Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 2

message: The topic of this article is a medical analysis of circumcision.  The following historical information is interesting, but in my opinion it is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision.  Also the information is already included in the main Circumcision article.
:Circumcision, a religious requirement in Muslim and Jewish traditions, and a cultural practice in some other communities, was taken up by doctors in the late 19th century in several English-speaking countries, often as a cure for masturbation. It never gained popularity in continental Europe, but became more or less accepted in the United States, the United Kingdom and much of English-speaking Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
:More recently (first in the United Kingdom and then in other Commonwealth countries), circumcision has become less popular. As this happened, voices of concern were raised in the United States about neonatal circumcision and it is now considered highly controversial by some American medical professionals.
In my opinion the discussion of the history of circumcision should be in the main Circumcision article, not this one. -- DanBlackham 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical information

message: In my opinion the following links from the introduction would be more appropriately located in the sections of the article that discuss penile cancer and complications, instead of the introduction.
*Penile cancer: 
*Complications: 
DanBlackham 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included the penile cancer information in the relevant section.  I've also removed lengthy discussions of now irrelevant ancient medical studies, and NPOVd the text, which was obviously written from an anti-circumcision viewpoint (e.g. pro-circumcision advocates were described as such, anti-circumcision advocates were not, etc.). Jayjg 15:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Links from introduction

message: In the section on phimosis I have made two main changes. One was to simplify the wording describing the Oster study and to indent his quoted words. The other was to replace an inaccurate summary of the cohort study in New Zealand with a direct quotation from the PubMed abstract. The study was about penile problems in general. It was not restricted to phimosis.
If anyone has any problem with these edits I would appreciate it if they would state their objections, and not just revert to a previous version.Michael Glass 13:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By 8 years, circumcised children had a rate of 11.1 problems per 100 children, and uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100. The majority of these problems were for penile inflammation including balanitis, meatitis, and inflammation of the prepuce. 
If the full study says something different, then a full reference should have been given. Instead, in a highly contentious area, you have made things even worse by suppressing the link to the abstract of the article. You cannot expect people to take your assertion about the full article on trust. Give us the evidence or revert to the abstract. Michael Glass 23:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting Inaccuracies

message: 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)
replies: text: Good God. How can you guys wage wars over such banal issues as circumcision? Aesthetics and personal preference are simply not medical issues -- unless you decide to include the pleasure of the significant other as a condition of mental health and then argue that that has anything to do with the initial topic (kinda like saying many men prefer bigger breasts on women in an article about boobjobs). There's really nothing you can argue about here -- aesthetics are aesthetics and medicine is medicine. If you want to talk about aesthetics (which is as POV as a topic can get, unless you don't believe in cultural bias) do so in the circumcision article, not in the one about the medical issues related to circumcision. Christ. --Ashmodai 17:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated to medical analysis

message: 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)
replies: text: This seems to be raising an old question, but why exactly are there five images of invasive penile cancer? Would not one do? Is someone attempting to prove a point? If so, Wikipedia is not about proving points.  — Asbestos | Talk 11:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Loony Tunes Link

message: 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)
replies: text: This is uneducated speculation. It has no place in Wikipedia. Drop it Michael. - Robert the Bruce 17:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Limitations of the Laumann study

message: 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)
thread_title: Sexual Effects

message: 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)
thread_title: Misleading Description of Edits