Talk:Ridged band

message: External Links
The external links are to two different articles from the British Journal of Urology, a letter from Pediatrics News, and The Ridged Band web site. In my opinion the external links are not repetitious and should all remain in the article. DanBlackham 06:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

message: I'm going to take the liberty of adding a paragraph discussing the disputed sexual functions of the rigedband, from a NPOV of course.  No doubt Mr. Brookes here will find it unacceptable, but I find that this page is too...  too sterile, shall we say, and lacking in real and valuable information.
FoucaultYou 16:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absence of sexual effects? 

message: Jakew, please state what your objection is to including erogenous function in this article. DanP 00:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None whatsoever, if proven. However, Winkelmann did not provide any evidence whatsoever for an erogenous function. Hence it is more accurate to describe it as a belief. The only study to investigate the effect of circumcision on sexual sensitivity was Fink's. In private correspondence, Dr Fink told me that the p value for the question addressing sensitivity directly was .345 for all men, or .791 for those with the same partner. This strongly implies that if the ridged band has any impact, it is minimal at best. Could you explain why you feel it necessary to remove discussion of lack of confirmation of Taylor's findings? - Jakew 00:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text is The description of the ridged band arises from an anatomical study of foreskins obtained from cadavers, and in itself does not appear to be controversial, although it has yet to be confirmed. However, the suggestion of a sexual function for this part is of the foreskin is purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed.  What exactly is "not controversial"?  The study, the foreskins, what exactly?  What is your source for including the latter sentence on "purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed"?  Isn't that up to the reader to decide, or are you including your own original work here telling the reader you have more info that Taylor does? DanP 01:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erogenous function 

message: Why should this relevant study not be included? —Ashley Y 01:41, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
:How many times do we have to go over this? If we're going to discuss the effects of circumcision (in context, of removing the ridged band), we need to be thorough about it. It is neither acceptable nor NPOV to discuss just the studies that you feel support your POV. Now, we could include a lengthy discussion of all the relevant studies, but what's the point? We've already directed readers to Medical analysis of circumcision, where there is already such a discussion. It's better to have one good article and point readers to it than many mediocre discussions. - Jakew 03:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The alternative is to cut and paste the text on sexual effects from Medical analysis of circumcision. Arbitrary inclusion of studies is not NPOV, and is unacceptable. Besides, there's no evidence that the information is relevant to the ridged band (though I concede that it is possible). - Jakew 03:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shen & Senkul 

message: Is there a reference other than the Taylor paper that uses this term?  I've added an originalResearch template until this is clarified.  +sj + 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: DanP, was there anything in particular that motivated you to remove this? - Jakew 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize and I should have added a discussion point.  OriginalResearch was added without discussion and I did not see any parts of the article where Wikipedia editors were the primary source.  It seems that "Ridged band" was explained by Taylor and within the other references.  According to Wikipedia:No original research, original research is created by editors of Wikipedia.  It goes on to say "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data".  I'm not aware of claims in this article that are not also made in the research sources cited.  Again, I apologize for the delay in explaining the tag removal. DanP 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I see your point, we also don't have articles on "inner foreskin" and "outer foreskin", despite structural distinctions.  but I don't believe a merger with foreskin is an accurate one.  It might be more logical to merge this with frenulum, since they seem to physically merge into the same entity and have the same attributes.  But even that is questionable, given that some treatments, say for phimosis, focus on the ridged band (or one of its many other less-scientific names).  Also, foreskin restoration does not restore the ridged band, so there is another distinction that makes a merger undesirable in the long run. DanP 18:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We do actually have an article on the inner mucosa (I've nominated it for deletion as I think it is somewhat redundant). As for where it belongs, can I point out that the structure was originally described in a paper on the foreskin? I'd also point out that phimosis is not related to the ridged band. It is, however, related to the dartos muscle lying beneath the ridged band. As for foreskin restoration, doesn't that article explicitly say that the RB is not restored? - Jakew 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point on phimosis, though I find dartos muscle a bit vague -- it includes all the way to the scrotum, does it not?  In this case, unlike inner mucosa, I think there is an important distinction.  Yes, the foreskin restoration article says explicitly that the ridged band is not restored -- neither is the frenulum restored (except perhaps in some rare surgical reconstructions).  So it seems odd not to have an article on the ridged band, despite the controversy regarding its sensitivity.  One could make a similar argument for the g-spot, which is similarly plagued by more uncertainty (even as to its existance in some cases).  But merging this article with foreskin makes about as much sense as merging nipple with breast, as they are not the same in meaning or in the scientific research.  If we have separate articles on the Death erection and obscure distinctions like Perineal urethra, having ridged band described makes sense in the bigger scheme of things.  Although I admit this article needs serious repair work.  DanP 03:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of OriginalResearch tag 

message: Jakew, I have reverted the following section:
 sometimes called anti-circumcision) proponent at the 1991 Second International Symposium on Circumcision, ',
 organised by  leading anti-circumcision organisation NOCIRC in San Francisco. He and others
 later followed up on this in an article concerning anatomical and
 histological study of the human foreskin that was published in the British Journal of Urology supplement in 1996. 
It is excessive detail on geographical and organizational aspects which are inappropriate in an introductory paragraph.  One would have a tough time finding such off-topic personal detail on researchers in articles pertaining to any body part (say, the g-spot).  I am also wondering why the Function tag was moved, as the paragraph you encapsulated seems to pertain more to Taylor's anatomical description than it does to actual biological function during intercourse.  As to the claims that this "does not appear to be controversial, although it has yet to be confirmed", please indicate your source for this.  We should not be inventing new findings, but only reporting existing ones. DanP 22:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems an appropriate level of detail to me. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say that?  Can you find other articles that have such introduction? DanP 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Few other articles are based entirely on the theories of one activist. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One more statement like that and I will not respond to you again.  Read the [g-spot], and then Google for ridged band.  More than Taylor (who you believe was the only researcher) is involved in this "conspiracy theory" of yours. DanP 23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Wow, that's a worrying threat.  Anyway, please stop inserting obviously biased descriptions into articles (e.g. "pro-genital mutilation activists"), that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we can see each other's views.  I'll take out the biased descriptions as you wish. DanP 23:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Please stop pretending agreement where there is none; this is an abuse of the Talk: process. Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NOCIRC seem quite happy with the label "anti-circumcision" - at any rate, they use it to describe their founder, themselves, and many of their members.   - Jakew 11:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: You raise good points.  I indeed left that information in, however I still doubt it merits inclusion the introductory paragraph while it is more of a biographical nature.  You are still on the spot to cite your sources at to who exactly is claiming lack of confirmation, and you are well aware that there are references in the article to other sources aside from Taylor's.  I can see your points from a scientific view, but they are not explained scientifically in the article.  DanP 11:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent reverts

message: It would be helpful to see a diagram or illustrative photo of a ridged band. I'm not entirely sure what this is located based on text alone.
:I agree. I have added the Template:Reqdiagram to this talk page, and request that a medical diagram or photo (such as the one found on This Page) be added to the main article. Gyakusetsu 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an improvement, thank you. kyledueck (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo/diagram of topic? 

message: Taylor says “S100 staining showed additional end-organs and myelinated nerve fibres within papillae and confirmed the richly innervated nature of the ridged band”. There is no redundancy in describing an anatomical structure as "rich in nerve endings" and at the same time noting the distribution pattern of one particular type of nerve ending. Swampcritter (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 'richly innervated' appears important to you, I've included it in the sentence discussing innervation. I've also included Taylor's summary of the band's innervation ("contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa"). Jakew 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy