Talk:Castration/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Endangering the safety of Men

This article contains pictures and passages that discuss horrific practices that endanger the safety and security of men.

Wikipedia ought to behave cautiously with similar articles. Fjgdh5 (talk)\Fjgdh5 (talk)\\\~

Dividing up this article

There is an article about animal castration called Neutering, so I think the information here about the same thing should either be deleted or incorporated into that article. Secondly, I propose a subsection called "History of Castration" where that information can be sequestered (including the mention of the KKK ones another person mentioned below). Then leave "Castration" with just modern medical, social and behavioral information only. Questions? Comments?

I came here looking for a specific piece of information but found myself wading through a great deal of material that has nothing to do with the medical information for which I was looking. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Penile Castration

The top photo from Sharaf ad-Din seems to indicate penile castration (and it's odd, the "patient/victim" is smiling). Anyway, is the removal of just the penis also considered castration, or do the testes also need to be removed? I always think of Eunuchs having their penis's removed so that they couldn't copulate with the harem. Flight Risk (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Basics missing

74.73.39.2 (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)How is the issue of race not related to the section of America? Numerous black men were castrated during slavery and the post-emancipation heyday of lynchings. This is a major flaw and oversight.

Something very basic seems to be missing from this article (or perhaps I'm just not seeing it). In castration by surgery, are any parts of the body actually removed? The article says "by which a male loses the functions of the testicles." Well, though I am not a doctor I would assume that there are ways to stop the testicular functions without cutting off the testes or the penis, but the article is not clear.24.17.108.144 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

What are the consequences of being castrated? Do castrates still have sexual urges, can they still achieve an erection? I assume it matters whether the operation is performed before or after the onset of puberty. If performed after puberty, will body hair and voice move back in the pre-puberty direction?

Depends how its done surely? Sans anaesthetique, c'est extremement painful non?

These questions have been answered, for the most part, in the article. But note that it is often possible to have an erection and to have sex after castration. Testosterone supplements can be taken if necessary, though these would obviously be contraindicated in the case of a castration performed to control prostate cancer by reducing testosterone. Shorne 10:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about the consequences on females of being castrated before or after the onset of puberty? AxelBoldt 00:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article ”oophorectomy” describes the result if preformed after puberty. If the surgery is done before puberty the results are probably comparable to a male castrato. Without hormone replacement therapy she will never undergo puberty. That means she would not get breasts or any more fat on her body than a pre-pubertal child. It is also pssible that her pelvis would become narrower than those of other women. Of cause, she would not have any periods either. Her voice would remain child-like throughout her whole life. It is possible that she would not get more androgenic hair than she had at the time of surgery. Anyway, her skeleton would soon become as weak as that of an old woman. Also, she would feel little or no sexual drive, it is doubutful wheather she ever would have accepted to be penetrated. This is only a qualified guess: I have no actual sources.

Castration under primitive conditions (no antiseptics or anaesthesia) must be very dangerous. I have heard that more than 80% died from infections or blood loss! Anyone who kow the real figure?

2009-01-09 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Voluntary Castration

I would prefer that any 'medical page' used the term 'elective' rather than 'voluntary' - 'involuntary ' implies castration without consent.

There is no "supposed" network of cutters: they exist. I have met some, and know some people who have used their services. I also know people who have traveled from the U.S. to Mexico to have the procedure done.

Yes, they exist. There was a case in England a year or two ago of a castration done in a kitchen that led to massive blood loss and a trip to the emergency room. I believe it also led to a trip to gaol for the "cutter", who had practiced surgery without a licence.

Is there an actual 'licence to castrate'? I've heard you can use the same technique farmers use for docking lambstails - you just put a very tight rubber band round it to cut off the blood supply and let it fall off by itself - worked for me anyway.

How many people seek voluntary castration? Do you have any information? I'm just curious. Shorne 10:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for mental illness... actually, psychiatrists who have studied people with the desire to be castrated have found them to be balanced, sane individuals who simply want to be castrated. -- Tooki 04:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some, not all, presumably. But I agree that it is unfair to assume that people who want this procedure are mentally ill. Shorne 10:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added a link to http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/I/ea_25408intervie.htm , in refrence to castration as a paraphilia or in conjunction with masochistic desires. I felt it was very resourceful, and it lacked references.

In addition, the phrase "A method of castration used on Korean boys involved daubing their genitals with the feces of humans, after which dogs were allowed to bite them off." appears as the first line under Voluntary. If im missing something obvious, let me know. Otherwise it seems wholly inappropriate and out of place. Chardansearavitriol (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Will Castration kill off sex drive?

Just asking, will castration kill off your sex drive/desires?

No, it does only reduces it greatly.

2007-05-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Depends whether its performed pre or post puberty - loads of Eunuchs remained fully functional and highly active in Harems of Yore

All right, I will explain more in detail. If a guy is castrated before puberty he may completely lack sex drive as adult. He may also feel some sex drive but probably not more than can be relieved through masturbation. Men castrated after puberty still have some sex drive but very much less than before the castration. This is what I meant with greatly reduced sex drive.

2008-12-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Accusations of the Vietcong castrating American prisoners and others

I could not find any credible evidence of this happening so I changed the text to say that the Vietcong have sometimes been accused of doing this. If no-one provides credible evidence of this happening, I will remove the sentence altogether.Michael Glass 12:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See letter to TIMES magazine for verification, December 16, 1969 specifically, letter by a Roger Gallagher, section one of this column. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,941713-2,00.html

Obsolete??

