This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Castration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you think it might make sense to add some sort of protection to this article given that most of the recent edits have been different IPs removing material that is then readded? I don't think there's actually been a discussion here of this topic btw, so perhaps that should be had. But unfortunately I'm on the side of I'm lazy and it is sourced, so can't really represent the viewpoints of the people deleting content. Talpedia ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
There was a recent edit removing reference to internal testes on the ground that these were referring to ovaries. But I think this might be referring to intersex people who have features of female anatomy but have testes internally. See https://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/story?id=5465752&page=1 Talpedia ( talk) 10:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to mention the actions of a Muslim army that contradict the aforementioned teachings of Islam when discussing the Islamic viewpoint on castration. It is open bias against the religion when both Christianity and Judaism's rulings are mentioned, but the actions of kings or armies that contradicted their rulings are not mentioned. For example, it is historically documented that supposedly Christian Ethiopians castrated slave boys and sold them on the market. Why is this not mentioned on the Christian section? Where is the unbiased nature of Wikipedia when dealing with such issues. Generalissimus Leon ( talk) 17:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
You do realise that the "source" given in the citation has no basis. In the area of history we dont consider every book or person or statement as a reliable source of information. The writer of the book of the citation, will roscoe is not a historian. He is an LGBT activist. And a little research shows us that his claims have no basis. As for the part about poetry that is not a general concept but a very small and relative late concept belonging to the late era of ottomans and the poet Nedim. Even those arw rumoura mind you and said poet is not an islamic poet by any means. So in short the claims given are baseless historical revisionism to further an agenda. Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 05:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The source has no basis. There is no sufi poetry that depict homosexualism. The mentioned poetry is secular poetry in upper class Constantinople. As aforementioned Nedim. As for the armies castrating hindus, there is absolutely no evidencr about that. This text you mentioned is composed of pure speculation and subjective commentary without any historical documents. And the credentials of the writer is unqualified to begin with. From my point of view it looks like the person that wrote the source is trying to push their activist agenda. Said writer has also written unqualified books regarding homosexuality and christianity and so forth where more baseless claims are given. The fact that someone added that text in without proper research with historical documents and evidence aka first hand evidence, and instead went for a book written over a millenia later as a source that has no basis on first hand evidence violates pretty much all rules of historical acadademic research method. Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 18:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I am also providing the source for the narration before which has a citation needed. The said narration is Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4787) and Muslim (1404). The narrations are both authentic with a sound chain of transmission. Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 18:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes thank you that seems like quite the ideal rewriting. Thank you for your effort Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 05:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I removed this edit: [4] as a potential copyvio. I have now come to the conclusion that, in fact, the book that publishes this text on the Internet probably contains unattributed copying from Wikipedia and as such there is no copyvio from that source. The edit does fall foul of WP:COPYWITHIN. It is copied from page history of another article on Wikipedia without attribution. It also had some other issues (not least that one statement had 40... yes, 40, sources cited. See WP:OVERCITE). As a copywithin, the text was not well suited to this page so please do not put it back in without discussion and a consensus here. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Testicular ectomy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 14 § Testicular ectomy until a consensus is reached. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
An IP has raised an issue with the first illustration on this page which is attributed in the caption to Sharaf ad-Din, a Persian scholar from Yazd, died 1454. As the IP notes, the text in the illustration is Turkish, and so looking at this, I believe the illustration is misattributed. This paper [5] describes the work of Charaf-ed-Din. Also known as Sharaf al-Dīn (Şerefeddin) Sabuncuoğlu as described in this paper [6] (died 1468). This latter was both surgeon and illustrator, and a number of his works, all in this style, can be found online. He lived in the Ottoman Empire during the fifteenth century and his Imperial Surgery, 1465, is the first illustrated surgical textbook written in Turkish. This must be from that. Putting this here to check my facts:
Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The five edits since my last have involved a dispute over how to discuss oophorectomy, sometimes called "female castration," in the article. Editors have debated this same topic in the past, particularly in this section of the talk page archive. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing for the full context, but I would like to highlight and second the comment by Dfeuer that "While the ovaries are anatomically homologous to the testes, oophorectomy is not culturally equivalent to castration." Because of the differing sociocultural contexts, I think that this article should focus on orchidectomy, and that searches for the term "female castration" should be redirected automatically to the article on oophorectomy. (Edit: I just checked and discovered that the redirect already exists.) Huntthetroll ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Castration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do you think it might make sense to add some sort of protection to this article given that most of the recent edits have been different IPs removing material that is then readded? I don't think there's actually been a discussion here of this topic btw, so perhaps that should be had. But unfortunately I'm on the side of I'm lazy and it is sourced, so can't really represent the viewpoints of the people deleting content. Talpedia ( talk) 18:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
There was a recent edit removing reference to internal testes on the ground that these were referring to ovaries. But I think this might be referring to intersex people who have features of female anatomy but have testes internally. See https://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/story?id=5465752&page=1 Talpedia ( talk) 10:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to mention the actions of a Muslim army that contradict the aforementioned teachings of Islam when discussing the Islamic viewpoint on castration. It is open bias against the religion when both Christianity and Judaism's rulings are mentioned, but the actions of kings or armies that contradicted their rulings are not mentioned. For example, it is historically documented that supposedly Christian Ethiopians castrated slave boys and sold them on the market. Why is this not mentioned on the Christian section? Where is the unbiased nature of Wikipedia when dealing with such issues. Generalissimus Leon ( talk) 17:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
You do realise that the "source" given in the citation has no basis. In the area of history we dont consider every book or person or statement as a reliable source of information. The writer of the book of the citation, will roscoe is not a historian. He is an LGBT activist. And a little research shows us that his claims have no basis. As for the part about poetry that is not a general concept but a very small and relative late concept belonging to the late era of ottomans and the poet Nedim. Even those arw rumoura mind you and said poet is not an islamic poet by any means. So in short the claims given are baseless historical revisionism to further an agenda. Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 05:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The source has no basis. There is no sufi poetry that depict homosexualism. The mentioned poetry is secular poetry in upper class Constantinople. As aforementioned Nedim. As for the armies castrating hindus, there is absolutely no evidencr about that. This text you mentioned is composed of pure speculation and subjective commentary without any historical documents. And the credentials of the writer is unqualified to begin with. From my point of view it looks like the person that wrote the source is trying to push their activist agenda. Said writer has also written unqualified books regarding homosexuality and christianity and so forth where more baseless claims are given. The fact that someone added that text in without proper research with historical documents and evidence aka first hand evidence, and instead went for a book written over a millenia later as a source that has no basis on first hand evidence violates pretty much all rules of historical acadademic research method. Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 18:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I am also providing the source for the narration before which has a citation needed. The said narration is Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4787) and Muslim (1404). The narrations are both authentic with a sound chain of transmission. Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 18:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes thank you that seems like quite the ideal rewriting. Thank you for your effort Big Man Smash Man ( talk) 05:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I removed this edit: [4] as a potential copyvio. I have now come to the conclusion that, in fact, the book that publishes this text on the Internet probably contains unattributed copying from Wikipedia and as such there is no copyvio from that source. The edit does fall foul of WP:COPYWITHIN. It is copied from page history of another article on Wikipedia without attribution. It also had some other issues (not least that one statement had 40... yes, 40, sources cited. See WP:OVERCITE). As a copywithin, the text was not well suited to this page so please do not put it back in without discussion and a consensus here. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 08:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The redirect Testicular ectomy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 14 § Testicular ectomy until a consensus is reached. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 ( talk) 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
An IP has raised an issue with the first illustration on this page which is attributed in the caption to Sharaf ad-Din, a Persian scholar from Yazd, died 1454. As the IP notes, the text in the illustration is Turkish, and so looking at this, I believe the illustration is misattributed. This paper [5] describes the work of Charaf-ed-Din. Also known as Sharaf al-Dīn (Şerefeddin) Sabuncuoğlu as described in this paper [6] (died 1468). This latter was both surgeon and illustrator, and a number of his works, all in this style, can be found online. He lived in the Ottoman Empire during the fifteenth century and his Imperial Surgery, 1465, is the first illustrated surgical textbook written in Turkish. This must be from that. Putting this here to check my facts:
Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 12:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The five edits since my last have involved a dispute over how to discuss oophorectomy, sometimes called "female castration," in the article. Editors have debated this same topic in the past, particularly in this section of the talk page archive. I encourage everyone to read the whole thing for the full context, but I would like to highlight and second the comment by Dfeuer that "While the ovaries are anatomically homologous to the testes, oophorectomy is not culturally equivalent to castration." Because of the differing sociocultural contexts, I think that this article should focus on orchidectomy, and that searches for the term "female castration" should be redirected automatically to the article on oophorectomy. (Edit: I just checked and discovered that the redirect already exists.) Huntthetroll ( talk) 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)