Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.8.227.167 (talk) at 14:24, 29 November 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:24, 29 November 2004 by 217.8.227.167 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Evidence of the sexual effects of circumcision

Robert has every right to correct things that are not true or inaccurate or distorted. However, that does not extend to suppressing information that doesn't fit his mindset. Let's look at one particularly bad example. I quoted Fink's findings and Fink's words:

Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

Robert mutilates this by cutting out the parts he doesn't like:

However, of the men 50% reported benefits, 38% reported harm and overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

Is this honest? Isn't this "hiding something" by using just a snippet? Robert challenges the honesty of others. I challenge him to apply the same standards to his own contributions to Misplaced Pages.Michael Glass 23:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael, thank you for your input. I shall use this as a check on your own standard of intellectual integrity (or the lack thereof). It is clear that you set different and higher standards for other than you or your fellow anti-circumcision activists are able to maintain yourselves. Like with that "sympathetic" admin around here who can be relied upon to support your cause you fail to keep your "own" honest and turn a blind eye when the head-bangers post the most off-the-wall stuff. Unfortunately most the people who feign neutrality fail the test of intellectual honesty as well so you are not alone (although you find yourself in very dubious company). http://valium911.uni.cc/ valium <a href="http://valium911.uni.cc/">valium</a> valium http://adipex-online.6x.to/ <a href="http://adipex-online.6x.to/">adipex online</a> adipex online http://conference-calls.rx4.org/ conference calls <a href="http://conference-calls.rx4.org/">conference calls</a> conference calls http://adipex-online.qn.com/ <a href="http://adipex-online.qn.com/">adipex online</a> adipex online

Taken for example the pathetic desperation to neutralise the Foreskin restoration article by turning what is obviously an activity of base psychosexual motivations (by people the majority of whom appear to have serious mental illness) to one where if on these poor "victims" could regain a long juicy anteater of a foreskin they would feel whole again (in the mens room). So please Michael don't lecture me on what should or should not be done, what should or should not be quoted and importantly on how not to be selective in how one quotes from studies. - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, Thank you for your comment. I understand that you don't like to be lectured. However, you had no answer to my point that your partial quote was a distortion of Fink's findings. I will restore the complete quote and I expect it to be left alone.Michael Glass 00:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A second instance of selective quotation was in relation to Moses et al.

Here is how the article read:

Winklemann identified the foreskin as a "specific erogenous zone" with nerve endings arranged in rete ridges. Taylor et al. further developed this information with the discovery of a heavily innervated "ridged band" area near the tip of the foreskin. Circumcision invariably removes this ridged band. Moses et al. commented: +

There is indirect evidence suggesting that the foreskin may have an important sensory function, although aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure. Some loss of sensory function may not be an important consideration, or may not even be felt to be disadvantageous by men and women more troubled by premature ejaculation than concerned with increased penile sensitivity. However, few studies have investigated the relation between male circumcision and sexual pleasure or satisfaction; more research is needed to clarify the role of the foreskin in sexual health.

Here is how Robert edited it to read:

Is that an honest edit? Are we given a fair picture of what Moses et al wrote? I think not.Michael Glass 14:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As they say around here those interested can follow the link and read the detail for themselves. What say now? - Robert the Bruce 14:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quote fairly. Michael Glass 03:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ditti - Robert the Bruce 04:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion Robert's selective quote of Moses, et al is misleading. The whole sentence should be included, "There is indirect evidence suggesting that the foreskin may have an important sensory function, although aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure." -- DanBlackham 07:52, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There has been no response to Dan Blackham's comment. I have therefore put back the longer quotation because it more fairly reflects what Moses et al wrote. Michael Glass 05:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Despite evidence that circumcision does not lead to increased keratinization (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592) or reduction in sensitivity of the glans (http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/independentreference/message/5) anti-circumcision activists continue to make such unsupported claims."

"However, despite the facts some men who undergo foreskin restoration claim that the procedure really does improve glans sensitivy."

Translation: "Despite the fact that it obviously doesn't affect sensitivity these morons still believe it anyway."

How exactly is that supposed to be NPOV?

It doesn't make sense to claim that being circumcised makes you last longer while simultaneously claiming that it has just the same sensitivity (as some pro-circ doctors had mentioned as a benefit). It also doesn't make sense to acknowledge that the glans has increased sensitivity after a circumcision when you're saying it doesn't change sensitivity ("Some men report unpleasant sensitivity of their glans after adult circumcision" from circumcision). I guess some doctors are a bit confused. Should doctors on the same side with contradicting statements be included in this?

-Nathan J. Yoder 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unrelated to medical analysis

The following paragraph is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision.

A 1988 study of new mothers found that 71% preferred a circumcised partner for sexual intercourse, and 83% for giving fellatio. When asked why, 92% responded that it stays cleaner and 90% that it looks sexier. Although 78% of the women had not had direct contact with an uncircumcised penis, those who did expressed the same preferenceHowever, this study has been criticised for alleged pro-circumcision bias of the authors and the fact that the study was done in an area of the United States where circumcision was the norm.

The paragraph should be in an article on an ethical or cultural analysis of circumcision, not a medical analysis of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 04:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dan I welcome your sudden change of heart in that you have a new concern for keeping content focussed narrowly on the article subject on hand. Would I be naive to expect your total support when I get amongst the off topic anti-circ propaganda that has been insidiously inserted into numerous articles over a period of time? Ok then ... somehow I thought not. - Robert the Bruce 10:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please explain how the sexual preference of women in Iowa, most of whom had no sexual experience with intact men, is related to the medical analysis of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 07:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Loony Tunes Link

There were links to pictures of invasive penile cancer in the article:

Images of Invasive Penile Cancer in Uncircumcised Men (http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD52/img0084.jpg) (http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD55/img0066.jpg) (http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD16/img0038.jpg) (http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD14/img0092.jpg) (http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD16/img0037.jpg)

I wrote: "When I clicked on the links provided, all I got was a page that said that dermis net, where the pictures were housed, had expired. (They were there only a few days ago!")

Robert replied:"(They're back! Now fancy that Michael - nice try though ;"

I have tried three times in the last 24 hours and got the following notice:

"This domain name expired on 10/16/2004 and is pending renewal or

deletion."

Robert, as I write this, they're not back. Why did you say that they were back when they weren't? Michael Glass 13:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dermis.net has often been intermittent. This should suit you agenda, no? I guess you can be glad that they are not always available ... truly horrific stuff. Enough to turn the stomach of even the most ardent foreskin admirer, yes? I have learned something though. I was told by someone that the fact that they are always visible to me is that my browser has them cached. So it is only when I refresh the page that I can establish that the site is in fact down. Don't worry though Michael, I will be sure to let you know exactly when the site is up again. - Robert the Bruce 18:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, you have admitted that you were wrong about the link and have explained why you made this mistake. However, you did not apologise for implying that I was dishonest. Instead you descended to making further baseless allegations about my supposed motivations. I have noted this abuse and will take the action that I feel is appropriate about it. Michael Glass 12:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael I still don't know what you are on about. As of now the links are working. What exactly is your problem? The site is intermittent. Try it and see for yourself. PS: I understand exactly why you are so keen to have the links deleted. I sympathise. - Robert the Bruce 16:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, I can't comment on what you understand exactly and yet don't understand. That makes no sense to me. However, the links to Dermis.net still don't appear to be working right. From my computer they go to Dermis.net's main page. so there may still be a problem with the site. I recommend that you provide a link to web pages instead of jpg pictures. This would be more informative to the reader and may make the link more stable.Michael Glass 20:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyway thank you for drawing attention to this "problem" Michael. I have found some alternative URL's which seem to work just fine. On the other matter michael, no. The links should go direct to the images and not to the home page where people will battle to find the right images. As you well know Michael ... a picture is worth a 1,000 words. ;-) - Robert the Bruce 03:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, I recommended that you provide a link to web pages instead of jpg pictures. You said you wouldn't do that, so I wondered why. I checked out one web page and I found the pictures on one page . The difference: this page mentions the name of the organisation that posted the pictures. Was that a problem to you? If so, why? Michael Glass 06:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I notice that the above question remains unanswered. It is Loony Tunes to have ten links to the pictures, five of which are unstable, when the same pictures can all be viewed with just one link. Michael Glass 05:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cervical Cancer Death Rates

I have provided information about death rates from cervical cancer but Robert contests this. I believe the figures are relevant because it puts into perspective the relative danger from cervical cancer. This is also relevant because of the claims that circumcision reduces the incidence of the virus that causes the cancer. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with this. Michael Glass 01:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To focus purely on reported deaths covers only part of the story. The British research stated quite clearly:

"80% or more of these deaths (up to 5000 deaths per year) are likely to be prevented by screening, which means that about 100000 (one in 80) of the 8 million British women born between 1951 and 1970 will be saved from premature death by the cervical screening programme at a cost per life saved of about pound 36000." So effectively Michael once again you have been caught with your hand inthe cookie jar trying to sell a half truth to the unsuspecting readers. By universal pap smears they are treating the "symptom and not the cause". Think about it. - Robert the Bruce 03:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, once again you have resorted to personal attacks and abuse instead of concentrating on the issue. It was certainly not my intention to deceive, but to put the disease into perspective. Your concentration on subtracting information rather than adding it fits your description of trying to sell a half truth. If you are interested in telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth you should be concentrating on adding information instead of subtracting it. If you feel that the information was distorted or wrong, then work with me and others to get better information. But don't just cut out information. That is not fair dealing. Michael Glass 06:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael it is very difficult to work with someone committed to inserting their POV in articles. If you have any idea how such alliance of truth would be possible given the history of POV insertions around here I would be keen to hear about it. - Robert the Bruce 17:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, could you explain to me what is POV about providing the death rate of a disease that is being discussed? How do you justify removing information about the death rate of a disease that is being discussed? What is your problem with the death rate? Could it be that there is not a big enough gap between the cervical cancer death rates of Great Britain and the United States to suit your purposes? Michael Glass 20:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Simple Michael, because you are failing to include the influence screening has had on the incidence of related deaths in the UK. It is up to you to write an NPOV piece which will include the total picture and not to just slip in a half truth. Your source for this is:

The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15262102

- Robert the Bruce 04:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I "failed" to "include" the influence of screening on the death rates from cervical cancer, because it was already in the article! I quote:

...scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that had it not been for effective cervical screening fully one in 65 of all British women born since 1950 would have died from cancer of the cervix.

What I did was to add the death rates from cervical cancer. The very thing you accused me of failing to include was in the article all that time.

So why is it important to include the information about death rates? The answer can be found in the abstract that Robert noted above. I quote:

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that the reduction in mortality achieved by the UK national cervical screening programme is too small to justify its financial and psychosocial costs, except perhaps in a few high-risk women.

Clearly, this abstract has to be understood in the light of a controversy over funding the cervical cancer screening program. You see, the death rates from cervical cancer were small enough for some bean counters to argue that the screening program didn't make a great difference to overall death rates. The figures that I quoted help to explain why that argument might arise.

There is another reason for including the overall death rates from cervical cancer. The article implies that Great Britain has suffered an epidemic of cervical cancer because of a lack of circumcision. By including the cervical cancer death rates of Britain and the United States, readers can judge for themselves how much difference it might make:

In 2000, cervical cancer deaths in Great Britain were 3.9 per 100,000.(USA, 3.3; Canada, 2.8; Australia, 2.4.)

Once again, I suggest that Robert has failed to demonstrate how adding this information to what was already in the article is telling a half-truth. I contend that deliberately removing this information is the action of someone who prefers to dodge part of the picture for narrow ideological reasons. Michael Glass 14:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have every right to suggest what you may but that does not change the situation one iota in that you are deliberately attempting to sell a half truth here. The death rate from cervical cancer has absolutely no bearing on the article as it is only the end result of a process which can largely be avoided through screening. Anyone who understands a jot about the great circumcision debate will know that your single intention is insinuate that "risk" to partners of both circumcised and uncircumcised men is about the same. This is clearly not so. Do the math as far as the UK is concerned and put a cost on the whole situation at GB pounds 36,000 per life saved. It is this pathological fear you and your ilk have of the foreskin being recognised as a public health risk that drives you to such extraordinary lengths. Very sad Michael, very sad. - Robert the Bruce 15:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, in one place you argue that the death rate from cervical cancer has absolutely no bearing on the article; then you turn round and ask me to do the maths on the cost of saving lives. How can you do that without knowing the death rates? Michael Glass 01:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Limitations of the Laumann study

Robert has contested the following statement:

Laumann also found that circumcision was less prevalent in Black and Hispanic males and those whose mothers had less education. As health is worse amongst non-whites and the less well educated in America, this could have influenced the above findings.

