer-reviewed study can't be cited for such a claim, it should be clarified that it's an

2032:

No, Alienus, the dictionaries cited aren't reliable sources. They don't even come close. Yes, we have mention of the term in a print source, but that doesn't validate the unreliable sources any more than mention of 'moon' in a book validates some crank's moon landing hoax page on the

1920:

Boy, Jake, every time I think "He might stop being systematically wrong", every time I think "He might stop shooting himself in the foot", or when I think "Maybe he'll suddenly come to reason" you just top it off, seemingly without any effort. Are you trying to get mentioned in the

1410:

By comparison, the method that "if anyone finds a particular bit of information not notable, not wikipedia-worthy, it doesn't belong in Knowledge", which is basically the exclusionist point of view, would lead to a completely empty Knowledge, devoid of any information whatsoever.

3699:

It's needless detail for the introduction, and ignores studies with differing findings. This is already covered in detail, and in a neutral manner later in the article. There is no need to clog the introduction with obscure information about parents in one country many years ago.

1241:

Maybe Bob's word will catch on. If so, sooner or later, it'll be used in newspapers or books, and in time, reputable dictionaries. Then it has established itself as a word with widespread usage, it will have reliable sources, and (perhaps) it'll be notable enough to be mentioned.

5053:

The American Academy of Pediatrics states "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men. There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised

3510:

in the first paragraphs of the article. Attempts to remove this word from Knowledge will leave users either saddened at Knowledge's lack of information on it (if the redirect is deleted) or confused (by a redirect to a page that doesn't explain what they searched for at all).

1316:

Only allows user submissions to the dictionary by email, that means, they are not automatically added, and instead are first checked by TEH MISTRESS. Or the web mistress. Anyhow, do you dare to question the judgment of the WEB MISTRESS of PRODOMINA.COM regarding acucullophalia?

1022:, either through academic connections or through their public libraries. None of these sources, incidentally, turn up anything for "acucullophall*". (I only searched medical news on Lexis-Nexis; if someone else with access cares to search general news or whatever, feel free.) 2867:

He's referring to me totally owning them bitches, and in order to draw out the enjoyment not immediately doing so but waiting for a week to see with what kinds of bullshit objections they manage / dare to come up with. It would take out all the fun if I just went ahead and

3544:

argued his case and won people over, then it shouldn't be deleted the instant he's not around to defend it. If he didn't win people over, then his version should never be included as some form of appeasement to make him happy. One way or another, something smells here.

3297:

It's a waste of time trying to show that it's true, because policy requires that it's . So please, just find a source stating it. If you can't, change it back to 'United States' to accurately reflect what the source actually says. At the moment, you're misrepresenting it.

949:

I don't see why you think it's reasonable to demand a non-web usage. By definition, such sources are much less convenient to find, and just as inconvenient to verify. In short, your request has the net effect of raising the bar arbitrarily. Therefore, I must reject it.

1367:

Look, I'm not against the use of terms like acucullophallia. It makes sense to me and, if settled on, would provide a sort of bomb shelter for use in case of a future "intact" vs "uncircumcised" edit war. But if you're going to make a logical argument for it, do it

1054:. Then, I tried to find a place for it in the article, believe that an editor more experienced with it would move it to the correct place. If it was sitting in the list of requested articles and appears to be used enough on the net, why is this debate occurring? — 555:

Yes, that was my immediate conclusion. I got the impression that some editors were confusing "philia" with "phallia" and taking offense at mistaken notion that the latter involves viewing circumcision as a paraphilia. This would also explain the repeated reverts.

3876:

While editing here, I'm not interested in harm. I'm interested in neutrality and factual accuracy. The fact, according to that study, is that it's used by 45%. Saying 'only' implies the POV that it ought to be more, and Knowledge is not permitted to express a POV.

2635:

better-educated than I am on the subject. When I realize such a thing, my only options are to educate myself better in order to be able to cogently debate with them, or sit back and leave it to them. I've chosen the latter because I honestly have no wish to know

309:

I feel that having pictures is appropriate (to show differences). But I wonder if it matters that for uncircumcised a statistically large penis is shown and an average one for circumcised (albeit a "shower). Would having similar sized penises pictured be a fairer

2175:

is actually mostly responsible for the "female genital cutting" title, as he has been dominating this article with his biased homosexual male adult circumsized views for nearly a year now. I'd also like to add that he is probably behind the proposed merge with

4799:

Some people believe that cutting off a normal, healthy part of a child's body is not ethical. Other people believe that non-therapeutic circumcision of children violates the child's basic human rights. Those are points of view that also deserve respect. --

2789:. I'd also be fine if we went back to clarifying up top that this article was solely about male circumcision and offering a link to the female variety. Either way, we need to get our act together and come to some consensus about this. Edit wars are lame. 3374:

There should be a summary paragraph, which highlights reduction risk of UTI's and HIV, and downplays other (currently detailed) supposed "benefits." Remember (easily cited), daily washing conveys similar "benefits" to circ's but without the complications

2751:

I did a revert myself, there should be some consensus decided on here ahead of time, as Kasreyn has said. I personally have never heard of female circumcision that wasn't treated as a synonym for genital mutilation; it does stick out as odd sounding.

2575:

The tools to easily find sock puppets exist, but are limited to admin, and the admin won't bother with people that don't cause a certain threshhold of problems. This is why one person can have King_queermo, Johnny_Dangerously, Systematic_Correction and

985:

that it's just a temporary phenomenon that the only sites google has indexed that mention this are places like "sex-lexis.com". Obviously, if you find the word used in a reliable or verifiable place online, go for it. But you won't. Because it is a

1175:

that failed to achieve any sort of agreement, so you can look there to see where the battle lines are drawn. Basically, the editors have polarized into pro and con circumcision factions, with the articles typically reflecting the bias of the former.

1561:

Only when people won't, don't or can't understand the basics of information exchange, dialectic, Knowledge and all that, only then they must be removed from Knowledge because they will harm the project and the community more than they could benefit.

3006:

You must be using the royal "we", because the rest of us have seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate the definition of the term. This evidence comes both in the form of multiple links and a demonstration of the etymology which shows that the word

2236:

deserve your condescension and mockery simply because you do not agree with him. The sheer amount of insulting comments he has absorbed here, without ever lashing back in kind, cause me to have a lot more respect for him than for those who attack

1737:

Well, my edition of the book has 608 pages, counting the not numbered 16 page preface. The alphabetically ordered part is p.1 - 552, p.553-579 the glossary, p.580-592 being the the bibliography. Must be an older revision you're looking at. Compare

4694:

I thought the whole point of reincarnation was to feel sorry for the wicked, not for oneself; after all, the wicked supposedly reincarnate as lower forms of life, while the virtuous supposedly reincarnate as higher forms of life. So why worry?

3245:

circumcision, because we have a source (the AMA) which says so. We haven't surveyed every single association out there, so we can't make a claim about them, and even if we had, it would be original research. "Evidently most" is also original

507:

that it derives from the Latin "cucullus" (a cowl or covering, according to one source, and a funnel-shaped head covering according to another). The a- prefix gives 'without'. The Greek for 'fondness for' gives us -philia. This would explain

3486:

objection must come from a desire to avoid having the-state-of-being-circumcised described as a "condition" with a name that sounds like a disease. By analogy, I've heard from doctors that if you tell a patient with a rash that he has mild

661:

acucullophilia in any reference available at bartleby.com (which includes the full text of thousands upon thousands of English language documents, as well as, of course, a dictionary or thesaurus). It's not in Webster, either. Or PubMed.

1794:

No, Jake. I quoted the right edition, the right ISBN. The figure on Powell's is simply wrong. So is the figure on Amazon's description - The very same place you can check out the table of contents and see that the Glossary starts at page

2640:

much about this primitive procedure. What disturbs me is your refusal to acknowledge the primacy of substantive debate and consensus over material, preferring instead to defend all your edits with the claim that Jake is the boogeyman.

2434:

some evidence that American Heritage is a "male dominated piece of literature" rather than merely reflecting popular usage of the language. And yes, since you do not appear to be familiar with how dictionaries work, the definitions are

1925:

or is this some sort of innate talent? Because I sure haven't seen anyone so stubborn about being wrong in a while. Since "Bioscientific Terminology Words From Latin and Greek Stems by Donald M. Ayers" certainly qualifies as a reliable

3011:

mean "the state of being circumcized", based on its roots. In short, you are either mistaken or lying. In good faith, I will assume the former and politely ignore your obviously erroneous protestations. Thank you for understanding.

2820:

It has become painfully obvious that these editors have gone entirely overboard, given their overreaction to the addition of an inoffensive and patently valid term. Now imagine how they react when the material is at all controversial!

2335:

I'm not gay-bashing, I'm trying to reach an NPOV consensus. If you question my methods, find a better way to reach NPOV on the circumcision article. I don't feel its justified to make the circumcision article about males primarily.

2250:

As for "merging", you are right. I didn't realize there had never been an article on penile circumcision, and that you created it. I thought there already was such an article and you were just merging content into it. My mistake.

5078:

The last sentence ("no valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction") is not accurate and is removed. Note research studies finding sexual effects in the "main

4910:

The quotes do back it up so it should go somewhere in the article but the web searches I have done and the sources given are not authorative enough to grant it top billing in the intro. That is the only dispute I have with the term.

4214:

All of these correctly define the term (and differentiate it from the other term). The article itself references a book that's in print, as demanded by Jakew. In short, the word might not be as common as "the", but it's not dodgy.

3672:

Incorporation of "In two studies, strong parental cultural expectations clash with deliberate informed consent" in the introduction. Not only does this duplicate material, but it's specific to one country, and hardly belongs in the

3717:

Changing "Circumcision may be recommended to treat medical conditions in males" to "Circumcision may be recommended to treat medical conditions in older males". There's no evidence that there's a lower age limit at which it may be

1858:

Thank you, that's most interesting. Unfortunately, although it mentions acucullophallia, it doesn't define the term. Is the implication that it is synonymous with 'circumcision', or does it indeed mean 'the circumcised state'?

1078:

Alienus, please try to focus on the article and the issues at hand, rather than on the editors of the article. Last I checked, no one was badmouthing you. Why don't you extend the same courtesy to everyone else? Thanks.

3100:

Everyone should know that. What we're left with is one thing, a lower risk of UTI's in the first year. Until antibiotics stop working, they are a more cost and complications effective solution relative to infant circ's.

4897:

This is where you get to state precisely what the alleged dispute is. We now have web and print citations, so there's no way to deny this fact. Therefore, I can't see any legitimate basis for dispute. Prove me wrong.

4151:

If you look more carefully, you'll see that there's some confusion out there between "acuculollophilia" and "acucullophallia", where the former is a paraphilia and fetish term, while the latter just means circumcised.

1694:

Dabljuh, a few things: 1 - if you're going to cite a source, you have to do it in the article, not in an edit summary. 2 - you "cited: acucullophallia - Found in: Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, by Brenda Love,

1172: 1338:

What makes you think other editors have been lax when they included those things? That would imply that if, for example, the AAP started talking of "Acucullophallia" they would have been lax too. What makes you think

2387:

Show me where it defines a) that the American Heritage Dictionary is not a male dominated piece of literature and b) that the numbered order in a definition is supposed to be taken as some sort of prioritized list.

409:

I favor making incremental changes, rather than a drastic rewrite. And to answer your question, it remains the case that JakeW, Nandesuka and Jayjg would prefer a more positive view of circumcision than some would.

2203:

I've had some friction with Jakew, but it's never had anything at all to do with homosexuality, and I'm not particularly tolerant of people who gay-bash, so I'd suggest keeping that very much in mind from now on.

3146:

We have many cites finding tradition driving parental decision making. Findings of discord between doctors (during informed consent) and parents. Findings of no net benefits. Why do you dispute the statement?

1770:

Sure, go ahead and file. As for the book, ISBN numbers are specific to a particular edition, and the number you gave corresponds to the 2002 edition. If you cited the wrong edition, that's hardly verifiable, is

2180:, and I might also theorize that Jakew is the one who is attempting to increase the real estate offered on Knowledge for close up shots of male genitalia, most likely to appease his own homosexual ego. Also, 1756:

violation? Yes we can. By the way, I suppose on that / thelink jake cited, that the description is wrong (belonging to an outdated revision of the book) and the book offered is actually the same that I have.

875:

Now, lets assume for the sake of the argument I gave you the data for the book you seek. Wouldn't it simply take you to say "Sorry, can't find a copy of that book" to dismiss this source as well? Links to a

3654:

Why is it more neutral than 'some investigators'? It isn't. Moreover, it implies that every investigator (author is the correct term, btw) form this view. We don't know that. All we know is that some have.

3904:

Those two sources were found in the UCLA main library. Both are college texts on sexuality. One is the main human sexuality class text...it was reviewed by several professors...it has been used for many

1446:'circumcision'. If that happens, we've failed, because we haven't provided the reader with anything better than what's already out there. We haven't summarised existing facts, we've just made a scrapbook. 373:

I don´t understand the discussion about those pictures at all. In continential Europe or better let's say in most european countries such a picture would´t matter because it shows something verry natural.

4131:

A search of the word "acucullopallia" brought up some very dubious links. It does seem to be a fetish term which could be mentioned further down the article but is of too narrow a use to be in the intro.

3518:

in the article. But out of concern for circumcised men, we don't want to scare them by providing a medical term for their condition. Perhaps the word can be couched in such a way that it is less scary?

3110:

Perhaps you might find a debate forum more suitable. This page is not for making arguments about the 'right' choice; it is simply for discussing how best to present information about the subject matter.

492:

For the record, this word isn't in the OED, and what references you can find to it on the web are confused, muddied, contradictory, and without any etymology. As near as I can tell it's just made up.

1124:

Do you think it's ok to insert your words in my mouth? What I've said all along and still say now is that this article is a mess because of the ongoing war among editors. Thank you for understanding.

4099:

As has been shown repeatedly, you are mistaken. Therefore, I will restore acucullophallia at my convenience as often as I have to in order to counter your harmful edits. Thank you for understanding.

2017:

reliable sources. Moreover, the definition is not at all controversial. As Dab points out, it is painfully obvious from even a layman's understanding of Greek and Latin roots. In short, there is no

1579:

It's obvious to me that this article is biased toward males, does not fully capture the topic, and is lost in nit-picking. Where are the females represented in the non-sexually biased use of the term?

5161:

white mice (source: Adams D, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy)". The first states something as fact that has not been proven to be the case. The second states that someone states that it is a fact.

3628:

Changing "Some investigators disagree with the use of circumcision" to "Investigators disagree with the use of circumcision". Is there proof that all do? No. This just makes the article less neutral.

1602:

Yes, except to truly create an unbiased circumcision article, it should include a non-gender biased entry in the 'circumcision' area, I re-added weasel because its still biased more toward males and

2084:- and I applaud your motives. But I'm reverting until there is a consensus to go ahead with this move. If I know the editors of this article, there is no consensus for such a move. Respectfully, 422:

Alienus, I politely suggest that you try to avoid characterizing what other editors believe, since you don't seem to be able to do it accurately. Please focus on the article, and not the editors.

240:

Yes, and a diagram could never be implimented instead...Anyways you have yet to address wikipedia's policy of censorship, which I discussed above. Should a picture of a starving animal be added to

1418:

That we argued for a WEEK over this tiny bullshit piece of information, makes it even more ridiculous. We could have written so many awesome articles in the meantime, instead of expending energy.

683:

Finally, the reason the word belongs in the first paragraph is that this is where we'd mention synonyms. Look at other articles for examples. Also, we should probably set up a redirect to here.

2345:

Why not? The vast majority of procedures are carried out on males. In the English language, the term's primary definition is the removal of the foreskin of the penis. From American Heritage:

1377:

P.S. Oh yeah... I also do feel TJB is non notable. If there's ever a vote to merge, I'd certainly vote yes. Every wikipedian has their particular hangup; mine is organization of knowledge.

1343:

isn't notable? I laffed my ass off. It was referenced to in the latest X-Men Movie. By all standards, the policies, the usance on Knowledge, the mentioning of this synonym belongs on Knowledge.

3771:

You deleted but left out (of the above criticism) "The frenulum is "particularly responsive to stimulation," and "very reactive," thus contributing to erogenous pleasure during sexual activity.

5181:

It might be helpful if you could highlight a single example of an omitted fact that conflicts with what was kept. I don't see any such case off-hand, but I suspect you can come up with one.

852:

Sure thing. What's the ISBN? Who is the author? What year was it published? Who published it? All of that information will be at the front of the book. Verifying this should be easy.

3949: 3947: 2577: 698:

I would like to point out that there used to be a great deal of, in my opinion, very unnecessary fighting over terms such as "circumcised" vs "unmutilatedcastratedstabbedpenismurdered".

4414:

Speaking of which, did you know that "recurring balanitis and posthitis" is often caused by caretakers who unnecessarily manipulate the nonretractible foreskins of infants? Check out

4033:

TipPt, please login when editing, please do not intersperse your comments with Jakew's (as they are very hard to read that way), and please get consensus for major re-writes. Thanks.

215:

How can you claim it hardly contributes anything? Many people have never seen an (un)circumcised penis, and it's not easy to imagine what it might look like. The pictures may be the

3850:

Changing "According to a 1998 study, anaesthesia is used by 45% of physicians" to "According to a 1998 study, anaesthesia is used by only 45% of physicians", introducing needless POV.

3594:, perhaps not. It's a mystery to me, but not one I need to solve. Whatever he's thinking, I think differently, so I'm going to remove the comments that hide the evil word of shame! 811:

Tell you what: find me ONE use of this OUTSIDE of a web site (sex-lexis? You're kidding) and i'll drop my opposition to it. Just one magazine article. One book. One newspaper article.

4323:

Jayjg ... How else can we all see a change to the Topic outline?. DO NOT DELETE from the talk page. Please see the above discussion between Jakew and I regarding specific changes.

4114:

There's nothing to 'restore'. It's right there, in the article. Just before the note that says it's disputed. I hope that you wouldn't try to cover up the fact that it's disputed...

4011:

I disagree. There is a consensus, but JakeW happens not to be part of it. Neither are Jayjg and Nandesuka, who coincidentally agree with JakeW on all circumcision-related matters.

3727:

There is no disease state in the neonatal penis where the medical treatment involves circumcision. All the conditions historically cited for circ's are on older (than infant) males.

2611:

community, onto the page. He is the selection process behind the article, thus he is biasing the article toward his vision of what the article is supposed to contain. That is what

962:

I'm sure that a web usage would be fine, if the site in question is a reliable source. Oed.com, for example, would be fine, though unfortunately it doesn't document the term at all.

924:

To some extent I agree: people constantly trying to insert unverifiable and unreliable information into an encyclopedia article is what I would characterize as "the usual problem."

4439:

No one ever does anything without being convinced of the rightness of their reasons. It is only from an outside perspective that it may appear there are no reasons for an action.

4022:

LOL! So there's a consensus, which includes you and TipPt, but it just doesn't happen to include any of the other people talking on the page (including others as well, by the way).

1839:

There, I uploaded the respective pages. Almost as relevant however is another section on "genital modification" that I may upload at a different time, if requested. Check it out at

4631:"Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Knowledge is not a soapbox; it's an encyclopedia. In other words, 2108:

I feel that while his motives are commendable, he is not familiarized enough with the article complex. I suspect he is not aware of the large number of articles involved with

1407:

method (Anyone finds it notable enough for inclusion, and there are really no arguments other than "I do not find it notable myself") and describing "inclusionism" as a goal.

880:

of online sex-encyclopedias are infinitely much more easy and faster to verify - and as a whole create a very good, reliable source, more than sufficient for Knowledge to use.

4678:

Misinformed is not a good choice. How would you feel if someone said you must be misinformed, otherwise you'd be in favour? Annoyed at the very least, I would imagine. Right?

2059:

For the reasons stated above, I continue to disagree with you. With all due respect, your arguments are entirely unconvincing and irrelevant. Thank you for understanding.

3833:

Off-topic anyway - as I've commented before, we don't need to discuss treatment of every condition that becomes more or less likely - but if claimed, it should be sourced.

1739: 1473:

No, it would result in an extremely bad article, because what is needed is filtering out the junk - non-notable information, crank theories, dubious data or 'facts', etc.

706:

are never complete, and neither is Knowledge. The advantage of Knowledge being, that we can update her ourselves as new information becomes more widely available. IAR2TR.

3637:

You should include the complete sentence: Investigators disagree with the use of circumcision when less invasive treatments are available and effective. That's neutral.

2564:

to be the point under discussion). I'd suggest that merely pointing out that Jake is one of the most frequent editors to this article proves nothing relating to bias.

5102:

You've deleted the last sentence for no valid reason. It doesn't matter whether you disagree - they stated it nonetheless. If you can find criticism of their claim in

2824:

In the future, you can be sure that I will point back to this example everytime one of these people raises the bar a little bit higher to exclude valid information.

672:

The part where OED was the final arbiter of what qualifies as a word. Please don't blame me for rejecting your choice of standards, especially as they do not apply.

1067:

Unfortunately, Scm83x, this is a very, very unhealthy article. Or, to be specific, the article is just text and can be fixed; it's the editors who are a problem.

2306:

That would be true, but you did not stop there. You also accused him of being biased by his homosexuality, and of being driven by his "homosexual ego", whatever

1227:

Bob makes up a word. People start using it, and it spreads. Soon, it is used in print. A reputable dictionary, such as the OED picks it up. Knowledge mentions it.

3859:

Aneasthesia is recommended by all medical associations. The rate should therefore approach 100%. How would you suggest that the rate brings harm to the infant?

1984:

is irrelevant. We have print sources showing that the word is genuine, and we can google for its meaning trivially. If this is "synthesis" then we must delete

657:

What part of "I looked this up in the OED, and it wasn't there" is ambiguous? I can't cite something that doesn't exist. You won't find either acucullophallia

5048:

partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are conflicting. The intromission function of the prepuce may facilitate penetration.

4685:

to state your viewpoint, consider something like 'people with whom I disagree' instead. It's less inflammatory. Save the judgemental terminology for elsewhere.

2021:

here, and if you disagree, I recommend you file an RFM immediately, because I do not accept your interpretation. Instead, I will act on my best understanding.

1507:

Subjective opinion. Welcome to Knowledge. :P In the end, it all boils down to a certain aspect of subjectivity when determining notability and reliability.

1230:

Bob makes up a word. He decides that it's a 'cool word', and submits it to a couple of dubious user-submitted online sex "dictionaries". Knowledge mentions it.

3027:

Since apparently no one has ever used the word in a sentence, since the beginning of time, your speculation about what the word "must" mean are quite funny.

3188:

Authoritative medical associations worldwide do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision, but parents expect neonatal circumcision as a cultural ritural.

2155:"normal", "intact" or "not genitally mutilated", and want to make very clear in the article that Circumcision blows huge amounts of donkey cock. Welcome to 284:

personally think that an image of a retracted foreskin would be more illustrative than an erect uncircumcised penis, but I don't have such an image handy.).

2270:

I wouldn't know how much Jake has actually to do with the title of "Female Genital Cutting", but I can assure you, regarding the wang pics, everybody here

2363: 1092:

Nan, I didn't mention anyone by name, nor did I even single out a particular faction. Clearly, you are reacting to something that's not actually there.

3538:

acucullophallia."? Note that I use "state" rather than "condition", since as you mention, "condition" implies that something is wrong with the person.

4669:

What word would be better then? Misinformed? I'm just sad about all those "cutting is good" people, because I might reincarn as one of their victims.

262:

therefore, images of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. The photos are clear, simple, and not at all prurient. They are absolutely appropriate.

1050:, so I was feeling a science mood. When I did a Google search I saw that acu. wasn't anything more than dicdef material, so I made it a redirect to 4621:"Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Knowledge from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and 3951: 2403: 1460:

an extremely good article? You got that right. The problem is not whether or not one should include a particular bit of information. The problem is

872:, where said circumcision fetish was described. Yet the source was dismissed as unverifiable since nobody appeared to have that book? What the hell? 643:

important that Knowledge should document an incredibly obscure meaning of a term - and a usage apparently undocumented in reliable sources - in the

4862: 4509: 4363: 3384:

Actually quite difficult to cite as fact, since nobody has tested the hypothesis, though it's reasonably easy to cite speculation to that effect.

3210:

but where traditionally practiced, circumcision is often chosen largely because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns..

2391: 313: 4230:, and as noted, the book (which is itself on the dodgier end of the spectrum, but let's ignore that) does not define the term. It is absolutely 3249:

I don't intend to find medical associations that state otherwise, because the onus is upon you, not me, to cite a source to support your claim.

1777:

Incidentally, the amazon link you gave (also the 2002 edition) goes from 'acrotomophilia' to 'acupressure', so I'm not sure why you mention it.

2972:

You are correct, thank you for clearing that up. It still seems to be a neoligism, however, but more widespread than I had first thought. --

382:

A rewrite, and parallel publish. Attract many editors to choose between two versions. Luckily, you pro-circ folk have left a clear choice!

2982:

All words are new at some point. We've agreed that a citation of its use in a printed book would suffice, and this has in fact been found.

4521: 1015: 325: 4079:

And once again, the claim has been restored with a citation that does not support it. Nowhere does Love state that this is what it means.

2171:

I would say at least one user agreed with this move. No consensus not to truncate and revitalize the article with less biased phrasing.

3498:

The term should be mentioned in the article. It was requested that Knowledge have an article on it, so the redirect (which is currently

3479:

has once again been removed from the article. Jakew's claim that the statement is not well-sourced is poppycock, so I won't address it.

4874: 3288:

I have BMA and studies (though all US) finding tradition. Also, what would you call religous circ's ... that's cultural ritural as well.

2144: 3762:

of penile skin mobility may reduce stimulation to stretch receptors, and loss of estrogen receptors has not been studied." - Pure POV.

3744:

Got a source for that? I don't doubt that such need is rare, but to state that it never happens strikes me as incredibly implausible.

2761: 2590: 1010:

It's reasonable to ask for a print source, for one thing, because some Knowledge contributors have access to online search tools like

2362:#1 being the primary definition, Circumcision is and should be taken to mean signifying primarily male circumcision, per Knowledge 1817:

I plan to eventually reproduce the article in fulltext for easier reference. Trying to figure out whether that's permissible under

4748:

If this escalates into a real argument about reincarnation, I will be forced to give up all hope of civilly editing this article.

3820:

Meatodomy is a complication of circ's if it is the standard treatment for meatal stenosis. It is sourced above (here it is again

2102: 2914:

This word seems to be a neoligism specific to the BDSM crowd, and is absent from most mainstream dictionaries. Please compare:

1192:

Its getting to long again, someone archive it, dam you people talk to much, though it is funny to read… almost as funny as "".--

2850:

and of itself, it is a trivial matter, but it is highly indicative of the overall problem that this and related articles face.

1848:

600 pages is not usage that would anyhow hamper the copyright holder financially... Amazon makes a lot more available online.

1206:

Jakew and Nandesuka state it is a made-up word. All words are made up. Not a valid complaint. Please state another objection.

1150:. There has been a 3RR violation on this article now and as an outside observer I would have to say that there are certainly 981:" is not 'raising the bar', it's lowering it. I was addressing the suggestion that the space-age-a-go-go English language is 883:

As for the "other book", it used to be hardcover but then the hardcover fell off, also, some other pages have gone missing...

5168:

stated earlier (since anecdotal evidence is not scientifically valid), though it may well contradict TipPt's view of things.

5146: 1922: 1699: 869: 1525:

I didn't ask you. And no. You don't remove junk by subjective opinion - Only censors do that. You filter out the junk with

4179:

Tried the search again but the same dodgy links (British Spanking Society?????) keep coming up. Can you point me to a RS?

1042:

Goodness, I didn't know I'd start up this hellstorm with just one innocent edit. I was looking at requested articles and

2993:

However, we are still waiting for a source supporting the claim: that the word describes the state of being circumcised.

1719: 1715: 2399: 2310:

means. So, yes, you did make a personal attack, because you did not have the sense to stop at the facts known to you.

94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2439:

ordered by descending priority. I can't believe I have to explain things on Knowledge that I learned in High School.

4375: 3454:

Ah, sorry, had overlooked the pictures, they are small and next to the "contents" section rather than in the article.

3202:

Authoritative medical associations worldwide do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision (see external links below),

401: 3682:

It relates to controversy, and to the prior sentence. I'll make it Two studies in the United States found strong....

2773:

There seems to be some dispute about the scope of this article. I'd be fine if this were a disambig that pointed to

3049:

Actually, it seems to refer only specifically to circumcised penises. Circumcision is not a congenital deformity.

4250:

Trouble is, you like to claim things are unreliable when you dislike them. All three qualify as reliable sources.

3161:

you'll have to find a source stating it. Otherwise, you'll have to limit yourself to what the source actually says.

2469: 2297:

You have to realize that referring to a man as a homosexual is not derogatory if the said person is a homosexual.

1047: 38: 4635:

It's only the habits we encourage that keep Knowledge from turning into a slanging match. See also: Wikiquette."

2132: 1107:

So you think it's OK to badmouth the editors of an article generally, as long as you don't name them? Do go on.

1723: 1703: 128:

incorrect, or innacurate?) so that's what I'm going to edit. I'll leave the other stuff for others to hash out.

4819:

I think it's just plain crazy to cut someone who is perfectly normal and not expects to suffer such an injury.

4517: 4273:

What's really entertaining is how you skipped the first citation. Let's see what you didn't want to discuss.

1634:

King queermo, you've added a {{weasel}} tag to the article. Please would you explain what words you object to.