This sentence from the article, "The estrogen that the females produce becomes obsolete with this surgical procedure." needs clarification. I'm not sure what it is supposed to mean but I'm pretty sure it is a misuse of obsolete. ike9898 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Insane amounts of redundant categories

Ok, I removed Category:Dog anatomy, Category:Cat health, Category:Horse health, Category:Birth control, Category:Contraception from this article. I added Category:Animals. You can castrate *ANY* male animal, so there's no reason to include a huge amount of specific categories for something that is not specific. I don't think there's a difference between birth control and contraception, and Category:Surgical contraception was in this article, which is a sub category of contraception. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? You say they are redundant categories.... not if you are looking at wikipedia FROM those categories. Castration is an important topic in horse health, and other animals. I think it was a useful addition to the Category:Horse health category. Did it detract from this article to have it in that category? I don't think so. Did it detract from the category Horse health to remove castration from it? Yes. I strongly suggest that these edits are reverted. Malcolm Morley 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Horse health, cat health, dog health, etc. are all subsets of veterinary medicine, ie. animals. Keep the super-category. Alphax ^τεχ 13:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Medieval church singers?

The article says, "This practice was used to maintain angel-like voices for choir boys in service of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages."

I think that this is a myth. Castrates do not seem to have been employed in church choirs until well into the Renaissance.

69.177.103.38 16:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think i heard that castrates were popular in 1700s europe. I know that the last castrate either died or was castrated in the 1930s.

Yeah, we have recordings of that one guy singing. Apparently he wasnt very good...no fault of his own, since he was the only person doing it. (Kinda hard to master a pipe organ synthesizer without proper teaching..) It certainly made choir interesting. So many parts written for boys have to be sung by girls now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chardansearavitriol (talk • contribs) 23:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

References

I think the page needs to reference comments such as "It is estimated that 90% of the slaves so treated died in the attempt", "However, this treatment is not as effective as commonly believed, for there have been numerous cases of castrated men continuing to molest children" and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.255.202.50 (talk • contribs) 23:59, December 30, 2005.

Might as well remove the "i think" from that. :) I completely agree. I'll be working on references later. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There should also be a cite to the bold statement that prehistoric remains of transsexual and transgendered people have been found. Where, when, by whom; and what methods were used to identify these characteristics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.140.75.144 (talk • contribs) .

Doesn't it say the middle ages or something, not prehistoric? Anyway, I thought that was kinda odd myself. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

pictures?

Why aren't there any pictures in this article? I'm serious ,as an encyclopedia there shoudl be relevant imagery. If nudity is a problem in news sites and others ,it should'nt be so here ,under a relevant subject.

I had put two pictures, a medieval illumination with a man being castrated but it was removed for obvious reasons. I also had a tool used in Roman time for castration which had remained. I had found them both from ww.eunuch.org Pictureuploader 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, are those free images? I'd kinda prefer not to have pictures here of the actual procedure, but tools and things are perfectly OK. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I guess, medieval and ancient stuff is not copyrighted. The medieval pic of the procedure was not too clearly seen though. You can go to the site and push 'refresh' until it's randomly shown. Pictureuploader 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Well, I think the painting was obviously pretty old. But do you have any idea when the roman clamp picture was taken? I was assuming it's a modern photograph of an ancient tool. Anyway, it's tagged as unknown, and deletable. I'd hate to lose that nice picture. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have added a picture of a horse castration. Not too large so it is not too gorey!--Malcolm Morley 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- EEW --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to have a bloody picture. A picture of the genitals of a man who has no scrotum would make far more sense, as would a surgical picture of an animal in a vetrenarian's office where the main thing you see is the photograph is veterinary surgeons, if the picture is specifically for an animal-related section. GodOfNonTyranny 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

- Your horse is very..ahmm disturbing ,bloody and quite uninformative. I suggest replacing or deleteing it. I donno if there's a technical way to Warn users of the following display ,but a human candidate aftermath picture should at least link here directly.(or can be placed under very small diplay magnificaction) Furthermore the image:Castration.jpg is not too hursh, and yet conveys the message clearly. Maybe we should vote on it's return since it was removed by another user.(This is an article about castration after all..) -I vote For. The Procrastinator 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

- - I oppose tiny-fying images to make them less shocking. Un-inlining is the only useful solution other than a normal size picture. And, i've thought about it for a bit, and I have no problem with having pictures of the procedure, as long as they're encyclopedic, and not at the top of the article (so people don't click random page and get a surprise). If you watch a TV show about procedures on TV, you get rather disgusting videos. They're interesting though. I'm not sure how informative this picture is though. If we re-instate the painting, I'd prefer putting it where it's not directly at the top, and attempting to find a higher resolution picture of it; it's hard to see anything in this one. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed ,yet Naturally there are far better pictures of this,I just wanted to see if there was any rpemptive opposition cencuring encyclopedic pictures of this sort. will probably be hard to come to a free copyrighted source tohugh. The Procrastinator 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not be remotely offended if it is removed! You can see it in much higher resolution by clicking on it of course! --Malcolm Morley 10:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have aproblem with the horse picture. But i'd like my picture to be restored also. Anone else agrees on its return? Pictureuploader 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please restore all pictures of castration. I feel they are informative and display the procedure. Anyone who is offended by these pictures has little business on a section on castration in the first place. Wikipedia is not a place of censorship. Lengis 20:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Some people are still disturbed by the images and I understand. I had made a custom template of warning in articles with disturbing pictures (eg. lynching, persecution of black people, pictures of genitalia, pictures of Muhammad etc) however it was deleted and removed without notice. Maybe we should try to make one again. Pictureuploader 18:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because it is inappropriate to have a "warning" that an encyclopedic article will have information, such as pictures and words, about the subject of that article. GodOfNonTyranny 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Is that picture really necessary? I don't need to see a horse castration, thanks...