Healthy men are likely to have fewer sexual dysfunctions than men who are less healthy. Some illnesses are known to affect sexual function, including circulatory diseases, diabetes and depression, and all these diseases are more prevalent in less advantaged communities. In Laumann's sample, the circumcised men were more likely to come from the wealthier and healthier sections of the American community. Hence it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that this may have had an effect on reported levels of sexual dysfunction. Michael Glass 12:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is uneducated speculation. It has no place in Misplaced Pages. Drop it Michael. - Robert the Bruce 17:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will drop that speculation on condition that you agree to drop all your speculative comments from the article. Michael Glass 21:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael you seem very astute at findings limitations in studies which do not have foreskin friendly findings but I wonder why you seem to miss glaring aspects relating to those which seem to provide a means for the promotion of the foreskin. The next question should be considered as a test of your intellectual integrity. Using your "sharp eye" for such limitations would you provide us all with your take on the O'Hara survey? I would love to get your take as to any possible "limitations" or even a fatal flaw with it. - Robert the Bruce 03:50, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, the question at issue here is the Laumann study's findings, but let us say that you are right in saying that I'm good at finding flaws in one set of studies while you are good at finding flaws in another set. That sounds like a pretty good combination to me. It means that you will be a good check on me and I will be a good check on you. If we can do it that way we can both benefit from each other's insights. Michael Glass 06:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael it would perhaps be good if you start and explain why you need to be "checked on". Share with us what floats your boat? Are you a foreskin restorer? Maybe that done you can turn your attention upon the O'Hara survey, yes? - Robert the Bruce 15:36, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, I see that you are not interested in discussing the Laumann study findings. As your interests lie elsewhere, please go somewhere else and discuss your preoccupations with someone else. Michael Glass 23:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sexual Effects

This section on analysis appears to be pure the presentation of psycho sexual speculation from anti-circumcision zealots which have been conclusively rebutted. This section therefore no longer serves any purpose. It should be deleted. I suggest we start a count down here on the basis of seeking out those who believe there is anymerit in its retention. Lets work on a seven day count down. - Robert the Bruce 08:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Information about the findings of Winklemann and Taylor must stay. If people are to argue about removing the foreskin they should at least know what the foreskin consists of. Michael Glass 23:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Michael I have responded to you on this (below) in some detail. The problem is that the use of Winkelmann as a source of foreskin friendly information is somewhat less tha honest because he did not state what you want to present him as having stated. (Does this sort of detail bother you?) And secondly that Taylor stuff is pure speculation. I suggest it is prudent to delete all reference to Taylor until there has been some independent finding which support the conclusions he leapt to after looking at some skins form cadavers under a microscope. We need to remember we are working on an encyclopaedia here and not a publicity brochure for the anti-circumcision movement. The need for honesty and accuracy is clearly much higher here at Misplaced Pages. Please respect that. - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please don’t lecture me on honesty. I have not found your words particularly honest or reliable. You just said "Taylor’s stuff is pure speculation." However, you disprove this when you reveal that he examined cadavers! A link to one of Taylor’s articles, e.g., The Prepuce would enable readers to check what he wrote and make up their own minds. Michael Glass 13:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Misleading Description of Edits

I described my edit thus:

(cur) (last) 06:04, 30 Oct 2004 Michael Glass (Sexual Effects - Robert, the snippet distorts what Moses et al wrote. A distorted quote is not good enough.r.)

Robert described his edit thus:

(cur) (last) 08:19, 30 Oct 2004 Robert the Bruce (OK Michael lets get rid of the whole paragraph then - no problems either way with that I hope?)

So what does he do? He cuts out a second paragraph, removing the findings of Winlelmann and Taylor as well. Could Robert explain whether this was carelessness or deceit? Either way, a misleading description of an edit is unacceptable. Michael Glass 23:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is your selective approach to this subject. You want to closely examine what Moses stated but you just want to keep a sound bite from Winkelmann. By introducing such information you kind of open a "Pandora's box" where if is difficult to know where to begin and where to end. That is where the POV comes in. For example you want to include a soundbite that a person named Winkelmann included the foreskin in his study of erogenous zones you need to explain the differences in function between Meissner and Vater-Pacini corpuscles and explain that Winkelmann also included the oral cavity, conjunctival region, the perianal region and the lip. And then we need to explain that the enervation of the foreskin is closer to that of the oral cavity than the clitoris or the glans penis. I mean how far do you want to go with this Michael? The one thing for certain is that it will lead to your anti-circumcision deceit about the sexual function be debunked once and for all and all that will remain will be the psychosexual aspects (such as foreskin fetishism) but no scientific or anatomical evidence to prove your case. So if you want to include something along the lines in the now "suspended" (rather than deleted) paragraph why not work it out here before trying to reinsert nonsense into the body of the article. BTW, have you noticed how nicely the Foreskin fetish article is starting to take shape? But boy has it touched some nerves in the process. Would you like to bring your expertise to that party? - Robert the Bruce 02:53, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert, if you want to object to the Winkelmann and Taylor studies so be it. I will be interested to consider why you feel these references are a problem. In fairness to the reader, there should be links to the relevant studies such as Cold & McGrath's paper so that the readers can easily go to these studies and judge for themselves. What I objected to is your misleading description of your edit.

You described your move as ‘suspending’ these words. This is mendacious. You deleted them. You deleted them and you described your edit as deleting something else. This is not an honest description of what you did. "Deceitful" could be a word to describe it.

As for the question of a foreskin fetish, I believe that you may know something about this. Someone who would write about the "long juicy anteater of a foreskin" may well have something to say about this subject. However, there is also the evidence of a sexual involvement in circumcision that also has to be considered, such as Williamson and Williamson’s "the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect." Circumcision Fetishism could also be a suitable topic for Misplaced Pages. Michael Glass 13:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at robert's "A general clean up" edit. He deleted quite a bit of information in his "general clean up." His blatant lies in edits are a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Whenever he responds to comments of this type with very legitimate criticism he just evades the entire point and engages in ad hominem. Nathan J. Yoder 17:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Introduction dispute

The following sentence from the introduction is disputed by contributors with a pro-circumcision POV.

Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death).

In my opinion the sentence accurately summarized the policy statements of the professional medical organizations.

Also the introduction includes a short quote from the policy statements of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In my opinion these two statements accurately represent the range of opinions of professional medical organizations. The BC statement is the strongest in terms of saying infant circumcision is not medically necessary and the AAP statement is the weakest. However a contributor with a pro-circumcision POV repeatedly deletes the statement by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. -- DanBlackham 10:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What dispute? You are pushing your POV and I am attempting to maintain a NPOV approach to this subject. The title of the article is Medical analysis of circumcision of which policy statements by medical bodies are but a component and not the be all and end all. If one were to include such a statement in the introduction (which I reluctantly agree with) one will do from the most influencial of such bodies. Where on earth does the BC statement suddenly deserve centre stage treatment? (unless of course it is closest to your POV). Why don't you insert links to such statements? Please try to restrain yourself. There is no dispute, there is only a problem where you are not being allowed to get away with your standard POV pushing and are the verge of throwing a tantrum. Chill out. - Robert the Bruce 11:06, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, Robert, you are the one who is pushing your pro-circumcision POV. The statements by professional medical organizations are the best neutral point of view summaries of the medical analysis of circumcision. They all say there is no medical indication for infant circumcision. Not one of the professional medical organizations says the small potential medical benefits of infant circumcision far outweigh the medical risks and harms, not one, not even the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians statement says, "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure." -- DanBlackham 11:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording of the above. While a few (one?) medical organisations have explicitly stated that benefits do not outweigh harms, I don't think it's appropriate for us to speak for those that haven't stated a policy on that matter. The AAP's statement also merely says that there are benefits and risks, and parents should make the decision (implicitly disagreeing with your wording). I propose the following milder (and thus more generally true) statement (emphasis added):

In their view the benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not sufficiently outweigh the risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death) to recommend that all males be circumcised. - Jakew 12:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some of the medical organizations have taken a much stronger stand, for example:

"The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit." -- The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002.
"Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. ... Therefore, to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate." -- British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003.