321: 5240:

Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129

5074:

Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129

5128:

That last sentence seems to conflict with what was said earlier, which makes it misleading at the very least.

5055: 4339: 2786: 2499:

as "To cut off the foreskin or prepuce of (males); chiefly as a religious rite of Jews and Muslims. Also in

2080:

CIRP) whose reliability is hotly contested. It's good that you retained the material deleted - moving it to

1676:

I worked on the top paragraph, and truncatd part of the male-specific procedure, which is still contained in

4870: 3358:

Incidentally, do you have any particular papers in mind that are examples of this 'latest medical science'?

2837: 2802: 2620: 2554: 2395: 2337: 2298: 2185: 2136: 1726:

that Jake cited. It is not wholly unbelievable that this citation was found on page 553 of some edition. —

1681: 1668: 1659: 1609: 865:

discussion? We had a high quality book source - "The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices" by Brenda Love,

1064:

Yes, I agree. There is no reason a huge big deal is being made out of this. It is a well-sourced synonym.

4757: 4713:

I said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth, especially offensive ones. I was referring to

4415: 4387: 4059: 4055: 3995: 3906: 3860: 3772: 3728: 3683: 3638: 3570: 3528: 3313: 3312:

Go ahead and leave it US. I'll add cites later for other nations ... which I will then insist on listing.

3289: 3264: 3147: 3135: 3101: 3065: 2872:

all the time without me at least pretending to listen to other people's hilarious and misguided opinions.

2757: 2675: 2586: 2516: 2128: 1590: 534: 228: 4513: 3394: 3376: 2663: 317: 4866: 3342: 2524:

Thanks, Lizard. :) So we now see that "ethnocentrism" (whatever that means, considering "American" is

2177: 1840: 1023: 723:

A term is only "scientific" if scientists use it. Can you find one that's used this term? I bet not.

4292:. Precisely how does this fail to be reliable? It should be entertaining to see you try to knock it. 3351:

Would these be refuted studies of the type that published criticism can be cited, or would they be the

2889:

Not disagreeing with you factually, but reminding you that I know two admins who just love to ban for

2774: 2150:

Due to the sensitivity of the topic, adding or removing anything to any of these articles may cause a

2112:. Johnny, I suggest you take a look at Category:Circumcision as well as Category:Circumcision debate. 1354: 1340: 1294: 397: 389: 4506:

Don't keep people from expressing their views. The first step to negate bias is to recognize bias.

4467:

That's right, the human body wasn't designed to be cut. Some people are just too crazy to see that.

4398: 1286:

Conjecture: All those sites have a low standard over whether to include a word for a listing or not.

4636: 3393:

actually there are papers and books on the subject - getting some friends to do research.. hold on

2782: 2778: 2124: 2120: 2105:- The latter being, despite the relatively ambigious name, about circumcision on males exclusively. 2098: 2081: 1677: 1657:

Except where specified, "circumcision" in this article should be understood as "male circumcision".

1604: 1290: 862: 680:, you've historically misinterpreted it, and it's not even a rule, so it doesn't matter either way. 3241:

We can support a claim that medical associations in the US, Canada, and Australia don't recommend

3156:

As I explained in the section below, the cited source explicitly states: "A majority of boys born

2873: 2740: 2684: 2277: 2159: 1955: 1930: 1904: 1894: 1849: 1822: 1800: 1758: 1742: 1646: 1563: 1534: 1499: 1465: 1419: 1344: 1318: 1304: 1207: 1033: 884: 844: 826: 784: 765: 707: 3503: 2711: 2426:

man, it's American Heritage. It's the accepted standard of American dialect English. How about

1548:

are from Backwards County, someone can submit an RfC. Knowledge is only as good as its people.

1530: 5122:

If something is omited in the summary, please point it out so we can determine if it's relevant.

1593:, attended by an equal panoply of hair-splitting POV-warring subpages like this one's. Happy? 445:

I'm assuming good faith too, and I didn't characterize it as a personal attack. I said it was

393: 3807: 3514:

Perhaps we can strike some sort of middle ground. For the good of the user we need to include

2044:

we have, all that can be said is 'the acucullophallia is in some way related to circumcision'.

1256:, it's not a word. Thank you so much for sharing that. Your fame in linguistics exceeds you. 512:. I've had no luck in tracing the 'phallia' suffix. I'd guess it was originally a misspelling. 4749: 3562: 3520: 2753: 2667: 2582: 2508: 2143:. Despite the obvious redundance, but for organisatory reasons, we even have a gender-neutral 1702:, page 553". Finding it on that page was a neat trick, since that book is only 528 pages long. 1696: 1580: 1193: 866: 526: 220: 47: 17: 3491:, he will immediately become much more concerned (despite the fact that you haven't told him 4801: 4338:

TipPt, please don't put new versions of articles on Talk: pages. I've moved your version to

3939:

Here are a few peer reviewed studies which conclude significant innervation of the frenulum:

3064:

We shouldn't detail "medical" ... HIV ect twice. The Circ first page should be an overview.

5019: 3436:

I believe there were also copyright/permission problems with the "Turkish" photo, as well.

3214:

I dispute this. The source explicitly refers to the United States, not to other locations.

1892: 197:

I am repeatedly told that wikipedia isn't censored but then why isn't there a picture of a

4985:

Well, you know my opinion on that. Since your question was addressed to Sophia, though...

4855:

very easily. Antibiotics tend not to be successful fighting the infection of a wound, but

4626: 4371: 2890: 2616: 1498:

out "the junk - non-notable information, crank theories, dubious data or 'facts', etc." ?

1299:

Conjecture: We badly need more different words to describe the state of being circumcised.

1147: 1043: 574: 4209: 2930: 2147:

article. We used to have a cool "body modification" box but I don't know where it's gone.

1395:

not notable, as it is not a verifiable science (with current technology), thus, it fails

1046:

was one of the medical articles that had been requested. I recently did an article on a

588:

Then we've got an editor who says otherwise, without explantion. Who should we believe?

2131:, which is all around a very dumb name, compared to the much more widespread and common 935:

Part of the usual problem is that we disagree about what constitutes the usual problem.

4859:

has shown to be very successful. Tasty, huh? Get some maggots on your big worm, aight?

4856: 4840: 4765:

My apologies. I was just having some harmless fun, but you're right. I'll stop now.

4727: 4054:

Whoever you are, thanks for finding a situation where I inserted my comment before his

3437: 3028: 1108: 1080: 991: 925: 853: 835: 755: 724: 663: 494: 478: 450: 423: 263: 241: 184: 3945: 3189: 3087: 1938:

Does Ayers use the definition of acucullophallia as an example, or are you performing

1589:

You'll be thrilled to know that Knowledge finds female circumcision so notable it has

750:

encyclopedia to choose what terminology to use based not on whether they are actually

205:

on its page? The reason is that such pictures would be unacceptable - why isn't this?

4883: 4820: 4705: 4670: 4648: 4586: 4553: 4468: 4431: 4205: 3591: 3582: 3499: 3273: 3166:

The same is true of the first disputed point. No reliable source supports the claim.

3040: 1981: 1951: 1939: 1753: 1392: 1151: 631: 600: 504: 285: 245: 206: 176: 167: 129: 119: 109: 4717:, like, for instance, being reincarnated as a cockroach for sins in a former life. 2923: 2918: 5216: 5196: 5191: 5172: 5137: 5132: 5110: 5103: 5083: 5030: 5025: 5008: 4989: 4972: 4967: 4953: 4934: 4929: 4919: 4904: 4899: 4886: 4852: 4823: 4814: 4811: 4804: 4769: 4766: 4760: 4739: 4736: 4730: 4721: 4718: 4708: 4699: 4696: 4689: 4673: 4664: 4661: 4651: 4642: 4589: 4560: 4557: 4489: 4471: 4458: 4453: 4443: 4440: 4434: 4424: 4419: 4409: 4404: 4346: 4312: 4298: 4293: 4267: 4256: 4251: 4238: 4227: 4221: 4216: 4187: 4168: 4158: 4153: 4140: 4118: 4105: 4100: 4093: 4083: 4062: 4037: 4026: 4017: 4012: 3998: 3986: 3964: 3926: 3909: 3881: 3863: 3837: 3792: 3775: 3748: 3731: 3704: 3686: 3659: 3641: 3615: 3610: 3600: 3595: 3573: 3548: 3545: 3531: 3458: 3455: 3449: 3446: 3440: 3427: 3424: 3416: 3413: 3397: 3388: 3379: 3362: 3345: 3326: 3316: 3302: 3292: 3279: 3267: 3253: 3218: 3170: 3150: 3138: 3115: 3104: 3079: 3076: 3068: 3053: 3050: 3043: 3031: 3018: 3013: 2997: 2988: 2983: 2976: 2973: 2966: 2950: 2947: 2899: 2894: 2876: 2856: 2851: 2840: 2830: 2825: 2805: 2795: 2790: 2765: 2743: 2687: 2678: 2645: 2642: 2623: 2603: 2600: 2594: 2568: 2565: 2557: 2532: 2529: 2519: 2486: 2483: 2472: 2465: 2443: 2440: 2370: 2367: 2340: 2314: 2311: 2301: 2280: 2255: 2252: 2210: 2205: 2188: 2181: 2162: 2140: 2116: 2109: 2088: 2085: 2065: 2060: 2048: 2041: 2027: 2022: 2018: 2004: 1994: 1989: 1967: 1958: 1946: 1933: 1915: 1908: 1897: 1863: 1852: 1825: 1812: 1803: 1781: 1761: 1745: 1730: 1714:

Depending on the edition, books have different numbers of pages. For example, see

1708: 1684: 1671: 1662: 1649: 1638: 1619: 1616: 1597: 1594: 1583: 1566: 1552: 1549: 1537: 1511: 1508: 1502: 1477: 1468: 1450: 1438: 1435: 1422: 1381: 1378: 1347: 1332: 1329: 1321: 1307: 1262: 1257: 1253: 1246: 1210: 1196: 1182: 1177: 1166: 1131: 1126: 1111: 1098: 1093: 1083: 1073: 1068: 1058: 1051: 1036: 1026: 1003: 994: 966: 956: 951: 941: 936: 928: 919: 914: 900: 887: 856: 847: 843:

Well go verify it, "Dick and Jane get sexually mutilated" polish edition, page 18.