Then why are you on this page in the first place? I am really curious. Thanks Pictureuploader 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am on this page to learn, not be be shocked by offensive images. Why should Wikipedia be like goat.se-like shocker site? If you think just because something represents reality it should be in an encyclopedia, you have another thing coming. What if a child sees this? You are a disgusting person for supporting this photograph. What are you going to do next, put up a little child pornography and a little snuff film selection in order to illustrate your point? NeoThe1 08:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture was earlier in a lower point and in a smaller size, until someone else moved to the top of the article. Pictureuploader 11:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The format and placement of the photograph in question has no beating on the fact that the photograph is is un-encyclopaedic, inappropriate and gratuitous. NeoThe1 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Castration in Literature

The reason I deleted the section, is because it's not at all helpful to the article nor to producing such a section. Even we had a full 30k article on Castration in Literature, it wouldn't be appropriate to add 1k of text on one story in the Bible, that is connected to the subject only by the coincidence that it has a eunuch in it. There's nothing on castration in that story. Furthermore, "Many times, families would give up their children to become servants of the ruling government. If males, they were often castrated to ensure their "passivity" as well as alleviating other potential complecations." isn't about castration in literature or the bible at all, and should be handled elsewhere in the article. This story at best deserves a note like "the most significant eunuch in the Bible was the man who was converted to Christianity by Phillip on the way to Gaza."--Prosfilaes 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Gory picture

I regard the picture of the horse castration as highly offensive. It should be remove! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrruss (talk • contribs) 08:21, March 1, 2006

In light of this comment I direct you to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. This is an image of the surgical castration of a horse and is wholly appropriate in this article. Other articles dealing with anatomy and surgery (human or otherwise) also have pictures of "the real thing" such as Liver, Circumcision, Breast implant, and others. While I agree that the image doesn't show the procedures used in castration, it at least shows a testis being separated and removed from the scrotum. The image is presented in a relatively mature way in the appropriate section of the article. If you're sensitive about blood and guts, a bit of advice: don't look at articles about surgical procedures! =) — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 13:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because I want to read about the historical usage of rape in warfare does not mean I want to see it graphically illustrated in front of me. Similarly, information on castration is not limited to the surgical procedure and this disgusting image is entirely unneccessary as it reveals absolutely nothing about the procedure itself and seems to be there simply to shock. Ridiculous. Remove! 144.89.184.190 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit the picture does not violate Wikipedia's rules, but even so, at the very least a warning is warranted. Josh (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Specious claims

I removed this:

"African slave traders frequently castrated their charges in order to increase their commercial value. After denying the victim fluids for a day or two they would sever the penis and testicles and use a hot iron to cauterise the wound closed. They would then force the prospective slave to drink so that, hopefully, the pressure of the bladder would be able to force an opening in the wound for urine. It is estimated that 90% of the slaves so treated died in the attempt. However, castrated slaves were greatly valued and sought both in Europe and in the East, where Christians and Jews formally discouraged the practice but informally were happy to purchase already-castrated slaves."

I really don't believe this at all. Is there a source for this? I don't understand why a slave trader would damage his human property in this way. Erik the Rude 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this too:

"Remains of transsexual and transgendered people from as far back as the Roman era have been uncovered and confirmed to have undergone castration."

Proof please? This statement is not only suspect for a host of reasons, but whoever wrote it is using highly loaded modern words and definitions to apply to ancient people who simply didn't see the world in the same way we do. Erik the Rude 22:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Source added. --Julie-Anne Driver 15:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'm removing this stuff again. You added a newspaper article as a source for your claims of ancient transvestites, but you restored the part about castrating slaves too. I understand it was rotten to be a slave, but we don't need to make up crazy stories about cutting their penises off to make slavery seem more horrible, do we? As for the transvestite Cybele worshippers, they existed, but castration and cross-dressing for religious purposes isn't the same thing as the modern concept of transsexualism. I'll just include something about how they had their balls cut off when they entered the cult. Erik the Rude 23:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the article is well maybe not specious but dubious. It starts with The practice of castration has its roots before recorded human history.[1] Castration was frequently used in certain cultures in Europe, the Middle East, India, Africa and China, for religious or social reasons with a footnote that says Male castration was performed for social reasons in prehistoric times with no support. And Europe is not mentioned. It also says in some states, such as the Byzantine Empire, (full castration) was seen as the same as a death sentence but the Byzantines abhorred castration (while buying and using euchuch slaves) and the penalty for performing a castration was castration (the lex talonis). etc --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial links?

While the act of castration is most likely, on the level of mere thought, a source of disgust and contempt to most normal men, the site includes a link or another that does not reflect this.

The article on hysterectomy includes a link to a site designed to help those living with the resulting condition. However, for the men here, the site links to the site, real or fake, of a sexual deviant who argues for castration. I'm not deleting anything, I'm just wondering if that's really appropriate. --Thomi 16:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Eunuch Archive is A) mostly fictional stories (I hope to god anyways) and B) more of a fetish site. It should be removed --142.177.157.117 06:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Archive is 'sick' if you ask me, however it has a 'good' and serious forum as a part of it. I suggest to leave it with disclaimer/warning, or at least point to the forum directly. Pictureuploader 08:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link to a 'interview' on the site, I read it and it didn't seem to 'ring' true. (if you will) So I removed it.--Honeymane 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

redundancies

Is it just me or does it seem like this article is stating some things over and over again? Adding cleanup tag... The machine512

Medical Consequences section seems awry

Is it just me, or does the Medical Consequences section seem to actually promote castration? Particularly, the following exceprts strike me as odd: "Some castrates report mood changes, such as depression or a more serene outlook on life. Body strength and muscle mass can decrease somewhat. Body hair may or may not decrease. Castration prevents male pattern baldness." As well, a lot of the content found in this section hardly relates to medicine at all, so much as it is simply random items lacking citation. Can we possibly redo this section? Grendel 03:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to promote castration to me. Given that the drop in testosterone and other hormones, all of those effects seem likely, and the last has a cite.--Prosfilaes 04:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is a section about consequences, not the pros and cons of castration. For example, the line, "castration prevents male pattern baldness" has nothing to do with consequence -- it is very clearly being listed as an advantage which shifts this section toward pro-castration POV. So, I suggest we either rename the section to be less misleading, or move some of its contents to other sections of the article where they would more respectively represent a NPOV. Grendel 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, actually preventing male pattern baldness is a consequence of castration. I don't see that as being listed as an advantage; it's a fact, that happens to be interpreted as an advantage by most people in our society. It shouldn't be moved; that is one of the medical results of castration.--Prosfilaes 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In saying that baldness prevention is a consequence, I believe that you're using the word a bit too loosely. Certainly, it may be a possible side-effect of castration, though it does not necessarily fall under the catagory of consequence, as the word is generally used in a more negative context than you're asserting. At the least, the section should be renamed to something along the lines of "Possible Effects of Castration" to avoid this kind of confusion. Grendel 03:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Grendel, with all respect, I think we are overanalyzing it. Pictureuploader 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I have a tendency to do that... If no one feels that this is of any significance, then I'll just leave it be. Grendel

