Talk:Uncircumcised

Just to be clear, the reason this page has been reverted to a redirect is because of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. A page which is merely a dictionary definition and which has no chance of ever being anything more than that is not acceptable as a Wikipedia article and should be deleted or made into a redirect. Sirkumsize's conversion of this page to a POV-pushing dicdef was incorrect and in violation of several policies, including NPOV and the aforementioned WINAD, not to mention Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This page must remain a redirect to circumcision. Nohat 17:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nohat's reason for reverting this page does not apply to it because it is a disambiguation page. His action demonstrate that POV pushing pro circumcisionists have hijacked wikipedia and wish to censor any information that is inconvenient to their cause -- including repressing the dictionary meaning of words -- appearently. It is in violation of wikipedia policy Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Sirkumsize 02:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nohat reverted this page because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I agree with this revert. Rhobite 02:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Do we have to delete every disambiguation page then? Sirkumsize 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, a page that consists only of a dictionary definition should be made into a redirect to the appropriate page, as here. Nohat 04:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But if there are two different meanings for a word then a disambiguation page is appropriate. Look it up, that is what disambiguation pages are for. There are many others on wikipedia. Sirkumsize 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to circumcision inappropriate destination

I just have to point out that redirects are really only appropriate for words that are synonyms. Uncircumcision is not a synonym for circumcision. It would actually make more sense (although still not accurate) to redirect the page to gentile in accordance with the Dictionary.com definition. Even redirecting it to foreskin would make more sense. At least foreskin is related to the state of an intact penis! Sirkumsize 02:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You should really stop relying on dictionary.com so much. Go to a library and look at the OED sometime. Rhobite 02:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for "un-" adjectives to be redirects to a noun form without "un-":

• Undecidable redirects to decision problem
• Unbiased redirects to bias
• Unconventional redirects to convention
• Unethical redirects to ethics

and so on. It is perfectly reasonable and within Wikipedia policy for uncircumcised to redirect to circumcision. Nohat 04:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it still doesn't address the problem that there is another valid meaning for this word that is religious in nature and really has nothing to do with circumcision. Only a disambiguation page will give all possible meanings to the reader so they can make a choice for themselves about which definition they are interested in. The redirect dictates that it be interpreted a specific way and effectively censors from wikipedia alternate interpretations. Also, do I really rely on Dictionary.com so much? Are you saying it is not a valid source for the understanding of the meaning of words? Sirkumsize 21:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Dictionaries are awful sources. All they do is describe the ways in which words have been used in the past. It's easy to misunderstand and misuse dictionary definitions. If you were to use a respected dictionary such as the OED, though, you'd find that your "other valid meaning" is figurative, and therefore probably unencyclopedic. Rhobite 21:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I know of know reason why a figurative meaning is unencyclopedic. Why do you say its figurative? 64.229.11.197 15:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously figurative because it could be used to describe a gentile who actually is circumcised. Nohat 20:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of articles on Wikipedia whose titles have additional meanings. But Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary, and it not within our mission to describe every rare sense for words. If people want to know all the obscure meanings of a word, then they look in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Nohat 21:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But in this case the second meaning is important. It could spell the difference between the word being POV or NPOV. The reader needs to know if there is a negative connation to a word. 64.229.11.197 15:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not that important, really. The secondary meaning of uncircumcised is only significant in a historical lexicographical sense—its contemporary connotation has nothing to do with religion. The secondary meaning is only important for completeness in dictionaries so if someone is reading a historical text, he or she can find out that "uncircumcised" may have meant something else in the time period that the text was written. This kind of information is not in the purview of encyclopedic coverage; it's purely a dictionary issue.Nohat 20:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep/Redirect

I notice that the result of the vfd for this page was not delete or redirect but keep/redirect. Note that some of the votes for redirection stated a wish to include information from this article in the destination article circumcision. The votes to redirect and keep were tied. Why was nothing of this page ever kept? 76.66.107.237 (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)