838: 829: 804: 799: 787: 778: 775: 768: 758: 743: 738: 727: 710: 689: 684: 677: 666: 651: 627: 620: 615: 594: 589: 562: 557: 546: 537: 516: 497: 481: 470: 465: 453: 439: 434: 426: 416: 411: 357: 288: 266: 248: 231: 209: 179: 170: 154: 149: 142: 132: 122: 112: 4201: 3322:

Please change it back then. You can remove the second 'dubious' tag while you do.

2097:

While I disagree with Johnny's actions, I do find he raises an interesting point:

1313: 2956:

That's the wrong word. Acucullophilia is love of circumcised penises. Acuculloph

2683:

Hot damn, now that's an idea. Could you make one? Because I have no idea how to.

4912: 4836: 4704:

Kasreyn, did you just admit that circumcised are lower forms of life? How cool.

4180: 4133: 4082:

If acucullophallia does indeed mean the state of being circumcised, then cite a

3341:

wearing a condom and washing regularily - someone please correct this POV tripe

2963: 1727: 1396: 1163: 1055: 1011: 817:

Nandesuka, you gotta be shitting me - you aren't seriously asking us to find an

354: 139: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4928:

I was sort of waiting for you to suggest a specific place that's a better fit.

2119:

in the english language refers to male circumcision, but the article mentiones

1277:

Fact: Its a constructed latin word that could be translated as "uncovered wang"

825:) Also, books and magazines kinda miss that handy "search plaintext" function. 5213: 5169: 5107: 5080: 5049: 5005: 4986: 4950: 4882:

If that makes my son invincible to AIDS, I choose to put maggots on his d*ck.

4686: 4639: 4486: 4384: 4367: 4343: 4309: 4264: 4235: 4165: 4115: 4090: 4034: 4023: 3983: 3961: 3923: 3878: 3834: 3789: 3745: 3701: 3656: 3488: 3385: 3359: 3323: 3299: 3276: 3250: 3215: 3167: 3112: 2994: 2349:

1. The surgical removal of part or all of the prepuce. Also called peritomy.

2172: 2115:

As for male / female circumcision, the consensus has been like this for ages:

2045: 2001: 1964: 1943: 1912: 1860: 1809: 1778: 1705: 1635: 1474: 1447: 1243: 1000: 963: 897: 648: 543: 513: 5092:

This commentary is one-sided and POV. It does not summarise the full article.

3821: 4430:

I don't understand why some people like to cut others for no reason at all.

3482:

I want to address why this is a contentious issue. It seems to me that the

2151: 1019: 3195:

because of social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns."

2710: 913:

As minor as t his issue is, it's a fine example of the usual problem here.

610:

State of being circumcised (of men), attraction to men who are circumcised.

4844: 3590:

have. Perhaps he's just going on intertia and an instinctual feeling of

2599:

Sounds to me like someone's been found out... No less than I expected.

2507:" Those are the first definitions, at least. Make of it what you will. 1844: 1818: 4452:

People often have reasons, but that doesn't stop them from being wrong.

2468:

bias is revealed, because you are citing only the American definition.

5231:

Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100

5067:

Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100

4848: 4544:

Excuse me, but Jake's mild chiding was entirely appropriate. Cuzandor

2000:

So find a reliable source giving its definition. Without one, it's OR.

1891:. If it was referring to a procedure, it would end in -ate, I suppose. 754:, but instead based on "this sounds cool". But that's just my opinion. 522: 385:

That's where the Rfc will apply Nandesuka. Is Jakew still dominating?

353:

understand it physically or visually until I came across this article.

3811:

is the standard treatment for meatal stenosis." - unsourced, off-topic

3369:

I agree, listing all that confusing medical detail suggests relevance.

834:

Since when is a book, newspaper, or magazine an unverifiable source?

676:

because they don't readily show up in conventional media. And as for

175:

And how the circumcisers in africa or australia or whatever do it too

4735:

I was suspecting that, but felt it best to AGF. Thanks, Nandesuka.

4308:

they run - the question is whether this particular site is reliable.

202: 198: 4810:

I agree, but don't we already cover that in the section on ethics?

1388:

finds that particular bit of knowledge notable, only if *some* do.

5125:

So long as we attribute their professional conclusions, we're fine.

4285: 4234:

being used as a source, yet it is dishonestly represented as such.

3181:

172.190.160.162 has made some dubious changes to the introduction.

5020:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dabljuh

4383:

Please explain why you feel that this rearrangement is justified.

3977:

Questionable reorganisation of article without consensus to do so.

3039:

This accuculophalia sounds like some sort of congenital deformity

2725: 1774:

The other two mentioned above have 336 and 352 pages respectively.

1494:

So, and, just for the sake of argument, how do you think does one

4660:

your fault when they are offended by your calling them "crazy".

4399:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_us/circumcision_feud

4319:

Significant revisions Jakew and Jayjg deletes from the TALK PAGE!

3227:

Would you settle for "evidently most" worldwide? Sounds stupid.

3206:

I dispute this. No source is now given to support the assertion.

4832: 4289: 3263:

How about authoritative medical associations generally do not...

2612: 1655:

To clarify King queermo, I believe he's referring to this line:

118:

and am hesitant to get caught up in one of the frequent debates.

5149:, where you can find a large amount of facts that were omitted. 1799:

circumcision, as well as "Apellous", "Peritomy", "Posthetomy".

1283:

Fact: A google search finds about 1500 webpages using that word

5045: 4089:

It's simple enough. Misrepresenting a source is unacceptable.

3557:

Well, I can tell you when it went away. It was commented out

1911:

for the definitions of words, I'll be happy to include those.

1887:

Note how the -ia ending indicates it is actually referring to

1252:

Thanks, Jake. Now I understand completely: according to your

25: 4277: 823:

its, uh, mentioned in "Dick and Jane get sexually mutilated"

737:

I believe he said "scientific sounding", which is accurate.

3096:

twice. I see lots of confusing and misleading repetition.

5152:

That's the problem. TipPt's version states them as fact,

4966:

Perhaps, but I was asking about a place in this article.

4281: 1929:

Oh hey, and Jake: You're a reliable source. Of laughter.

4847:

setting since it infects wounds like those created from

3412:

And I do not even see a discussion about this. Strange.

3134:

rather than medical concerns..(disputed — see talk page)

2491:

I'll save you the trip to the library. The OED defines

1874:

Acucullophallia. Latin. "Un-Covered Phallus-state", noun

1220:. There is a difference between the following scenarios: 4947: 4328: 3558: 2076: 894: 861:

Before we go deeper into that, may I remind you of the

4647:

It's not my fault if people are offended by the truth

4210:

http://www.eroticy.com/Home/Terms/Default.asp?Letter=A

3092:

In other words ... "medical" is practicly irrelevant.

2931:

http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/acucullophilia

1362:

mean that, then what point was there in mentioning it?

4623:

be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.

2127:

folks however decided to instead name their practice

2505:(Also to perform an analogous operation on females). 1877:

Apellous. Latin. "Un-Skin-ish", (skinned), adjective

1808:

Perhaps you'd care to quote the relevant paragraph?