Castration WILL prevent male pattern baldness ONLY if done before puberty. Once a man goes through puberty if he is castrated later and subject to male pattern baldness, he will STILL GET IT. This only applie IF he castrated BEFORE puberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.143.235.237 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it will also have the same effect if performed before significant baldness develops, at any age. Basically, castration effectively prevents any further male pattern scalp hair loss, regardless of age and genetic susceptibility. Albert Wincentz (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

also about "Medical Consequences"

The last paragraph of "Medical Consequences" says

Eunuchs suffered from a range of urogenital problems associated with the removal of their sexual organs, and they had their own specialist doctors who catered to their health needs. Among other problems, they could not control the outflow of their urine; their clothes and bodies often stank accordingly. Although eunuchs were usually venerated in dynastic China, the same culture had a popular phrase denigrating them: anyone with bad hygiene was said to "stink like a eunuch".

I don't understand how castration can affect urination like that. First, castration doesn't necessarily affect the penis. Second, seems that the external urethral sphincter is not located in the penis. Third, I'm a Chinese native speaker and I've never heard of phrases like "stink like a eunuch."--Ivy ST 20:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

heh, sounds like BS to me. I'll remove it. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I belive you exept for the fact that Chineese eunuchs DID have their penises removed. The human penis actually extends backwards above the scrotum almost to the lenght of the visible part. The muscle controllong the bladder is situated between this ”internal part” and the prostate gland. (I don't know the English word for this muscle: it was not in my Swedish – English dictionary. In Swedish it is called ”bäckenbottenmuskeln” which literaly means ”the pelvis bottom muscle”.) If the penis is cut off at the base of the visible part there is not much risk that this muscle will be hurt. So the majority of Chineese enucs would have had no problem to controll their bladders.

2007-01-07 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I suggest that we replace the above phrase with, for example, the following: "Eunuchs who had a penectomy sometimes suffered from poor urinatinion control associated with the removal of the penis".

There is no such thing as a "range of urogenital problems" associated with orchiectomy only; in fact, if anything, castration would prevent any future prostate enlargement (BPH), a very common testosterone-dependent condition wich often results in partial obstruction of the urethra and difficulty urinating. Thus, it should be pointed out in the article that there is a difference between penectomy and orchiectomy in this regard. 193.217.34.35 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Castration for sex offenders?

"Voluntary chemical or surgical castration has been in practice in many countries; reports are available from Scandinavian and European countries, in particular, for the past eighty plus years (chemical for the last thirty or so years) as an option for effective treatment of child molesters, rapists and sexual sadists, allowing them to return to the community from otherwise lengthy detentions. In the case of chemical castration, on-going regular injections of anti-androgens are required."

Scandinavia is part of Europe, and again: Where is the proof. I live in Germany and I have never heard of offenders being castrated, it would also not be allowed for obvious reasons. (human rights)--Em es 08:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It only takes a moment at Google to turn up many thousands of references that yes, chemical castration is recently and currently used on rapists and pedophiles in teh US and Europe, and yes it specificially is being done in Germany. SURGICAL castration has been largely or completely eliminated in recent times on human rights grounds (thirty or so years as per your quoted section). Chemical castration is a controversial practice... the proponent argument is basically that the practice is little different than injecting a diabetic with insulin. That it is "merely" giving someone ongoing treatment with a medication. Chemical castration does not remove the testes... it just chemically blocks the testoterone. If the injections stop then the chemical castration is completely reversed. Alsee 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just had a look in the German "Strafgesetzbuch" and the German article concerning castration and I did find a small note, saying that it was possible for the sex offender to be put on probation if he got sterilized and his crimes weren't that bad. But you must admit that it isn't widely practiced, you probably searched with English keywords on Google, that would have shown you an English result, which was probably inaccurate. And it is banned in Austria and probably a whole load of other European countries.--Em es 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It was clumsy to write “Europe and Scandinavia”. I happend know about castration in Sweden in modern times. In the mid-twentith centuary homosexual men was castrated because all attempts to cure them failed. (Note that homosexuality is a harmless condition and thus unnessecary to cure.) Today pedophiles are offered cemical castration, but only males, becouse our society diply stereotyoical and full of misandry. According to the people involved this method only works if the patient wants it himself: it is easy to restore sexual drive with anabolic steroids. However, such cases may not be talked much about, so I am not to surprised that you were ignorant of them.

2007-01-09 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Castration in psychoanalysis & theory

Article should note that: 1. in psychoanalysis castration refers first & foremost, not to loss of testes, but rather of the penis 2. likewise in psychoanalysis, the concept of castration has been extended to be anything which is a loss of the power that the penis symbolically represents, even if the penis itself remains intact -- thus blinding, dismemberment, rape, death, can all be seen as forms of castration 3. many people in literature, critical theory, etc., under the influence of postmodernism, have adopted the above broader version of castration

Some examples (that I am familiar with) of the above usage: Bloom's theory of anxiety of influence; also a good example is Catherine Maxwell's book The Female Sublime, in which she mostly uses the word castration broadly: Milton is castrated by his blindness; the Thracian women castrate Orpheus through dismemberment; Tereus castrates Philomela by raping her and cutting out her tongue; Philomela castrates Tereus in turn by feeding him his son; Sappho as a woman and a lesbian is the eternal castrate, but she in turn through her poetry castrates her male listeners.

My point is there is a very rich body of work on castration derived from psychoanalysis, which this article barely touches upon.

I wrote the above comment as an anon--SJK 03:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This section was (and still is) a bit of a mess. The entire section was exactly duplicated in the article - I deleted the duplicate. The psychoanalysis portions were good and I believe psychoanalysis warrants expansion. The literary theory was awkwardly entangled in the psychoanalysis paragraphs. I broke out the literary theory into its own paragraph, but this paragraph needs to be either deleted or rewritten. Alsee 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Women and Castration

I would really like to have a couple of referenences/information about the process of castration of women. We all know what castration for a man means, but not as much so for a female. I would like more information on this. Timmah01 13:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the article states: astration (also referred as: gelding, neutering, orchiectomy, orchidectomy and oophorectomy) is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise, by which a male loses the functions of the testes or a woman loses the functions of her ovaries. This causes sterilization, preventing him/her from reproducing; it also greatly reduces the production of hormones such as testosterone, estrogen and progesterone. The remainder of this article will deal with male castration, as that is the usual way the term is used; female castration, or oophorectomy, is discussed on the oophorectomy page.

I strongly disagree because female castration is common and routine in the United States. Consider the facts. The Center For Disease Control's Advance Data Number 371 May 4, 2006 reports there were 451,000 women castrated in 2004 in the United States. If it were true that "the usual way the term is used" is by referring to male castration it is important to note that so few men were castrated ever since the CDC began reporting operative statistics that they have never reported male castration. If you choose to discuss only male castration I suggest that it be done on an Orchiectomy (not orchidectomy) page since you suggest that female castration be discussed only on an oophorectomy page. Logically, since there are close to half a million women castrated in the United States every year and a statistically insignificant number of men castrated it is appropriate to include women in an article about castration. The medical dictionary used in most medical schools is Stedman's. It defines castration as Removal of the testicles or ovaries.

User: HERSFoundation, Nora W. Coffey, December 26, 2006

Well, here's the thing--Wikipedia doesn't generally repeat the same information in its entirety in two different entries. If people come to Wikipedia wanting information on removal of the ovaries, they're going to end up in oophorectomy or hysterectomy, as those are the main terms used. I know you want it here to push your agenda, and I support your agenda, in fact. But Wikipedia's policy is NPOV so we need to decide these things without any agenda pushing, plus the info is just not going to end up staying here because it's already elsewhere, thus going against Wikipedia standards, so directing people from here to the place where they would most normally look is the best idea. Otherwise, we could just copy and paste the entire oophorectomy article here, and separate "Castration" into "male castration" and "female castration." But the "female castration" would I think end up being deleted by someone else because it's already elsewhere. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone wanting to know about removal of the ovaries will think to come here at all. So we're not getting the information out to the people who we want to have it, or the people looking for it. The primary definition of castration, the definition that it had first, the definition as most commonly used, was removal of male genitalia. It has only more recently come to mean removal of female genitalia, and seldom used at that, so it's just not a conventional usage, even though it's technically correct. As for orchiectomy: if you type that into Wikipedia, you're redirected to "castration" because, again, that is the most common term. QuizzicalBee 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the way I see it: Male castration (including both orchiectomy and penectomy) has a social/cultural history going back millenia, tied to dominance, control, humiliation, punishment, and (fairly briefly) music. While the ovaries are anatomically homologous to the testes, oophorectomy is not culturally equivalent to castration. The closest social/cultural equivalent to male castration is Female genital cutting, although there are certainly substantial differences between those as well. I would support adding to the Oophorectomy article some information on the history of the procedure, and in particular how the feminist movement has changed the way it is perceived and used. Furthermore, I would strongly support the creation of a separate Orchiectomy page to address orchiectomy in a medical context, leaving Castration to address castration in other contexts. As an aside, I think most of the time when MTF transgendered people choose to have an orchiectomy, they would not consider that to be castration at all, but rather empowering. Dfeuer 23:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the page mentions castration as applying to females but then says almost nothing more about females is silly and misleading. I've added a few sentences in the summary mentioning that common usage applies castration to males, but medical usage includes females, and referring readers to the oophorectomy for more information about female castration. Hopefully this is uncontroversial. SethML (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree but think it doesn't go far enough. "Castration" is something done to both males and females.[1] Blackworm (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Annet Negesa, see her petition / complaint against IAAF.2003:E8:5F16:B299:B0E7:601A:911E:942 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Castration in 'castrato' singers

It was popular for quite a long time to castrate boys so that their voices didn't 'drop'. They were castrato, and apparently able to sing in higher pitch than falsettos. Surely this deserves at least a mention in the article.

I am adding this to a previous unsigned post

Also, perhaps this should not be listed as a "religious" reason. The religious part is that women were not allowed to sing in Church, but there neither was nor is a religious requirement for soprano's and alto's. Instead, this could be concluded to be an "aesthetic" reason, since people merely thought hearing sopranos would be nice in church. Also, I am fairly certain that we would also discover that castrati were used in secular music as well. 24.2.73.107 18:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)David Benson

Yes, castrati where used in secular music and where popular as opera singers. Today such parts are acted by women.

2007-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Women or countertenors. Dfeuer 17:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Or digitally altered in recordings 217.44.100.73 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Testicular cancer

This sentence is misleading: Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong and comedian Tom Green, two of the most well-known recipients of this procedure, were allowed to keep one testicle after the cancerous one was removed.

In particular, use of the word "allowed" makes it sound as though leaving the other testicle intact is unusual. In fact, it is rare to remove both testicles in this case. —Captaindan 03:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Flag statements as unsourced, don't summarily yank them

This goes out to the anonymous editor who removed a statement that wasn't cited on 2007-04-30: Flag such statements using {{fact}} then wait a few weeks before deleting them. This gives those of us following the article a chance to provide a citation. Better yet, contribute your own citation. I've reverted your edit and provided a citation.