Please note the Royal Australasian College of Physicians statement says routine or non-therapeutic circumcision is "without proven medical benefit". -- DanBlackham 13:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well add a section a the bottom then where you can list all the statements. One word of caution though the order in which they are listed should be in accordance with the population size represented by the organisation and not according to how much they suit your anti-circumcision/pro foreskin POV. NB: Leave the introduction alone. - Robert the Bruce 15:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Winkelmann and Taylor

The findings of Winkelmann and Taylor are important and relevant to this article. Robert, please stop deleting them. Dr. Taylor found the ridged band of the foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerves. In my opinion that is probably it single most important fact that needs to be included in the section on sexual effects of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 11:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan I understand just how you feel and I sympathise. But you do realise that your point of view (POV) does not deserve centre stage attention unless it is backed up by credible fact. Sadly this piece misrepresents Winkelmann and Taylor's two-page excuse for a study is an outstanding example of irresponsible speculation being taken for serious science by desperate people. Hammond showed us that at least half of foreskin restorers have a mental pathology of sorts, 30% are serious substance abusers and these sad and desperate people are being exploited by an anti-circumcision movement for their own purposes. Disgraceful actually. If you are desperate to include Winkelmann then you need to point out the difference between the Meissner and Vater Pacini corpusles both in terms of location and function. So please try to keep your eye on the ball here. Because "in your POV" you believe that something should be included in the article does not necessarily mean it has the required merit. Try your best to strive for NPOV and not just recklessly push your anti-circumcision agenda. It is not helpful. - Robert the Bruce 17:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robert, please stop your ad hominem attacks. Dr. Taylor's article is an accurate description of the cellular anatomy of the foreskin. He found that an intact male's foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerve cells. That is a scientific fact and it should be included in the article, even though it does not agree with your pro-circumcision agenda. -- DanBlackham 08:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, describing them as specialised is deceptive. What he found was that a certain part of the foreskin (the ridged band of mucosa) was comparatively rich in Meissner corpuscles. They're no more specialised than any other nerve cell. It's true that later Taylor did speculate that these were specialised tissue, but this was pure speculation with no basis in fact. Saying that the ridged band of the foreskin is comparatively rich in superficial touch receptors is apparently factual, but I'm afraid that any poetic essays about specialised receptors inducing sexual ecstacy (etc.) must be considered junk and treated accordingly. - Jakew 11:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Describing Meissner's corpuscles as specialized nerve cells is not deceptive; it is an accurate statement. Meissner's corpuscles are especially effective in detecting light touch. As you said Dr. Taylor found that there is a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles in the ridged band of the foreskin. There is also a high concentration of Meissner's corpuscles in the fingertips, lips, and nipples. Most people know from their own personal experience that their fingertips, lips, and nipples are more sensitive to light touch than most other parts of their body. Robert's attempt to delete Dr. Taylor's findings that the foreskin contains a high concentration of specialized nerves, called Meissner's corpuscles, which are effective in detecting light touch is deceptive and is an unacceptable attempt to insert his own pro-circumcision POV in the article. -- DanBlackham 23:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry DanB but the deception comes in through the suggestion that the because of the presence of "specialised nerves" the foreskin therefore has a sexual function. Meissner corpuscles are indeed "specialised nerves" and are found in such places as the oral cavity, the lips, the finger tips, the palms and the soles of the feet ... and the foreskin (and not the nipple as you suggest - see the Areola and Nipple section of Winkelmann - was this deliberate or just a slip?). I suggest we keep working on this DanB and together we will be able to unravel the deceit about an anatomical sexual function of the foreskin ... you do want the truth to prevail don't you Dan? - Robert the Bruce 01:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting relevant information

The following is relevant information that should be included in the article:

Van Howe (2004) examined male neonatal circumcision both from a cost perspective and a medical perspective. His analysis found that male neonatal circumcision is poor health policy and cannot be justified financially or medically.

In June of 2004 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia stated that neonatal circumcision is medically unnecessary.

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

If you do not agree that this information should be included in the article, please explain why before deleting it. -- DanBlackham 00:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The anti-circumcision activist Van Howe once again introduced a "study" in which he expressed his views. Again, he used deceptive tactics including selective - and dishonest - inclusion of figures and faulty methodology. O'Farrell and Moses gave an enlightening analysis of his previous work on HIV, and the same basic approach seems to be used by him today. It is not appropriate to include his propaganda in this article. Nor is it appropriate to include partial quotations from organisations, though a link is perfectly ok. - Jakew 01:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jake, please cite the Misplaced Pages guidelines that say it is not "appropriate to include partial quotations from organizations". The quote is from the section "Medical Perspectives" of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Policy Manual. The quote is relevant to the article. -- DanBlackham 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cost-benefit, medical utility, and cost-utility are completely relevant to the "medical analysis of circumcision". Arguments against the author are simply "ad hominem" attacks that are recognized as fallacious arguments. Ad hominem attacks are the last defence of someone who has nothing to say. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks on the author of cited papers.