3088:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

2936:acucullophilia: 1. Attraction for circumcised men. 5164:The last sentence does not conflict with what the 4548:being disrespectful of other viewpoints, and this 4206:http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/bodya-d.htm 1954:is no longer in effect. Didn't you get the memo? 1645:worthless. Vandalism or AGF: blunder? RV anyways. 988:ridiculous made-up word that nobody actually uses. 821:source for the term in favor of verifiable ones? ( 219:informative part of the article for many people. 5184:This is an argument for refactoring, not removal. 3581:Yes, this is a case of Jake apparently trying to 2924:http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acucullophallia 2919:http://www.webster.com/dictionary/acucullophallia 148:Thanks. Accurate medical details are important. 1289:Fact: Knowledge has an article dedicated to the 1267:Lets gather the facts and the conjectures here. 138:- sorry for not putting them in the first time. 4726:Kasreyn, just ignore him. He is trolling you. 4202:http://www.sex-lexis.com/(http:/acucullophallia 2037:accept policy, so I don't really see the point. 1303:I think this little listing speaks for itself. 187:to remove insulting and inappropriate language. 4633:talk about the article, not about the subject. 4086:that says so. If you can't, delete the claim. 3075:worked hard to make this article what it is. 433:Regardless, I ask that you assume good faith. 1358:frivolous as TJB has been included). If you 1280:Conjecture: It is a recently constructed word 8: 5205:unproven claim that the tissue is erogenous. 5187:You haven't addressed the apparent conflict. 4552:the right place to have such a debate. See 3502:) should exist. Further, per the guideline 977:example of a reliable and verifiable source 5041:erogenous pleasure during sexual activity. 3994:There is no consensus with Jakew in charge. 3336:Medical aspects reads as a propaganda piece 2354:2. The cutting around an anatomical part. 584:Having or pertaining to a circumcised penis 542:That would make a certain amount of sense. 525:. Thus we have "without-covering-penis." 5001: 3960:Innervation is not the same as sensation. 999:That seems to be the fundamental problem. 798:It sure beats "turtleneck" vs. "vulture". 464:took insult at anything I've said so far. 2962:lia is the state of being circumcised. — 2184:, in my own defense I've merged nothing. 1353:What makes me think it, is that you used 630:nature of the sources. And the fact that 5212:What apparent conflict do you refer to? 3586:"circumcized" and is painfully neutral. 3445:You're right, I hadn't remembered that. 2666:userbox, I would add it in a heartbeat. 1274:Conjecture: It's not a widely used word. 639:So, perhaps you could explain why it is 5224: 4829:Here's another "did you know" factoid: 4394:Recent article that may be of interest. 3922:Doesn't stop it from being an opinion. 1883:Posthetomy. Greek. "Foreskin-cut", noun 2939:2. Fondness for circumcised penises. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4226:Trouble is, none of these qualify as 3621:Really? Here are just a few examples. 7: 4352: 4164:introduction or indeed the article. 2836:What the hell are you referring to? 2801:I like your first idea better, Al. 2072:Recent changes by Johnny Dangerously 1328:all you've done is harm your case. 4625:Mediation is available if needed." 4327:(deleted - content may be found at 4263:does not match the 'bad' criteria. 2495:as "The act of circumcising; " and 2145:Genital modification and mutilation 1880:Peritomy. Greek. "Around-cut", noun 521:I'd guess the 'phallia' comes from 4948:http://en.wiktionary.org/Main_Page 2228:and polite Knowledge users I have 244:to illustrate what it looks like? 24: 5106:, however, it's fine to cite it. 4843:strain that is mostly found in a 4200:Google immediately comes up with 2946:synonymous with circumcision. -- 2785:(or some more honest title, like 2615:is. In fact, it is specifically 1940:original synthesis/interpretation 4286:http://www.TheFreeDictionary.com 2705: 2123:soon, to resolve ambiguity. The 2103:medical analysis of circumcision 1988:Knowledge articles immediately. 701:Isn't it advisable, to at least 201:on its article, or picture of a 29: 607:acucullophallia, acucullophilia 5147:sexual effects of circumcision 3198:This has now been changed to: 1923:Guinness Book of World Records 1575:Male domination of the article 783:Of course I am right, dammit! 1: 5156:as an attributed opinion. It 4877:) 22:56, June 21, 2006 (UTC) 4290:http://www.TheFreeLibrary.com 3124:It a forum. Use it properly. 2101:looks like a mini version of 2013:The various web dictionaries 632:Knowledge is not a dictionary 378:THE POSSIBLE FIXES REQUIRE... 328:) 10:53, June 29, 2006 (UTC) 5024:Come and join the lynching! 4403:Includes some hard numbers. 1216:Knowledge is supposed to be 1171:In fact, there was a recent 5099:of Hass and Crooks as fact. 4353:Here's the proposed outline 973:Actually, I think "find me 599:Here's an even more direct 5257: 4058:16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC). 1403:finds everything notable. 569:Cites vs. Reliable Sources 5217:18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 5197:18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 5173:17:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 5138:16:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 5111:14:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 5084:14:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC) 5044:There are few studies on 5031:17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 5009:15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4990:19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4973:19:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4954:09:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4935:00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4920:15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4905:14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4893:acucullophallia "dispute" 4887:17:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 4824:22:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4815:20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4805:20:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4770:07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4761:07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4740:14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4731:11:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4722:04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4709:01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 4700:07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4690:09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4674:02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 4665:20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4652:20:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4643:19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 4590:18:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 4561:05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 4490:21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 4472:20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 4459:00:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 4444:00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 4435:18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4425:15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 4410:04:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC) 4388:18:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4347:16:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4313:16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4299:16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4278:http://www.sex-lexis.com/ 4268:15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4257:15:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4239:15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4222:14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4188:14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4169:14:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4159:14:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4141:07:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 4119:13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4106:12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4094:12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4063:16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4038:16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4027:16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 4018:16:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3999:16:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3987:13:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3965:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3927:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3910:16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3882:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3864:16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3838:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3793:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3776:16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3749:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3732:16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3705:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3687:16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3660:18:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3642:16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3616:12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3601:12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3574:07:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3549:07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3532:07:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3459:22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 3450:07:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3441:03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3428:03:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3417:01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3398:15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 3389:12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3380:05:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3363:12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3346:22:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3327:15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3317:15:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3303:15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3293:15:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3280:15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3268:15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3254:15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3219:15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3184:Firstly, (s)he included: 3171:15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3151:15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3139:15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3116:15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3105:14:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3080:09:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3069:04:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 3054:00:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3044:18:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC) 3032:01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 3019:01:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2998:11:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2989:01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2977:00:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2967:23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2951:23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2942:Which is most definitely 2900:08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2877:08:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2857:08:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2841:06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2831:05:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2806:02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2796:17:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2766:07:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2744:10:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2688:08:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2679:07:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2646:23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2624:16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2604:02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2595:02:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2569:09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2558:01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2533:03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2520:02:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2487:02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 2473:23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2444:22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2371:09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2341:02:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2315:09:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2302:01:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2281:07:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2256:00:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2211:01:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC) 2189:06:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2163:05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2133:female genital mutilation 2089:04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2066:17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2049:17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2028:17:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2005:17:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1995:16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1968:15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1959:14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1947:14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1934:12:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1916:11:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1898:11:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1864:20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1853:19:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1826:13:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1813:12:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1804:11:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1782:10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1762:10:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1746:10:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1731:10:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1709:10:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1685:01:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1672:01:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1667:I added an NPOV as well. 1663:01:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1650:00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1639:20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1620:04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 