Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 5

message: This edit, by User:Robert Blair, is non-neutral and non-factual.
To begin with, Blair begins by describing Williamson and Williamson as circumcision advocates. I could find no reason through web searches to believe that they are.
In contrast, Blair omits the fact that the O'Haras are circumcision opponents. I also take issue with the word "overwhelming" (99% is overwhelming. 85% is not). I also object to the loaded term 'natural' in place of the literal 'uncircumcised'. I object to the use of the non-dictionary term "circumcisionist", and for the fact that other critics (included in previous versions) have been omitted. I also object to the fact that criticism of Bensley and Boyle has been removed. For these reasons, while I think that the original version that doesn't include the anti-circ propaganda is better, I'm using Asbestos' version with minor changes (fixing a typo and two word alterations) until this issue can be resolved properly. - Jakew 12:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, call them anaesthesia advocates. (additional) So does the AAP. Shall we say "rabid circumcision advocates, the American Academy of Pediatrics say..." - Jakew 02:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakew, Robert raises exactly the point I've been making about the pro-mutilation tactics of disclaimer.  Somewhere there are Wikipedia guidelines on this, I'm sure.  But clearly there are some (Morris, O'Hara) that can be described as advocates or opponents, whereas others who merely profess a viewpoint need not be classified as driven by single-issues if their disciplines are broader.  As an example, to an outside observer, we all probably seem like single-issue nutcases.  But then take into account that there is disagreement, not necessarily personal interest, that raises the bar.  Get a bunch of nerds arguing about the phasers on Star Trek, same thing.  So I propose that we preface a name as "opponent of cirucumcision X"," "circumcision advocate Y", etc. only when the person is actually described that way in some news or academic publication.  Otherwise, if applicable, we should use their a professional title (author, professor, etc.) and not make our own value judgements. DanP 10:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Since the terms "anti-circumcision activist so-and-so" and "pro-mutilation activist so-and-so" are clearly opinions (and the latter obviously slander), we should only give weight to such classifications if they are used in respected media. Using one pro/ant-circumcision website to prove that someone else is an "activist" doesn't count as respected media. We should stick with the obviosuly POV-neutral terms "professor", "psychologist" and so on. — Asbestos | Talk 11:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm happy with removing untrue or excessive labelling, but in my view if an author of a title has presented at an anti-circumcision activist conference, or is a prominent member of an anti-circ activist organisation, then we should note the fact. Journals require contributors to declare relevant interests, which they make available to readers. I think we should do the same, but should be more cautious about it. There's no reason to declare that every author of an 'anti-circ' paper is an anti-circ activist (though a worryingly large proportion do seem to be), and it dilutes the impact of revealing that some are. The same should obviously go for pro-circ, though here the organised nature of anti-circ activism counts against it. I don't object to labelling Prof Morris, since he is active. - Jakew 13:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed paragraph 

message: It has long been held by the pro-mutilation side that preference for male foreskin is a fetish and continues to be described as such.  This article contains a "partner preference" section (exactly why the surveys are "medical analyses", I have NO IDEA!), but I have changed it to reference fetishism which is not limited to gay males as the foreskin fetish and circumcision fetish article suggest.  DanP 11:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you don't agree with the label "fetish", so I refer you to Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The point, however, remains a good one, and calling either side fetishists clearly has no place in any of these articles. I hope you don't mind that I removed the reference since you seem to have proved your point, as I'm sure you'd remove "foreskin fetishist" if you saw it. — Asbestos | Talk 11:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual fetishism 

message: A disagreement is not automatically a disruption.  But mainly there is a broad difference between illustrating a point, and making established points consistent on both sides.  The vote was to preserve the fetish articles.  I believe you have misconstrued the policy and the section here creates within Wikipedia a gender-selective definition of fetishism.  And again, what does the whole "partner preference" have to do with medicine?  I propose deleting the whole section, as this article has become willy-nilly and the section has little merit being called "medical analysis".  DanP 15:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're probably right about removing the Partner Preference. I think that research about preference should get out of a Medical Analysis article (i.e. getting rid of both the Willliamsonand the O'Hara research), yet research about vaginal dryness should certainly be there. Bensley & Boyle should get their own section under Sexual Effects, probably simply Vaginal Dryness. — Asbestos | Talk 16:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I've followed through and made the change. Partner preference clearly doesn't belong in the medical analysis of circumcision, you were right. I've renamed the section Female Arousal. To think of all that time I spent arguing that the O'Hara section should stay... — Asbestos | Talk 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've incorporated the Williamson's findings on female arousal. - Jakew 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I shouldn't have removed that (I was thinking it was only along the lines of preference). I added the fact that 88% of the women had never had experience with an uncircumcised penis, though, as I think it rather relevant to the study. I kind of just tacked it on to the end, though. It might sound better re-phrased. — Asbestos | Talk 21:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've tacked a caveat onto the caveat. I'll rephrase shortly, as you're right it does need it. - Jakew 21:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It's always better to have straight numbers than inferences. Your caveat made sense. — Asbestos | Talk 21:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Female Arousal

