Quote:
Originally Posted by fruitful womb  I saw it there yesterday too. I wonder who removed it.
I like what you wrote. You did a great job with it. Any chance you copied it and pasted it in your pc open office? If you did, you should enter it in again.  |
Here is the section that was removed that the OP modified slightly.
Quote:
| There was controversy over the statue's supposed [[Bible|Biblical]] reference, since the statue seemed to portray an [[Genital_Integrity|intact]] male, whereas the historical King David was undoubtedly [[circumcision|circumcised]]. <!--the "art historian" needs to be identified:Because of this, some [[art history|art historians]] believed that "David" was actually the name of the 'model' who posed for the statue, rather than King David himself, and that Michelangelo claimed the Biblical reference to make it acceptable to the [[Christendom|Christian world]].--> It was also suggested that this was a conscious decision in Michelangelo's endeavor to emulate the [[Ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] aesthetic ideal, which regarded the circumcised [[penis]] as [[Mutilation|mutilated]]. |
It was modified by a new editor on the page, Nonaho, who came in, it appears, expressly for the purpose of changing that part. It was a new account that night and the only change made at 22:28, 26 July 2008. What I find interesting is that they didn't simply revert the word but excised the whole paragraph. The wording above was reinstated by yet a different contributor 6 hours later and now there seems to be a back and forth going on between them.
ETA: A whole three minutes after Nonaho's change was reverted, Nonaho again removed it with
this comment:
Quote:
| This is unfounded and complete speculation by one poster who is trying to further an anti-circumcision agendra rather than fact. |
ETAA: Here is the latest version, it has been changed at least 6 times since last night.
Quote:
| The apparently uncircumcised form would be at odds with Judaic practice, but would be consistent with the conventions of Renaissance art.<ref>"Michelangelo and Medicine" [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...artid=1279184] Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine</ref> It has also been noted that circumcision in the Biblical era was a minor medical procedure which left most of the foreskin intact, and that Michelangelo's depiction was consistent with such a practice.<ref>Circumcision: Then and Now [http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/]</ref> |
Thanks for sharing it. I'm more familiar with the way wiki works now, thanks.
