Talk:Circumcision/Archive 27

message: It seems that some pro-circumcision users own this article and fight against every nonprocirc edits (note:nonprocirc≠anticirc). This is also violation of WP:NPOV. --83.131.22.78 08:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]] violation 

message: The sentence: Circumcision may be used to treat chronic inflammation of the penis and penile cancer is not supported by its reference.  Nowhere does the phrase "chronic inflammation" appear in the referenced source, nor does the source claim that circumcision is ever used as treatment for penile cancer.  I am removing this sentence.  If someone believes that the prevention (not treatment) of penile cancer the author of the source claims is associated with circumcision is relevant, I invite them to write a new sentence asserting that Edgar J Schoen of Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program, Oakland, California claims that circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer.  (Why this one person's opinion piece, labeled at the top of the page with the word "Controversy," is referenced as a reliable source multiple times is beyond me.)  Also, I suggest if a source can illustrate the point without requiring registration in order to read it, that source be used instead. Blackworm 09:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, circumcision is frequently used to treat penile cancer, since the foreskin is often the site of the cancerous growth. I've restored the phrase with a supporting citation for both assertions. Jakew 10:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first sentence above appears to be original research, but I welcome it since this is the discussion page, not the article.  More importantly, however, your source does not support the assertion that circumcision treats penile cancer.  Nowhere is the word "cancer" found in your source article.  It does contain the word "neoplasm" -- which you inexplicably link to from the phrase "penile cancer" instead of the existing Wikipedia entry for penile cancer.  They do not seem to be synonymous.  The Wiki article on "neoplasm" claims that a neoplasm may be malignant, or benign (i.e. not cancer).  Your source does not claim that preputial neoplasms are malignant, nor that their removal is an effective treatment for penile cancer.  It fact it says nothing about them other than circumcision is used to treat them.  I suggest you find another source to back up this claim.  Even if you do, and it turns out to be true that some (or all) preputial neoplasms fall under "penile cancer," I'd propose adding the phrase "some forms of (penile cancer)" unless all forms of penile cancer are preputial neoplasms. Blackworm 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a footnote, the word "carcinoma" does appear in your source.  To quote: "There are no specific contraindications to adult circumcision in the literature; however, patients with (...) possible squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (...) should be referred for a urologic consultation."  This seems to imply that circumcision is specifically contraindicated in at least some cases of penile cancer, rather than used as a treatment.  Blackworm 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry that you make such an inference, but the text only states that it may be used to treat penile cancer, which is undeniably true. Jakew 11:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also undeniably misleading. Actually, "has been used" is more accurate, and factual, and doesn't carry the implication, so I must ask why you seem to object to the change.  Blackworm 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided a source stating that circumcision may be used to treat neoplasms, and you protest that it may mean non-malignant neoplasms. I provide a source directly documenting the use of circumcision to treat penile cancer, and you demand use of the past tense. Why do you have such a problem with the assertion? Jakew 12:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's inexplicably giving wildly undue weight to the benefits and beneficial uses of circumcision.  It's used in ten percent of cases of a disease which occurs in 2 in 100,000 men, and it gets a glowing mention in the first section of the article, before the table of contents?  Blackworm 13:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's "glowing" about the phrase "circumcision may be used to treat penile cancer" with an appropriate citation?  Was there a revision of the article I missed that said "Circumcision — which completely fucking rocks — may be used to fabulously and superbly treat penile cancer"?  Blackworm, I think you're reading things that simply aren't there. Nandesuka 14:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, compare "leeches may be used to treat headaches."  Absolutely true.  Also absolutely misleading.  And a glowing statement about leeches, in my opinion.  Blackworm 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The other source of my annoyance with this statement is that the article carefully steers clear of mentioning that the foreskin is a part of the penis, implying that the penis is one thing, the foreskin another thing attached to but not part of the penis.  For example, the definition is given as "[cutting] the foreskin from the penis," not, "cutting away the foreskin of the penis."  However, in cases of cancer, suddenly the foreskin is the penis!  Cancer of the foreskin is penile cancer.  So if you get cancer of the foreskin, and get circumcised, you've been cured of penile cancer.  It is misleading. Blackworm 15:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision does not "treat" penile cancer 

message: What's really wrong with this letter to the editor by (without editor comment) is the fact that infant circumcision pain has been found in three primary procedures.
1.  When the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe ... compared to ripping off your fingernail.
2.  Gross manipulation of the foreskin, including crushing.
3.  Frenectomy.
So these authors ignore two of three sources of extreme pain.
The "authentic" bris CANNOT INCLUDE anesthesia.  The reader is mislead to think "authentic" is better.TipPt 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOR. Jakew 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know I can cite the statements above, but I'm not wasting time.TipPt 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tannenbaum and Shechet "authentic" is much worse than unreliable 

message: My experience has been we eventually find agreement (with the cabels jakew, avi, nand, and jayg), but then they soon violate the agreed text.  Replace it with their own biased text.  They mostly wear you down, so keep your talk short.  None of the current Assoc policy paragraphs are honest.  Remember their primary position is to not recommend.  That primary position is totally lost in Jakew's current version.
Note the contradiction ... Avi and Jakew insist on long and detailed benefits texts, although benefits roughly equal harm.  Then they suppress Assoc statements that generally say "not recommend" as too long.TipPt 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't waste your time 

message: In general, anything posted on geocities is usually not considered a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia, since you or I can just go and post anything we want on geocities. I will be removing that reference again, but if you can find a suitable source for it, please re-add it, properly attributed. Thanks. -- Avi 16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocities 

message:  1 The procedures of circumcision 
 2 Cultures and religions 
 2.1 Judaism 
 2.2 Christianity 
 2.3 Islam 
 2.4 Other faiths and traditions 
 3 Ethical issues 
 3.1 Consent 
 3.2 Emotional consequences 
 3.3 Legality 
 4 Sexual Effects 
 5 Medical aspects 
 5.1 Risks of circumcision 
 5.2 HIV 
 5.2.1 Langerhans cells and HIV transmission 
 5.3 HPV 
 5.4 Hygiene 
 5.5 Infectious and chronic conditions 
 5.5.1 Balanitis 
 5.6 Penile cancer 
 5.7 Phimosis and paraphimosis 
 5.8 Urinary tract infections 
 5.9 Policies of various national medical associations 
 5.9.1 United States 
 5.9.2 Canada 
 5.9.3 United Kingdom 
 5.9.4 Australasia (Australia, New Zealand and nearby islands) 
 6 History of circumcision 
 6.1 Circumcision in the ancient world 
 6.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century 
 6.3 Circumcision since 1950 
 7 Prevalence of circumcision 
 7.1 Australia 
 7.2 Denmark 
 7.3 South Korea 
 7.4 United Kingdom 
 7.5 United States 
 8 See also 
 9 References 
 10 External links 
 10.1 Circumcision opposition 
 10.2 Circumcision promotion 
 10.3 Circumcision techniques 
 11 Further reading 
1 The procedures of circumcision 2 Medical aspects 
 2.1 Risks of circumcision 
3 Sexual Effects 4 History of circumcision 
 4.1 Circumcision in the ancient world 
 4.2 Medical circumcision in the 19th century and early 20th century 
 4.3 Circumcision since 1950 
 4.4 Judaism 
 4.5 Christianity 
 4.6 Islam 
 4.7 Other faiths and traditions 
5 Ethical issues 
 5.1 Consent 
 5.2 Emotional consequences 
 5.3 Legality 
6 Policies of various national medical associations 
 6.1 United States 
 6.2 Canada 
 6.3 United Kingdom 
7 Prevalence of circumcision 
 7.1 Australia 
 7.2 Denmark 
 7.3 South Korea 
 7.4 United Kingdom 
 7.5 United States 
8 See also 9 References 10 External links 
 10.1 Circumcision opposition 
 10.2 Circumcision promotion 
 10.3 Circumcision techniques 
11 Further readingTipPt 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current outline vastly superior. Thanks for asking, though. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline comparisions 

