Talk:Castration

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)

I requested such protection two weeks ago and it was declined due to “insufficient evidence of disruption”. You would be welcome to try again, however, as I agree. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Internal testes

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)

The edit was incorrect and I will restore the previous version in a moment. Many animals, such as elephants and porpoises, have internal testes and this term is correctly applied to those, as well as to humans or other animals with scrotums that have undescended testicles. The editor misread the sentence. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Bias in the Islamic rulings section

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your argument here is WP:WHATABOUT. The question is only whether this content is due in this article. It is. Is something due on the coptic industry that allegedly supplied castrated slaves to islamic nations that outlawed the practice? Yes, possibly, with reliable sourcing. But the principle here is to extend the sharing of knowledge through an encyclopaedia article, and not to censor it because some of the information is uncomfortable. While you are here, there is a quotation in the preceding sentence with a "citation needed" template against it. Are you able to identify the source for that quote and fill the citation request? That would be very helpful. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a little whataboutery if it adds WP:DUE content to wikipedia. We could add something about castration by Christian Ethiopian people if we have a good source.

WP:DUE and the ability of wikipedian's to engage in careful application of the principle is one thing that ensure balance. Another is a broad range of readers and editors Talpedia (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to add to the above. A clear case of WP:DUE. Attempts to delete it per WP:DONTLIKEIT are examples of bias. Additions of cited cases perpetrated by other religious groups would also be helpful. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:15, 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)

Reviews of the book in question, other works which cite it, and information on the article about it here on WP (Islamic Homosexualities) indicate it passes muster as a reliable source. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Jtrevor99 you appear to have added this information in this edit: [1] and you later added the source when it was challenged, here: [2]. However I cannot find text in the source that supports this claim. Could you look at the sourcing again and provide either a page number from the source, or else a better source. Otherwise I would have to agree that this text, as it stands, should go. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not add the information (I'm not aware of its original providence) but I did add the source when it was previously challenged. I cannot provide the specific page number(s) I found it on because that resource is no longer accessible to me. It was when I was in grad school last year, but my local libraries neither have a copy nor can it obtain one, either electronically or hard-copy, and I have found no free online copy of it. I am not willing to spend money to prove the citation is relevant and accurate, so understand if, on such a contentious subject, consensus is to strike it based on this. If, however, someone can point me to a free copy, I will try to find it again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for saying you added the original sentence. I was forgetting just how often that has undergone unexplained deletion! I now think this was the original insertion, uncited, from an IP editor: [3].

I clearly am willing to trust you, which is why I did not delete the text when I failed to find where the text makes this claim. I have institutional access to it, and have read pages I thought might be relevant, and also searched the text on all references to castration, hindus, India and armies and have not found the information yet. If the information cannot be verified, it can't remain in the article, but I will leave it longer to allow me to read more and perhaps some other editor can find a source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the material was originally added by an unregistered user (User:67.48.131.197) on 9 May 2021; this is not me. I added the source on 26 May after several attempts to delete. I recall that it was buried deep, perhaps in the 170s or 190s, and even there, there was only a brief mention. I will continue to try to find a copy to re-verify. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I just found that too. Once again apologies that I thought your revert was the original inclusion. The IP only made that edit, and it was uncited, so clearly it needs attention. Thanks for the clue as to page numbers, I shall read some more. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. And no need to apologize! I have spent the past hour (or so) trying to find a source with which I can re-verify online but have been unable to. Unfortunately, most previews exclude the section I thought I found it in. I did find an article (https://www.jstor.org/stable/599739) which states Muslim merchants routinely paid to have Bengals castrated in the early second millennium, but that's the closest I've found. As I am currently on vacation visiting family, and do not want to take away from that any longer, if you are unable to find anything to support this statement, then I am content with allowing the statement to remain deleted :) Thanks! Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a good vacation. The information is not deleted yet - I merely marked with "failed verification". There is plenty in the source about muslims paying to have slaves castrated (I recall it mentioning Verdun among other locations). If I cannot verify the information, I will rewrite along those lines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:07, 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)

I have not researched the second contentious statement (on poetry) and cannot comment on it. It may be useful to discuss the two separately here, and to involve whomever originally added it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The second statement about poetry is on page 312 of the cited source. I added a page number, but the summary could be rewritten. More to the point, that sentences is about homosexuality and not castration, so if the previous sentences fails verification, then that sentence becomes undue. Having said that, the previous source does have quite a lot about the use of eunuchs in the islamic world, so the solution may be to rewrite this section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

the previous source claims castration done by the muslim army on captives. Which is purely false. The section could be rewritten entirely with proper functional sources. In fact the entire category of religion can be rewritten with proper facts. Alternatively, these discussions go under the topic of history rather than religion as castration is not allowed in Islam. The religion category should purely for including the view of the religion on the act of castration. 85.108.172.43 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. The information is under active consideration and I am sure improvements will be possible soon. Simply deleting information that is sourced (and some of the sources verified) is not helpful. Indeed, I would add that if some of the IPs that have continually attempted to delete the information had instead engaged in discussion here, the information could have been improved much sooner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, although it was not quite enough to cite the source. However I think I have now found it and inserted a citation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the information based on text in the cited source (page 75). I believe this is a fairer and more balanced summary of the situation w.r.t Islam, but happy to discuss further. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 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)

India section

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)

Came here to say this. It would be better to replace the 40 sources with one or two good, authoritative sources to improve readability. Anyoldguy (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is all undue. The page subject is castration, not the history of India. Information is due if it speaks to the general page subject (Hijra for instance) and it could be illustrative of castration of war captives, but this is a copywithin without any thought of how it improves this page. Copied material also must be attributed to the source per the Wikipedia license, and this copywithin was unattributed. I have removed it and per WP:ONUS, there would need to be a consensus for inclusion. I have thus deleted it again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

"Testicular ectomy" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Sharaf ad-Din

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:

1. Do we concur that these are two different people?
2. Do we have a page for Charaf-ed-Din (died 1468) that we can wikilink to?
3. If we don't have a page, I will red-link the attribution as he is notable. In that case, what is the correct form of his name that we should use?

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Answered my own questions 2 and 3, thanks to the second paper I cited: Sabuncuoğlu Şerafeddin Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to details. Cheers. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Women and Castration Part 2

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)