1598:21:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1584:20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1567:18:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1553:18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1538:17:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1512:17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1503:17:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1478:17:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1469:17:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1451:13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1439:08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1423:06:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1382:05:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1348:03:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1333:02:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1322:00:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1308:00:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 1263:22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1247:11:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1211:10:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1183:02:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1167:02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1132:04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1112:03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1099:02:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1084:02:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 1074:01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC) 503:Off-topic, I know, but I 358:21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC) 4835:is a widespread, highly 2717:This user loves the cock 2713:File:Penis corrected.jpg 2555:User: Johnny Dangerously 1197:02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1059:22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1048:rare congenital disorder 1037:16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1027:16:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 1004:13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 995:13:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 967:13:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 957:13:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 942:14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 929:13:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 920:13:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 901:13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 888:13:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 857:12:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 848:12:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 839:12:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 830:10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 805:01:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 788:01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 779:00:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC) 769:23:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 759:22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 744:20:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 728:19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 711:18:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 690:16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 667:13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 652:13:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 634:. Nor is it a thesaurus. 621:12:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 595:12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 563:16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 547:18:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 538:16:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 517:13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 498:12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 482:20:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 471:19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 454:18:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 440:18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 427:12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 417:05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 289:20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 267:20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 249:19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 232:19:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 210:19:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) 180:19:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 171:19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 155:19:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 143:16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC) 133:17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 123:16:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 113:09:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC) 5015:Request for arbitration 4340:User:TipPt/Circumcision 4304:It doesn't matter what 3506:we should then include 3238:Don't make accusations. 2787:Female genital mutilate 2137:Male genital mutilation 1610:User:Johnny_Dangerously 1271:Fact: It's a word, duh. 5036:Sexual effects changes 5002:#Acucullophallia again 4282:http://www.farlex.com/ 2718: 2232:encountered. He does 2129:female genital cutting 1752:Can we file this as a 752:used in the real world 614:Note the distinction. 5095:It misrepresents the 5000:Dispute explained in 4865:comment was added by 4512:comment was added by 4485:view of the subject. 4366:comment was added by 4075:Acucullophallia again 2812:Let this be a lesson. 2716: 2470:Systematic Correction 2394:comment was added by 2178:Circumcision advocacy 2040:Currently, with what 316:comment was added by 42:of past discussions. 4585:Can you prove that? 4416:premature retraction 3158:in the United States 2929:The definition here 2724:This user loves the 2662:Man, if there was a 1903:Thanks. If and when 1529:. Its a thing about 1391:For example, I find 1355:The Juggernaut Bitch 1341:The Juggernaut Bitch 1295:The Juggernaut Bitch 5145:I suggest you read 4681:If it's absolutely 4637:Knowledge:Talk page 2783:female circumcision 2779:penile circumcision 2664:User:Loves the cock 2125:female circumcision 2121:female circumcision 2099:penile circumcision 2082:penile circumcision 1678:penile circumcision 1605:penile circumcision 1291:internet phenomenon 863:Circumcision fetish 3177:Dubious statements 2838:Johnny Dangerously 2803:Johnny Dangerously 2719: 2621:Johnny Dangerously 2396:Johnny Dangerously 2364:naming conventions 2338:Johnny Dangerously 2299:Johnny Dangerously 2186:Johnny Dangerously 1841:User:Dabljuh/teusp 1682:Johnny Dangerously 1669:Johnny Dangerously 1660:Johnny Dangerously 1531:information theory 1202:Different approach 1155:in this article. — 1146:Please, everyone, 1016:ISI Web of Science 183:Comment edited by 103:Procedures section 4878: 4525: 4379: 3471:Acuckoo revisited 2739:There, made one! 2737: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2506: 2407: 1720:this 1994 edition 1716:this 1992 edition 1254:original research 488:"acucullophallia" 406: 392:comment added by 329: 188: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 18:Talk:Circumcision 5248: 5241: 5238: 5232: 5229: 5194: 5135: 5118:Three comments: 5104:reliable sources 5089:Three problems: 5073: 5066: 5028: 4970: 4932: 4917: 4902: 4860: 4755: 4507: 4456: 4422: 4407: 4361: 4296: 4254: 4228:reliable sources 4219: 4185: 4156: 4138: 4103: 4015: 3613: 3605:(edit conflict) 3598: 3568: 3526: 3495:substantive). 3016: 2986: 2897: 2854: 2828: 2793: 2775:male circumision 2714: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2673: 2526:not an ethnicity 2514: 2504: 2389: 2208: 2063: 2025: 1992: 1724:the 2002 edition 1527:more information 1260: 1180: 1129: 1096: 1071: 983:changing so fast 954: 939: 917: 802: 741: 687: 618: 592: 581:acucullophallic: 560: 532: 468: 437: 414: 405: 386: 311: 226: 182: 152: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5256: 5255: 5251: 5250: 5249: 5247: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5239: 5235: 5230: 5226: 5192: 5133: 5070: 5063: 5038: 5026: 5017: 4968: 4930: 4913: 4900: 4895: 4861:—The preceding 4753: 4752: 4508:—The preceding 4454: 4420: 4405: 4396: 4362:—The preceding 4355: 4321: 4294: 4284:, who also run 4276:Turns out that 4252: 4217: 4181: 4154: 4134: 4101: 4077: 4060:172.193.183.143 4056:172.193.183.143 4013: 3996:172.193.183.143 3907:172.193.183.143 3861:172.193.183.143 3788:Covered below. 3773:172.193.183.143 3729:172.193.183.143 3684:172.193.183.143 3639:172.193.183.143 3611: 3596: 3566: 3565: 3524: 3523: 3500:facing deletion 3477:acucullophallia 3473: 3410: 3338: 3314:172.190.160.162 3290:172.190.160.162 3265:172.190.160.162 3179: 3148:172.190.160.162 3136:172.190.160.162 3102:172.190.160.162 3066:172.192.132.163 3062: 3014: 2984: 2912: 2910:Acucullophallia 2895: 2852: 2826: 2814: 2791: 2733: 2712: 2671: 2670: 2617:systematic bias 2512: 2511: 2390:—The preceding 2206: 2074: 2061: 2023: 1990: 1909:reliable source 1692: 1632: 1591:its own article 1577: 1543:Look, I wasn't 1258: 1204: 1190: 1178: 1127: 1094: 1069: 1044:acucullophallia 979:using this word 952: 937: 915: 800: 739: 685: 616: 590: 571: 558: 530: 529: 490: 466: 435: 412: 387: 380: 312:—The preceding 224: 223: 194: 163: 150: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5254: 5252: 5243: 5242: 5233: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5210: 5206: 5189: 5188: 5185: 5182: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5162: 5150: 5130: 5129: 5126: 5123: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5100: 5093: 5076: 5075: 5068: 5059: 5037: 5034: 5016: 5013: 5012: 5011: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4923: 4922: 4894: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4857:Maggot therapy 4841:Staphylococcus 4827: 4826: 4817: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4750: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4724: 4715:lesser animals 4692: 4679: 4629: 4619: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4514:128.138.207.49 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4462: 4461: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4395: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4354: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4334: 4320: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4271: 4270: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4212: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4109: 4108: 4076: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3623: 3622: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3563: 3552: 3551: 3540: 3539: 3521: 3472: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3431: 3430: 3409: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3395:65.125.133.211 3377:172.193.15.209 3371: 3370: 3366: 3365: 3356: 3337: 3334: 3332: 3330: 3329: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3283: 3282: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3247: 3239: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3212: 3211: 3204: 3203: 3192: 3191: 3178: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3163: 3162: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3119: 3118: 3083: 3082: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3022: 3021: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2970: 2969: 2927: 2926: 2921: 2911: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2844: 2843: 2813: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2721: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2668: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2633:overwhelmingly 2627: 2626: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2509: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2351: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2273:loves the cock 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2166: 2165: 2148: 2113: 2106: 2093: 2073: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2038: 2034: 2008: 2007: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1927: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1878: 1875: 1867: 1866: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1796: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1775: 1772: 1765: 1764: 1749: 1748: 1734: 1733: 1722:as opposed to 1718:as opposed to 1691: 1688: 1653: 1652: 1631: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1559: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1454: 1453: 1442: 1441: 1431: 1430: 1385: 1384: 1374: 1373: 1364: 1363: 1336: 1335: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1250: 1249: 1239: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1228: 1222: 1221: 1203: 1200: 1189: 1188:Archive please 1186: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1102: 1101: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1065: 1040: 1039: 1029: 1008: 1007: 1006: 970: 969: 947: 946: 945: 944: 933: 932: 931: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 881: 873: 808: 807: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 716: 715: 714: 713: 699: 693: 692: 681: 673: 655: 654: 636: 635: 626:Also note the 612: 611: 608: 586: 585: 582: 570: 567: 566: 565: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 527: 510:acucullophilia 489: 486: 485: 484: 457: 456: 430: 429: 379: 376: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 318:208.252.179.21 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 254: 253: 252: 251: 242:animal cruelty 235: 234: 221: 193: 190: 185:User:Nandesuka 162: 159: 158: 157: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5253: 5237: 5234: 5228: 5225: 5218: 5215: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5195: 5186: 5183: 5180: 5179: 5174: 5171: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5151: 5148: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5136: 5127: 5124: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5112: 5109: 5105: 5101: 5098: 5094: 5091: 5090: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5082: 5072: 5069: 5065: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5057: 5056: 5051: 5050: 5047: 5042: 5035: 5033: 5032: 5029: 5022: 5021: 5014: 5010: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4998: 4991: 4988: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4974: 4971: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4955: 4952: 4949: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4936: 4933: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4921: 4918: 4916: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4903: 4892: 4888: 4885: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4867:84.75.130.173 4864: 4858: 4854: 4850: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4825: 4822: 4818: 4816: 4813: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4803: 4771: 4768: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4759: 4756: 4747: 4741: 4738: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4729: 4725: 4723: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4707: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4698: 4693: 4691: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4672: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4650: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4641: 4638: 4634: 4630: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4591: 4588: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4562: 4559: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4491: 4488: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4473: 4470: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4460: 4457: 4451: 4450: 4445: 4442: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4433: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4423: 4417: 4412: 4411: 4408: 4401: 4400: 4393: 4389: 4386: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4359: 4348: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4332: 4331: 4329: 4324: 4318: 4314: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4274: 4269: 4266: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4255: 4240: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4220: 4213: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4189: 4186: 4184: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4170: 4167: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4157: 4150: 4149: 4142: 4139: 4137: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4120: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4104: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4092: 4087: 4085: 4080: 4074: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4039: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4025: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4016: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3985: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3966: 3963: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3950: 3948: 3946: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3928: 3925: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3911: 3908: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3883: 3880: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3839: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3822: 3819: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3810: 3809: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3750: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3733: 3730: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3706: 3703: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3688: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3673:introduction. 