Cattle Industry

There has been quite a number of videos floating around online about animal abuse in the cattle livestock industry in the U.S. Specifically, contents related to castration done on animals with no Anesthetic medication. I was highly disturbed to see an animal in such pain and kneeing, in what looks like an animal really crying and screaming helplessly. I am not against the idea of feeding our nation on beef, but WHY no Anesthetic of any sorts??? This article does not cover the subject at all. This is direct animal castration torture on a VERY LARGE SCALE. Anyone know why? Am I naive to think that these animals deserve a painless life to the fullest extent? GodBwithU 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What source? Certainly surgical castration without anaesthetic is unethical - it would be illegal in the UK, not sure about US. However, elastration (using a tight rubber band to cut off the blood supply to the testes, causing them to wither and drop off) is common practice in lambs and occasionally calves in many countries, including the US and UK. Based on my clinical observations, the animals suffer 1 - a brief period of moderate pain, lasting perhaps 5-10 minutes. 2 - a longer period of discomfort, during which they occasinally rub their hindquarters on the ground, but generally behave normally, suckling and playing, lasting perhaps 24 hours or less. Thereafter they appear completely unaffected. I'm not sure that giving them any worthwhile analgesia (i.e. local anaesthetic injected directly into the testis) would acually be any improvement as far as the animal is concerned, because that seems to be almost as painful in itself, judging by their reactions! (Dlh-stablelights 09:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Pets

For pets there should be mentioned something about different variants for the empty scrotum. Some pets get it removed for esthetical reasons (even castrated for in few cases) while others get silicone implantats in as after-treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.64.180.213 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sexual References

How does "one simulate[] the after effects of castration without actually performing castration"? Assuming that it is possible to explain this without violating Wikipedia's content standards, this section needs to be expanded.John Paul Parks (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Punishment references

It's been a few weeks now, and the references for the lengthy, graphic (and what some on here have viewed as unnecessary) section on castration as punishment have still not been addressed. A user had recently deleted this material outright (apparently because he felt it too graphic), and another user reverted this edit due to his view the material was useful. I make no claims about its usefulness--I suspect if even a few users find it useful, it might in fact be. I do, however, feel that it's probably not accurate (just a gut instinct from years of reading historical accounts of punishments) and that you will find it really isn't verifiable. As such, it really shouldn't be here. I recommend removing it if it can't be substantiated within the next week or so. The history will always be here to restore it if someone finds material on it later.--Bdmccray (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's true or not, or if it's verifiable, since the time period, Middle Ages to the French Rev. is quite a long time period and sufficient records of every attempted regicide have probably not been kept. But given that the first thing anyone thinks of when s/he hears the word "castration" is "How painful is it, really?" I believe the first paragraph is quite necessary for honestly depicting an unanesthetized castration for the purpose of torture. More relevant citations should refer to the truth of the physical reactions to the castration, moreso than whether or not one was ever carried out in this manner (and I'm sure it was; people are imaginatively sadistic). Given that anyone searching wikipedia for castration is probably curious as to what it must feel like without anesthesia, I doubt this paragraph is too unsettling to the average reader, and it really isn't all that gratuitous. It does need sources, but they should concern the victim's physical responses, which nerves are involved in transmitting pain signals, etc. I do believe it is a necessary paragraph and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.190.174 (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on whether this paragraph is necessary, but I should note once again that it was the lack of references and not the content that resulted in my call to strike this material. With that said, I will in fact address several of your concerns.

Regarding the ability to verify it, I agree that the long time period would result in deteriorated records, but this goes far beyong just limited writings. In fact, I could argue that the entire paragraph is simply made up. An exhausting search of the internet was unable to determine a single instance where someone was castrated in this manner (and specifically for regicide), and imagination of HOW something COULD have been done is not the realm of an encyclopedia. I don't disagree with the fact that it was possible to use this punishment as stated--I have read extensively over the years about the history of crime and punishment on every continent, and I've found records of everything from drawing and quartering to burning at the stake throughout. Mankind has been incredibly cruel, and castration is just one such example. Still, I fear the integrity of this article will be damaged by including information about what someone THINKS happened during such a punishment. There's simply nothing out there--the number of times it's happened, the idea that one testicle after another was crushed (rather than simply removed), the idea that the victim was hanging upside down to increase blood flow, the use of salts, the audience reaction--all of this is pure speculation, and doesn't belong here. "I'm sure it does," as you wrote, is simply not acceptable.

Regarding your basic premise that it's necessary due to readers being able to visualize what it must feel like--this once again has no basis in reality. If you go to articles about any number of punishments or tortures throughout history--boiling in oil, hanging, beheading, flaying alive, burning at the stake--we simply don't have this element introduced in all of those articles. Our readers are not unaware of the fact that removal or damage to the testicles is going to result in extreme pain, and it makes no sense to continue to ping on this idea. Sometimes, the issue of pain is clearly relevant to the discussion, such as historical accounts of beheading victims in the French Revolution being able to see for several seconds, whether long drop hanging is truly instantaneous, or on a more contemporary note, whether lethal injection is truly painless. In these cases, the nature of the underlying politics, medical and scientific data, and legal consequences are all in question, and these discussions are very much a part of the overall subject. The only parallel on the subject of castration is clearly the arguments regarding whether or not it is effective at preventing sex crimes. No one has argued whether castration hurts any more than we argue whether Sharia hand amputations hurt or whether public floggings hurt. Clearly, it was designed to hurt, and readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions.

Now, I'm going to say something here that might very well ruffle some feathers (especially the original author of that section), but it needs to be said nonetheless. Considering the widespread fetish following associated with castration as both a punishment and as a fantasy, and considering the other internet venues where descriptions of torture (not unlike those depicted in the article) are presented for the purpose of BDSM entertainment, it's not a stretch to state that the only purpose for insisting on mentioning the systematic crushing of testicles is for sexual gratification. If that's the case, there are plenty of websites that specialize in torture and death related sexual fantasies. At the end of the day, you must ask yourself this question--is this material something that could ever reasonably appear in a commercial print encyclopedia? If the answer is no, then it shouldn't appear here either. Bdmccray (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I rather wish I hadn't read through it myself, and I agree with you on all points but one. If someone is writing some sort of essay about castration and happens to need an honest description of the most efficient method by which to carry one out for torture, this paragraph fits the bill. That's prbably the only reason it was written. Some twit wanted to gross people out, but in what seems a quite honest manner. But I agree with you that because there aren't any references, the paragraph will probably not be worth much in an essay. No one should cite Wikipedia as a source for an essay. Based on what I've said, I do think it should remain for the sole purpose of explaining the most efficient method by which a castration might have been carried out for the sake of torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.190.174 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of cited sources, Wikipedia is not a manual or DIY site. You don't see articles on how to best perform open heart surgery or a lobotomy. 68.219.59.70 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Metaphorical castration