message: The procedures of circumcision
Circumcision removes the foreskin from the penis. For infant circumcision, clamps, such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen are often used.
 These clamps are meant to protect the glans while they cut the blood supply to the foreskin and prevent any bleeding. With the Plastibell clamp, the foreskin and the clamp come away in three to seven days.  Before a Gomco clamp is used, a section of skin is crushed with a hemostat then slit with scissors.  The foreskin is drawn over the bell shaped portion of the clamp and inserted through a hole in the base of the clamp. The clamp is then tightened, "crushing the foreskin between the bell and the base plate." The crushing limits the bleeding (provides the hemostasis). With the flared bottom of the bell fit tightly against the hole of the base plate, the foreskin is cut away with a scalpel from above the base plate, while the bell covers the glans to prevent it being reached by the scalpel.
With a Mogen clamp, the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe and/or curved hemostat (as with the first part of the Gomco and Plastibell procedure). The foreskin is then grabbed dorsally with a straight hemostat, and lifted up. The Mogen clamp is then slid between the glans and hemostat, following the angle of the corona to "avoid removing excess skin ventrally and to obtain a superior cosmetic result," compared with Gomco or Plastibell circumcisions. The clamp is locked shut, and a scalpel is used to cut the foreskin from the flat (upper) side of the clamp.
  
The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.
According to a 1998 study, 45% of physicians used anaesthesia for infant circumcisions. Dorsal penile nerve block was the most commonly used form. Obstetricians had a significantly lower rate of anaesthesia use (25%) than pediatricians (71%) or family practitioners (56%).
According to Tannenbaum and Shechet, an “authentic, traditional bris performed by a mohel does not use clamps, so there is no pain associated with crushing tissue.”
 They further write that due to the speed of the procedure and rarity of complication, it is “more humane not to subject the infant to a local anesthetic.” (removed because ritual circs are painful)
The procedures of circumcision
Circumcision removes the foreskin from the penis. For infant circumcision, clamps, such as the Gomco clamp, Plastibell, and Mogen are often used.
 These clamps are meant to protect the glans while they cut the blood supply to the foreskin and prevent any bleeding. With the Plastibell clamp, the foreskin and the clamp come away in three to seven days.  Before a Gomco clamp is used, a section of skin is crushed with a hemostat then slit with scissors.  The foreskin is drawn over the bell shaped portion of the clamp and inserted through a hole in the base of the clamp. The clamp is then tightened, "crushing the foreskin between the bell and the base plate." The crushing limits the bleeding (provides the hemostasis). With the flared bottom of the bell fit tightly against the hole of the base plate, the foreskin is cut away with a scalpel from above the base plate, while the bell covers the glans to prevent it being reached by the scalpel.
With a Mogen clamp, the foreskin and the glans are separated with a blunt probe and/or curved hemostat (as with the first part of the Gomco and Plastibell procedure). The foreskin is then grabbed dorsally with a straight hemostat, and lifted up. The Mogen clamp is then slid between the glans and hemostat, following the angle of the corona to "avoid removing excess skin ventrally and to obtain a superior cosmetic result," compared with Gomco or Plastibell circumcisions. The clamp is locked shut, and a scalpel is used to cut the foreskin from the flat (upper) side of the clamp.
  Taeusch et al report that as compared with the Plastibell, Mogen circumcisions are quicker, less painful, and preferred by trainees. Kurtis et al report that it is quicker and less painful than circumcisions using the Gomco clamp.The World Health Organization reports that the Mogen clamp "compares favourably, because it is easy to use and has no parts to assemble. In the literature, the fewest complications with this method have been reported in the context of circumcision in 8 day old babies." (don't you think the reader needs to know the safest, least painful, and quicker procedure?)
The frenulum is cut if frenular chordee is evident.
According to a 1998 study, 45% of physicians used anaesthesia for infant circumcisions. Dorsal penile nerve block was the most commonly used form. Obstetricians had a significantly lower rate of anaesthesia use (25%) than pediatricians (71%) or family practitioners (56%).
TipPt 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedures comparison with bold diff 

message: It's honest and all text was agreed ... at one point ... by all, including Jakew, Avi, Nand, and Jayg (hard to say the last two, actually since all they do is revert ... sometimes).
Please see this sandbox.  [].TipPt 23:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the User:TipPt version; naturally it reflects your personal views, not scientific consensus, never mind Wikipedian consensus. It's also unbalanced and poorly written. The current consensus version is vastly better. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please consider the sandbox version