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3661: 3658: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3643: 3640: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3614: 3606: 3603: 3602: 3599: 3593: 3587: 3584: 3575: 3572: 3569: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3550: 3547: 3542: 3541: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3530: 3527: 3517: 3512: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3496: 3494: 3490: 3485: 3480: 3478: 3470: 3460: 3457: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3429: 3426: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3415: 3407: 3399: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3378: 3373: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3364: 3361: 3357: 3354: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3344: 3343:12.226.237.65 3335: 3333: 3328: 3325: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3315: 3304: 3301: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3275: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3266: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3217: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3196: 3190: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3182: 3176: 3172: 3169: 3165: 3164: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3149: 3140: 3137: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3114: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3103: 3097: 3093: 3090: 3089: 3081: 3078: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3067: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3010: 3005: 3004: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2987: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2975: 2968: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2940: 2937: 2934: 2932: 2925: 2922: 2920: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2909: 2901: 2898: 2892: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2878: 2875: 2871: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2858: 2855: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2842: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2822: 2818: 2811: 2807: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2794: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2728: 2727: 2722: 2720: 2715: 2708: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2689: 2686: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2674: 2665: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2647: 2644: 2639: 2634: 2629: 2628: 2625: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2609: 2605: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2579: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2556: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2515: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2480: 2477:What are you 2476: 2475: 2474: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2355: 2352: 2350: 2347: 2346: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2339: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2316: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2282: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2257: 2254: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2235: 2231: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2212: 2209: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2190: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2161: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2139:redirects to 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2058: 2057: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2026: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1987: 1983: 1969: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1957: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1896: 1893: 1890: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1865: 1862: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1760: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1744: 1741: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1698: 1689: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1665: 1664: 1661: 1658: 1651: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1629: 1621: 1618: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1582: 1574: 1568: 1565: 1560: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1546: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1479: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1421: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1398: 1394: 1393:String theory 1389: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1346: 1342: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1320: 1315: 1314:prodomina.com 1310: 1309: 1306: 1298: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1282: 1279: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1255: 1248: 1245: 1240: 1236: 1235: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1209: 1201: 1199: 1198: 1195: 1187: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1174: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1133: 1130: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1113: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1091: 1090: 1085: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1038: 1035: 1030: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1002: 998: 997: 996: 993: 989: 984: 980: 976: 972: 971: 968: 965: 961: 960: 959: 958: 955: 943: 940: 934: 930: 927: 923: 922: 921: 918: 912: 902: 899: 895: 891: 890: 889: 886: 882: 879: 874: 871: 868: 864: 860: 859: 858: 855: 851: 850: 849: 846: 842: 841: 840: 837: 833: 832: 831: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815: 814: 812: 806: 803: 797: 789: 786: 782: 781: 780: 777: 772: 771: 770: 767: 762: 761: 760: 757: 753: 748: 747: 746: 745: 742: 729: 726: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 712: 709: 704: 700: 697: 696: 695: 694: 691: 688: 682: 679: 674: 671: 670: 669: 668: 665: 660: 653: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 633: 629: 625: 624: 623: 622: 619: 609: 606: 605: 604: 602: 597: 596: 593: 583: 580: 579: 578: 576: 568: 564: 561: 554: 548: 545: 541: 540: 539: 536: 533: 524: 520: 519: 518: 515: 511: 506: 502: 501: 500: 499: 496: 487: 483: 480: 475: 474: 473: 472: 469: 461: 455: 452: 448: 444: 443: 442: 441: 438: 428: 425: 421: 420: 419: 418: 415: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 383: 377: 375: 359: 356: 351: 350: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 327: 323: 319: 315: 308: 307: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 290: 287: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 268: 265: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 250: 247: 243: 239: 238: 237: 236: 233: 230: 227: 218: 214: 213: 212: 211: 208: 204: 200: 191: 189: 186: 181: 178: 173: 172: 169: 160: 156: 153: 147: 146: 145: 144: 141: 135: 134: 131: 125: 124: 121: 115: 114: 111: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5236: 5227: 5190: 5165: 5157: 5153: 5131: 5117: 5096: 5077: 5071: 5064: 5058: 5052: 5043: 5039: 5023: 5018: 4914: 4896: 4853:circumcision 4831: 4828: 4798: 4714: 4682: 4657: 4632: 4622: 4549: 4545: 4413: 4402: 4397: 4360: 4356: 4333: 4326: 4325: 4322: 4305: 4275: 4272: 4249: 4231: 4182: 4135: 4088: 4081: 4078: 3982: 3944: 3806: 3718:recommended. 3607: 3604: 3588: 3580: 3515: 3513: 3507: 3497: 3492: 3483: 3481: 3476: 3474: 3411: 3408:No pictures? 3352: 3339: 3331: 3311: 3262: 3242: 3213: 3205: 3197: 3193: 3183: 3180: 3157: 3145: 3098: 3094: 3091: 3084: 3063: 3038: 3008: 2971: 2958: 2957: 2943: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2928: 2913: 2893:violations. 2869: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2772: 2754:Atari2600tim 2738: 2723: 2709: 2637: 2632: 2583:Atari2600tim 2578:over a dozen 2551: 2525: 2500: 2496: 2493:circumcision 2492: 2478: 2466:ethnocentric 2436: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2353: 2348: 2307: 2272: 2271: 2233: 2229: 2156: 2141:circumcision 2117:Circumcision 2110:circumcision 2092: 2075: 2014: 1985: 1980: 1905:User:Dabljuh 1888: 1886: 1868: 1847:: 3 of : --> 1838: 1693: 1690:Brenda Love? 1675: 1666: 1656: 1654: 1633: 1615:indicated. 1603: 1581:King queermo 1578: 1544: 1526: 1524: 1495: 1461: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1390: 1386: 1369: 1359: 1337: 1311: 1302: 1266: 1251: 1217: 1205: 1194:BerserkerBen 1191: 1170: 1162: 1052:Circumcision 1041: 987: 982: 978: 974: 948: 877: 822: 819:unverifiable 818: 813:(Nandesuka) 810: 809: 751: 736: 702: 658: 656: 645:introduction 644: 640: 613: 598: 587: 573:We've got a 572: 509: 491: 462: 458: 446: 431: 408: 384: 381: 372: 216: 195: 174: 164: 136: 126: 116: 106: 75: 43: 37: 4837:antibiotics 4802:DanBlackham 3504:WP:REDIRECT 3475:I see that 2077:change diff 1397:Karl Popper 1024:FreplySpang 1012:Lexis-Nexis 577:that says: 388:—Preceding 310:comparison? 36:This is an 4839:resistant 4418:for more. 4280:is run by 3489:dermatitis 2497:circumcise 2173:User:Jakew 1907:becomes a 1700:0349115354 1545:advocating 870:0349115354 628:unreliable 447:inaccurate 161:Procedures 95:Archive 20 87:Archive 15 82:Archive 14 76:Archive 13 70:Archive 12 65:Archive 11 60:Archive 10 5079:article." 5004:, above. 4728:Nandesuka 4683:essential 4618:Allow me. 3895:opinion). 3808:Meatodomy 3592:ownership 3438:Nandesuka 3246:research. 3060:"Medical" 3029:Nandesuka 2157:WikiHELL! 2152:shitstorm 1843:. As for 1109:Nandesuka 1081:Nandesuka 1020:EBSCOHost 992:Nandesuka 926:Nandesuka 854:Nandesuka 836:Nandesuka 756:Nandesuka 725:Nandesuka 664:Nandesuka 495:Nandesuka 479:Nandesuka 451:Nandesuka 424:Nandesuka 264:Nandesuka 5209:article. 5097:opinions 4884:Cuzandor 4875:contribs 4863:unsigned 4851:such as 4845:hospital 4821:Cuzandor 4706:Cuzandor 4671:Cuzandor 4649:Cuzandor 4627:WP:CIVIL 4587:Cuzandor 4522:contribs 4510:unsigned 4469:Cuzandor 4432:Cuzandor 4376:contribs 4364:unsigned 3493:anything 3355:variety? 3041:Cuzandor 2891:WP:CIVIL 2870:be right 2762:contribs 2591:contribs 2464:So your 2404:contribs 2392:unsigned 1845:fair use 1819:fair use 1218:credible 1148:be civil 601:citation 402:contribs 390:unsigned 326:contribs 314:unsigned 286:Zandrous 246:Chooserr 207:Chooserr 177:Cuzandor 168:Cuzandor 130:Zandrous 120:Zandrous 110:Zandrous 5054:males." 4849:surgery 4812:Kasreyn 4767:Kasreyn 4737:Kasreyn 4719:Kasreyn 4697:Kasreyn 4662:Kasreyn 4656:But it 4558:Kasreyn 4441:Kasreyn 3546:Kasreyn 3516:acuckoo 3508:acuckoo 3456:Socafan 3447:Kasreyn 3425:Kasreyn 3414:Socafan 3243:routine 3077:Kasreyn 3051:Kasreyn 2874:Dabljuh 2741:Dabljuh 2685:Dabljuh 2643:Kasreyn 2601:Kasreyn 2566:Kasreyn 2530:Kasreyn 2501:Surgery 2484:Kasreyn 2479:talking 2441:Kasreyn 2368:Kasreyn 2312:Kasreyn 2278:Dabljuh 2253:Kasreyn 2182:Kesreyn 2160:Dabljuh 2086:Kasreyn 2042:sources 1956:Dabljuh 1931:Dabljuh 1926:source. 1895:Dabljuh 1889:a state 1850:Dabljuh 1823:Dabljuh 1801:Dabljuh 1759:Dabljuh 1743:Dabljuh 1740:to this 1647:Dabljuh 1630:Weasel? 1617:Kasreyn 1595:Kasreyn 1564:Dabljuh 1550:Kasreyn 1535:Dabljuh 1509:Kasreyn 1500:Dabljuh 1466:Dabljuh 1436:Kasreyn 1420:Dabljuh 1379:Kasreyn 1345:Dabljuh 1330:Kasreyn 1319:Dabljuh 1305:Dabljuh 1208:Dabljuh 1034:Dabljuh 885:Dabljuh 845:Dabljuh 827:Dabljuh 785:Dabljuh 776:Kasreyn 774:down. 766:Dabljuh 708:Dabljuh 703:be able 523:phallus 505:believe 39:archive 5166:source 5046:sexual 4915:Sophia 4554:WP:NOT 4344:Jayjg 4183:Sophia 4136:Sophia 4035:Jayjg 4024:Jayjg 3905:years. 3583:WP:OWN 3375:risks. 3274:WP:NOR 2964:Scm83x 2781:) and 2437:always 1982:WP:NOR 1952:WP:NOR 1754:WP:AGF 1728:Scm83x 1496:filter 1360:didn't 1238:chaff. 1164:Scm83x 1152:WP:OWN 1056:Scm83x 1018:, and 878:number 355:Kilyle 203:corpse 199:murder 140:Dmr001 5214:Jakew 5170:Jakew 5108:Jakew 5081:TipPt 5006:Jakew 4987:Jakew 4951:Jakew 4754:izard 4687:Jakew 4640:Jakew 4550:isn't 4487:Jakew 4385:Jakew 4368:TipPt 4310:Jakew 4265:Jakew 4236:Jakew 4166:Jakew 4116:Jakew 4091:Jakew 4084:WP:RS 3984:Jakew 3962:Jakew 3924:Jakew 3879:Jakew 3835:Jakew 3790:Jakew 3746:Jakew 3702:Jakew 3657:Jakew 3567:izard 3525:izard 3386:Jakew 3360:Jakew 3353:other 3324:Jakew 3300:Jakew 3277:Jakew 3251:Jakew 3216:Jakew 3168:Jakew 3113:Jakew 2995:Jakew 2817:out. 2672:izard 2513:izard 2430:show 2424:grief 2422:Good 2046:Jakew 2019:WP:OR 2002:Jakew 1965:Jakew 1944:Jakew 1913:Jakew 1861:Jakew 1810:Jakew 1779:Jakew 1706:Jakew 1636:Jakew 1475:Jakew 1448:Jakew 1370:right 1312:Hah: 1244:Jakew 1001:Jakew 964:Jakew 898:Jakew 678:WP:RS 649:Jakew 544:Jakew 531:izard 514:Jakew 394:TipTp 225:izard 192:Image 16:< 4871:talk 4833:MRSA 4518:talk 4372:talk 4306:else 4288:and 4208:and 4204:and 3559:here 3484:real 3009:must 2933:is: 2777:(or 2758:talk 2726:cock 2638:that 2613:bias 2587:talk 2400:talk 2308:that 2237:him. 2230:ever 2033:net. 1963:No. 1795:553. 1697:ISBN 1464:... 867:ISBN 575:cite 398:talk 322:talk 217:most 5154:not 4556:. 4546:was 4524:) . 4378:) . 4232:not 2974:Avi 2948:Avi 2944:NOT 2503:. 2428:you 2406:) . 2366:. 2234:not 2015:are 1986:all 1771:it? 1462:how 1293:of 1173:RFM 990:. 975:one 5193:Al 5158:is 5134:Al 5027:Al 4969:Al 4931:Al 4901:Al 4873:• 4658:is 4520:• 4455:Al 4421:Al 4406:Al 4374:• 4342:. 4295:Al 4253:Al 4218:Al 4155:Al 4102:Al 4014:Al 3612:Al 3597:Al 3015:Al 2985:Al 2959:AL 2896:Al 2853:Al 2827:Al 2792:Al 2764:) 2760:• 2752:-- 2619:. 2593:) 2589:• 2581:-- 2432:me 2402:• 2276:. 2207:Al 2135:. 2062:Al 2024:Al 1991:Al 1942:? 1821:. 1680:. 1608:. 1259:Al 1179:Al 1128:Al 1095:Al 1070:Al 1014:, 953:Al 938:Al 916:Al 896:. 801:Al 740:Al 686:Al 659:or 647:? 641:so 617:Al 603:. 591:Al 559:Al 467:Al 436:Al 413:Al 404:) 400:• 324:• 151:Al 91:→ 4869:( 4758:@ 4751:W 4516:( 4370:( 4330:) 3805:" 3571:@ 3564:W 3529:@ 3522:W 2756:( 2676:@ 2669:W 2585:( 2517:@ 2510:W 2398:( 1372:. 535:@ 528:W 396:( 320:( 229:@ 222:W 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index