Also, this file is overlong. Removing sections that are duplicated elsewhere in discrete articles is appropriate and requested. Robert Blair 12:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who says the file is overlong? For someone who has been here since 18 November you are being aren't you pushing your luck just a little? BTW you came here in response to the call to arms on the foreskin restoration list I suppose? - Robert the Bruce 16:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert War - Request + Information

If you choose to revert changes on this page, please do not revert changes to fix syntaxes, for example my change of "Long NPOV}}" to "{{Long NPOV}}". If you would refrain from using words such as "Vandal" when referring to another user's edit, it will go a long way towards creating NPOV pages

Also, there is a ban against reverting a page more than 3 times a day. (Thus I, and Robert Blair, may not revert this page until tommorrow starts for wikipedia's timezone) Effective today, violation of that policy will be enforced with 24-hour period bans. See Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule and Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule enforcement--Josiah 04:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection

I requested this article be protected, because of the Revert war that was happening. In order for this article to be unprotected, we ought to discuss our differing viewpoints so that we can come to a NPOV article. --Josiah 02:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well as it turns out the timing of the protection comes at the worst possible moment as it freezes the article immediately after the edit of the person who made the call-to-arms to disrupt Misplaced Pages Read up on it.
- Interesting. Life sucks sometimes. Hopefully we can work out a consensus version that incorporates both sides of this issue.--Josiah 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Now seeing you have been the cause of this protection I suggest that you take responsibility for sorting the issues out. First, is that those (who came in response to the call-to-arms) from the anti-circumcision and foreskin restoration lists want the phimosis and balanitis sections removed from this article and replaced by links to the separate articles. Any ideas why they would want to do this? - Robert the Bruce 04:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that you meant the last as a Rhetorical question. I completely agree with you that those should be included in this article.--Josiah 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

This article, medical analysis of circumcision is about a surgical operation. The article is overlong and two sections, phimosis and balanitis, have been moved to separate discrete files.

In analyzing a surgical operation one must discuss the possible benefits and the known risks and complications of the operation. That was missing from this analysis. I created a careful discussion of the risks and complications, but that was deleted without discussion.

Also, one must consider the ethics of the operation. The ethics are controversial, and a NPOV article was created to discuss that and a link was inserted into the medical analysis of circumcision file. That was also deleted by reversion. These reversions are tantamount to vandalism because they destroy good work.

Misplaced Pages says:

A revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. Where you think an older version of a page is better than the current version, a revert is sometimes appropriate. Sometimes, though, it is better to write a third version that takes the best bits of the other two, and combines them to get the best of both worlds.

With regard to wholesale deletions, Misplaced Pages says:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. Amend and edit, then it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time: consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (e.g. saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative.

Jakew and Robert the Bruce have not followed the rules. They simply delete whatever does not fit their POV. I urge that they be banned.

Robert Blair 04:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to make changes to this page which incorporate both their edits and yours, however, you instantly reverted them. After examining the recent edits (68% of your edits have been exclusively on this page, none are related to other topics) made by you and your sockpuppet IP, it appears to me that you have created this account for the sole reason of turning this into an anti-circumcision article. I'd be glad to have you prove me wrong. Preventions of Phimosis and Balanitis are examples of possible benefits from circumcision. So here's my proposal: I'll accept the removal of the paragraphs that covered them if you either do the same to possible disadvantages of being circumcized, or replace the removed material with quality articles that cover other possible benefits of circumcision. I propose this because we cannot cover only the bad, and skip the good, or only the good, and skip the bad, on such a controversial topic as this.--Josiah 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Josiah:

Prevention of balanitis and phimosis are indeed possible benefits of circumcision. However, they now have separate discrete files that cover that. Links were placed to those files. It is not my intention to ignore those possible benefits. But the article is way overlong and this had the effect of shortening the article and eliminating the redundancy of having duplicate discussions. We can check those files to see if they adequately mention that circumcision could prevent those conditions.

I forgot to mention in my post above that in an article on the "medical analysis of circumcision", the cost-benefits studies are a relevant and essential part of the discussion. That section had also been deleted arbitraily deleted without discussion. That is improper. Robert Blair