As this article seems to be about the real thing, I have removed the following section on metaphorical castration and integrated the bit about castration anxiety into the medical section. Please feel free to reintroduce this material into this or a new article, provided that appropriate citations and tone are used. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Castration also plays an important role in psychoanalytically-influenced literary theory, for example Harold Bloom's The Anxiety of Influence. Poetry can also be seen as castrating, with male poets either being castrated through being outdone by their male predecessors (as in Bloom), or male poets (and even mere readers) being castrated by the force of the female sublime as conveyed to them through poetry (as in Maxwell). Catherine Maxwell identifies Philomela as being castrated by Tereus when he rapes and mutilates her.^{[citation needed]}

Castration within Islamic countries, in regards to black slaves

Though it maybe right that Islam does not support castration, I find it amazing and shocking the amount of slaves - particularly black slaves - if "Islam's Black Slaves" by Ronald Segal is to believed. And the particularly viscious and racist nature of the castration How comes there is no mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madkaffir (talk • contribs) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

===I'm planning to add some information about the use of castration by Islamic countries, particularly the Ottoman Empire, to control their slaves. Because as far as "Islam's Black Slaves" by Ronald Segal makes it clear - it was a rather common 'operation' that killed many thousands. I know the hadith "Whoever cuts of the nose of slave, shall have his nose cut off; and whoever castrates a slave, shall be castrated" but law or rules never stopped anything - and if we use Paulinian thought - actually encourages whatever would be tolerated.

I'll add a bit of my research here:

Islamic Empires and Emirates continued the idea of using slaves from the Persian and Byzantine Empires(p40
Initially eunarch slaves were imported in from areas that were not under Islamic rule(p40)
This developed into the procedure was allowed in an Islamic country if performed by an non-Muslim, for example the monastery of Deir al-Jandala in Upper Egypt.(p41) Strangely, giving the Jewish prohibition of castration, the majority of slaves castrated were done by Jews.(p80) And from Christian Ethiopia in the late Fatimid era(p95)
The Caliph in Baghdad had at the beginning of the 10th century, seven thousand black eunarchs, and four thousand white eunarchs in his palace!!!(p41)
Eventually, castrated slave were sought from Muslim kingdoms in what is now Nigeria, and later nominally Muslim areas south of Lake Chad.(p41) I quote:

"appears to have been sufficiently devoid of conscience to collect from time to time hundreds of boys, and to subject them to castration, condemned though is by Islam. Under the pretext of wanting to circumcise the boys, the barbers who performed operation are accustomed with a quick grip to grasp the whole of their external genitals in the left-hand, and with the right to amputate them with a sharp-knife. Boiling butter is kept in readiness and poured on the the flesh wound to staunch the bleeding of the unfortunate boys. Gustav Nachtigal, the German explorer (p171)

As demand grew, it became more common for Muslim slave traders to perform the operation themselves. Castrated slaves demanded a price seven-times the price of non-castrated slaves during the Nineteenth Century.(p41)
They were commonly used as protectors of Harems, but were also used as tutors, administrators, secretaries, and as commercial agents.(p41)
Eunarch slaves were used as concubines in the 19th Century Morocco. Segal adds, in a very male-dominated society it is likely that this is the result - along with the praising of young beardless youths.(p42)
Black slaves were particularly chosen as receivers of the most severe form castration for use in the Harems of the Ottoman Empire. Black eunarchs in charge of the Harem were even given the title: 'kizlar agasi', and held enormous power within court (p109).

All page-references are for "Islam's Black Slaves" by Ronald Segal. I hope these notes will be translated into useful information for this wiki page.--IndieStonerKid (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My family once had a book called HAREM. I am certain this was the same book as written by an N.M. Penzer about 1900. He detailed the enormous death rate that Black slaves suffered (usually the man was completely emasculated with removal of penis, scrotum, and testicles) at the hands of Arab, Berber, and Central African slave traders. Slave transportation across the Sahara could result in a 90% mortality rate. Slaves castrated en route were often carried by camel-back till they recovered. But injury added to the death rate, so a slave might have a 1 in 20 to 1 in 100 chance of surviving the trip if castrated en route. These figures appeared to be anecdotal. For many of these newly made eunuchs, infection and urethral edema led to the inability to urinate, then a ruptured bladder, and a death as agonizing as their "surgery." I am not signing this comment as this issue is so controversial.

Abelard

The article lists Abelard's fate under "punishment". According to Durant's THE AGE OF FAITH it was actually an act of private revenge by Heloise's uncle. It was considered a horrifying crime even at the time and the men involved were brutally punished themselves when caught. CharlesTheBold (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Abelard wrote that two of the attackers were caught and "suffered the loss of their eyes and their genitals."

Increased cancer risk claim

"There is significant evidence that castration, neutering and spaying may cause cancer and other disease issues in animals and humans due to hormonal disruption.[66]"

I'm not sure if the cited source supports the claim. The source suggests that the presence of certain levels of hormones or hormone-like chemicals can promote cancer growth, but from my examination, it does not appear to address the question of whether the absence of natural hormones contributes to cancer growth. Could somebody else look at source 66 and see if they agree? --Joel7687 (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The statement makes an extraordinary claim without any relevant reference. With no response here and no other reference offered, I've taken the bold step to remove the statement altogether. If there are any objections, feel free to reverse.

Swiftek (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Other medical consequences

Does it reduce/eliminate body hair? Have any effect on skin and its thickness/oiliness? Will the operation result long-term pain/any other side effects? Assuming the answers are know, they should be in the article. 97.114.143.127 (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Castration in religion

Daniel from the old testament book of Daniel is surmised by many to be a eunuch. This has been asserted by Josephus in his recorded histories. Daniel's title in the court of the Babylonian King was Saris, a title generally regarded as one for a eunuch at the time. Daniel is also put under the command of Ashpenaz, master of eunuchs. The book of Daniel under most english translations also suggest that he is a eunuch because Daniel and his friends had "improvements" made to them.

While I greatly enjoy reading Wikipedia, I doubt if my writing skills and ability to find good references is enough to properly edit the article of castration under religion. If someone could do the legwork and finds that this is a good addition to the article, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.9.66.121 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Klu Klux Klan castrations

There were at least two castrations carried out by Klu Klux Klan groups, one detailed here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Ku_Klux_Klan_of_the_Confederacy, and another here- http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/1/303.full and here- http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=950&dat=19810811&id=12xQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rlkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4659,2631180. I would think such contemporary incidents might be worthy of inclusion on this page. Ninahexan (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed lead, female castration

The change from 2013-04-26T21:34:24‎, rewriting the lead, suggests castration only refers to males. While male castration is most commonly discussed, and I agree with the old talk discussion concluding that the procedures should be discussed in separate articles, I disagree with this change. I did not find any reason in the comment or talk page to back up the redefinition of castration and the section is entirely unsourced. I would like to propose rephrasing the first part to: "Castration is any action which causes the loss of gonadal function in mammals. Removal of testicles (orchiectomy) is most commonly discussed and will be the the main scope of this article, see oophorectomy for information on the removal of ovaries." (does it refer specifically to mammals? This seems the case in a practical sense, but perhaps not formally). The consequences could be in a next paragraph. This removes the redundant biological sex-gonad type association which makes the sentences unnecessarily long, describes the scope of the article, while at the same time avoiding bias.

I also propose removing the term neutering from the lead as it is specific to veterinary practice and not a synonym. It should therefore be discussed in the veterinary section of the article.PinkShinyRose (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Structure & Tone

I've removed the wholly-excessive number of headings, incorporating them in the text where useful.

I'm not enamored of the tone of the article, some contributors to which seem to have a morbid if not ghoulish interest in the subject. I would say it is over-detailed (not the same thing as over-explicit, it's quite coy in some places). The English style is not encyclopedic; perhaps the strong focus on China & Vietnam indicates a non-native speaker/writer? Chrismorey (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely about the ghoulish interest in this subject. Furthermore, we are making an encyclopedia here, not a list of all the terrible things that have been done to people in the name of punishment and torture. I think the whole article needs to be toned down and condensed. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Castration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Castration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120118122152/http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=32822&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24 to http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=32822&version=1&template_id=44&parent_id=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources of article

There are some strange references like "[1][2][3][4][5]".--Takahiro4 (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Slave trade

The whole section on slave trade was lifted from somewhere, including with the references (originally indicated in square brackets, such as "[56]") here. This is the only contribution by this editor, an IP, who returned to the article to add a source and make two small changes. The source is Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora, by Ronald Segal. Does anyone have access to this book and can vouch for its value as a source? Some of the figures cited are quite high, especially "9 out of ten" bleeding to death. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Castration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Castration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Castration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a complete sentence.

Under the section "Judaism", the following is not a complete sentence.

The laws of castration including cases of irreversible or un-reversed vasectomy and all other cases where the flow of sperm is known to have been placed into a permanent state of dysfunction with either no hope or no desire to take the steps to repair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgranat (talk • contribs) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Bgranat (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I fixed it. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Foreign Language Sources

There is huge WP:OVERCITE in this article but when presented with a run of 8 sources in Chinese or Vietnamese, I am finding it hard to evaluate which is the best source to keep. Are there any editors watching this page who could help with that? Ideally we would replace them with English language sources, but just ensuring that one claim has one good ref would be a start. I don't want to accidentally delete a good ref and leave behind some unsourced blog post. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Emasculation

The page starts off "not to be confused with emasculation", but the article does confuse it - a lot! All forms of castration are here, and that is probably right. I would think that emasculation is more a sub article of this one rather than a disambiguation. Unless anyone objects, I will re-arrange that. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Animals

The page starts:

This article is about the practice as applied to humans. For livestock, see Neutering.

Yet there is a whole section on animals that is highly repetitive of the neutering article. This should go, but should we have anything? I.e. a brief summary regarding animals, or should we just delete the whole section because of the first line of the article? -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SILENCE I have deleted the section. I checked and the information was all in the neutering article. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: I notice that the section Neutering#Males (castration) has a {{main}} link to the section Castration#Animals which you deleted here, and neither in the current version of Neutering nor in the version current at 4 March 2020 can I find much of the detail which you removed in your edit here. You say "the information was all in the neutering article", so could you please clarify where? Have I missed something? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I now notice that Sirfurboy has been on an indefinite Wikibreak since March. What do other editors think? --David Biddulph (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any answer from Sirfurboy or anybody else, I have reverted his removal of that section. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Quotes

You can use [...] to indicate material has been omitted from quote, alternatively you could write "[Muhammad]". I've seen religious textbooks use a symbol to represent "peace be upon them", but that doesn't really work for quotes. Talpedia (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The quote could be shortened in that way, but I have not seen a good reason to do so. It is a quotation, not spoken with wikivoice. The wording is not contentious in the context of it being a quotation from Islamic teaching. On the other hand, it may not be the best quotation in any case. The same source refers to al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (19/120, 121) as saying castration is haraam (which I believe simply means forbidden). Maybe that is as good a quotation. Maybe no quotation is necessary. As long as we use this quotation, however, there is no good reason to start chopping bits out of it - and particularly not on the justification that the words of an Islamic scholar or authority are "religionist"! Well of course they are. That is the point! The sub heading is "Islam". 212.159.115.41 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason that "[...]" is used to improve readability by removing extraneous information. That may or may not apply in this case; I don't have strong opinions. But if we *want* to shorten the quote for clarity this is how we could do it. Talpedia (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)