message: The word "potential" is an adjective that means to exist in possibility but not in actuality. It is more or less properly applied to the alleged and claimed, but unproven, benefits of circumcision. The AAP uses it as a euphemisism for unproven.
It is not properly applied to the risks, complications, disadvantages, and drawbacks of circumcision which are recorded in abundance in the medical literature. See
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/
:"potential". adjective. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential problem. - dictionary.com
:A potential complication is one that could occur, but is not guaranteed to occur. An "actual" or "proven" complication is one that is guaranteed to occur. It is the correct terminology, as widely used in the medical literature. See any page found by this Google search. - Jakew 15:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested that this page is protected. I will withdraw the request if you indicate that you understand the terminology. - Jakew 15:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Acutally Jake, I agree.  Potential means it's not guaranteed to occur.  Since these medical benefits that are claimed are only projections, they are not guaranteed in every individual.  I have made a change to reflect this. DanP 18:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some benefits are guaranteed to occur, however. - Jakew 19:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: It's true that no medical benefit is guaranteed to affect a given individual, but no complication is guaranteed to affect a given individual, either. You can only talk about probabilities in both cases, and thus potential is the correct term. - Jakew 02:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "potential"

message: An article on Medicine.net says:
:Rates of early death and disability that can be attributed to sexual behavior are three times higher in the United States than other so-called developed nations, a new study finds.
I therefore feel that it more accurate to say that STD rates are higher in the US than other advanced countries rather than saying that the rates are higher in the US than many advanced countries.Michael Glass 00:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: STD Infection Rates in the USA

message: Protected as per request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Note: I have never edited this page except for adding the Protection tag. Please resolve your differences on the talk page -- Chris 73 Talk 04:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
:What? It looks like this one's settling down now... —Ashley Y 05:13, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
::Agreed. I think that we shouldn't be too hasty in jumping to protection — the particular edit war in question had only been active for a day. I think that so long as people try to keep with the spirit of the 3RR, there really isn't need to page protections. I personally think that the word "potential" applies to this article and makes sense, both "potential complications" and "potential benefits." It is a neutral word that states that such complications or benefits may occur some of the time and not always. I suggest throwing a straw poll to find out what people think, and unportecting if a consensus is found. If people are fine with the idea, vote below, or if there is a better suggestion include it. — Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem lies in certain users continuing with certain edits without responding to objections raised to the content of those edits on the talk page. That's usually an indicator that there is a problem, and an edit war is imminent. The merit of protection is that it forces editors to discuss the issue. - Jakew 13:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: ===Label both benefits and complications as "potential benefits" and "potential complications" (but avoid repetitions)===
#Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: #Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Label both benefits and complications as "potential benefits" and "potential complications" (but avoid repetitions)

message: # Decide on each individual case on the merits (preferably on this page). Try to avoid too much repetition (eg once we've described a complication as potential once, it's probably excessive to do so a second time). Include an explanation of the use of the term potential. - Jakew 13:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: *To me, "potential" is a neutral term implying that the complications or benefits occur some of the time but not necessarily always. — Asbestos | Talk 11:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Found on CNN: . Perhaps this should be mentioned. —Ashley Y 05:11, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
:Only applies to ritual Jewish circumcisions (and even then only the ones still using metsizah). - Jakew 05:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think the case in question is a one-off, it might be worth mentioning the inherent disease-related risks of this practice. I don't think the medical analysis of Jewish circumcision should be excluded from the article. — Asbestos | Talk 09:25, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I like how the pro-mutilation side is permitted to qualify (risk and injury are "only" here and only there), but when AIDS rates are sometimes lower, or when penile cancer is sometimes lower, then careful geographic and cultural qualifiers are out-the-window!  The benefits are across the board (no matter conflicts with global statistical data) -- but to them, risks and complications are only here and there, qualifying at their choice.  One must realize death, injury, and disease have been caused by circumcision, and always will be.  Wikipedia should not "mindread" the circumcisers intent, but only reference all of these factors, instead of pandering to the pro-mutilation viewpoint in every instance. DanP 20:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herpes risk of circumcision 

message: At some point, can someone fix the "the the" typo in the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Cervical cancer section. -- John Fader 02:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The the