Talk:Circumcision/Archive 19

message: I can't think why someone considers the assertion dubious; the plain fact of the matter is that circumcision has indeed come under discussion in recent decades, hence its considerable decline in some western countries. However, the word "adversative" ("...ranging from supportive to adversative (dubious assertion—see talk page)" is certainly dubious.Masalai 08:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Adversarial" might be a better choice. The issue - and reason for the tag - is discussed at great length in 'discussion v controversy' above. Jakew 08:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Adversative" is just a fancy way of saying adversarial and the "ive" ending appealed to my sense of symmetry with "supportive". If you have a better synonym, by all means . -- Avi 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And there I was thinking it was a typo. You learn something new everyday...  Jakew 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Genital Integrity Movement -- Avi 19:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Adversative"?

message: I propose that we remove the Gairdner study from the article.  It is more than fifty years old and reports that most of the adverse consequences were due to effects of anaesthesia. Modern anaesthesiology is so much different than that of the 1940's that I don't believe that this study is any longer sufficiently relevant to include.  Also, as noted in the article, the study did not differentiate between effects of phimosis and effects of circumcision and relied solely on the opinion of the author without scientific methods. Comments, anyone?  Dasondas 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought one of his main contributions was to show that "phimosis" was normal in infants and boys.  He also brought sea change to British thinking on the subject.TipPt 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Gairdners work should absolutely be kept in the article. Because so little research exists concerning the foreskin, every little study that followed the scientific method is valuable. In my opinion, the studies of Gairdner and Taylor are the most important, because without them we would hardly have a clue what was being removed.Christopher 18:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be inclined to keep Gairdner in, but reduce the emphasis on his findings re death rates. His findings on developmental phimosis are of historical interest, and probably belong somewhere. Jakew 20:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that this is a historical study of some importance to the GIM folks and others like-minded.  I can see why they want to leave it in and I won't argue much on that point, but I do think that the statistics about death rates are misleading in a 21st century medical context and something should be done to address that problem within the article.  I've played around with the wording a bit, but I think that we can do better. Dasondas 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your opinion is WP:OR and is irrelevant - the scientific FACTS stay. Lordkazan 04:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:OR, Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source.  I have not placed any of my opinions in any articles, so your assertion that my opinion is OR is clearly untrue.  While you are becoming familiar with WP:OR, I suggest that you also study WP:CIV.  This is another policy which you don't yet seem to understand.  Dasondas 05:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gairdner study 

message: Different tools, techniques, practioners, anatomical differences, and ages mean that one single term for the procedure lacks proper discription.
The tissues actually damaged or removed varies greatly, and the norm has changed over time.  You all know that my main concern is for newborns facing US hospital circs: 1930's tools applied by (generally) junior staff, seeking to appease uneducated parents who are interested in a look that entails removing most of the mucosa and often the whole frenulum.  That tight shaft skin limits the sensation of movements (regaining mobility is often the main gain from uncircumcising), and damage to or removal of the fremulum and it's delta make orgasm harder to reach.
I defer to more religious folk in this respect, but I understand that ancient Jewish texts describe removal of just the tip of the foreskin.  I see no harm there, but I recently just saw a Bris resulting in a pretty tight low cut.  Why was so much removed?
Muslim religious texts also call for doing no harm.  But current practice is often extreme, and that difference is a source of controversy.  
I can provide newspaper articles describing mass Muslim circumcision rites (in Turkey and Indonesia) where they generally removed too much skin ... causing great angst in the community.  Finally, I can cite Jewish groups in the US that reject and fight the practice.TipPt 16:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see discussion above regarding such groups. Also, please stop trying to slip in POV that has been soundly rejected over a dozen times at least. Jayjg (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Circumcision? 

message: Re: Avraham's edit ("(→Non-Western initiatory traditions - Update paper cite and green turtle did not corroborate statement) -- Yes it does. "For hundreds of years the Makassan/Bugis traders shared contact with the Milingimbi, Ramangining, Galiwin’ku (Elco Island) Gapuwiyak (Lake Euella) and Yirrkala communities. In exchange for turtles and trepang the Makassans introduced tobacco, the practice of circumcision and knowledge to build sea-going canoes."  (http://www.mfgsc.vic.edu.au/greenturtledreaming/EKmigrate.htm). Where is the issue? Masalai 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. That's what happens when one tries to verify citations at 0200. I'll fix that, and then go to sleep  -- Avi 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should accept some responsiblity: I could have offered a little more geographical elucidation (ie that Makassar=Ujung Pandang -- it now seems to have reverted to Makassar -- and Celebes=Sulawesi.) One tends to forget what an imponderable, here-be-dragons, sort of place the South Pacific and the Indonesian archipelago can be when  viewed from the Americas and Europe.Masalai 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Makassar traders

message: Fwiw, I agree with TipPt's recent edit to the elective infant sentence in the lead.  I had been arguing against including that "supportive to adversative" clause.  I had also written on this page that the "increasing discussion" clause was a compromise I could live with.  So, bottom line, we may have finally hit on a solution to our long-running conversation about this point.  Other opinions? Dasondas 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes to lead section 

message: Yes, Jakew this is cut and paste...
1. The sexual effects section is a joke.  We know that the frenulum is a primary erogenous zone, and it (or part of the delta zone) is generally reduced and may be removed during neonatal circs.  The following information is blocked:  Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft," according to Hass and Crooks in college sexuality textbooks.ref Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100.  Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129  The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.
2. Given the importance of the frenulum, the article should inform the reader immediately (in sexual effects) of the following:  "In 28 percent of our pediatric population undergoing elective circumcision we have demonstrated a previously undescribed ventral chordee of the glans, the result of a tethering effect of an unusually prominent frenulum ... Twenty of the 70 boys (28%) demonstrated a ventral glandular tilt (glandular chordee) due to an unusually prominent frenulum ... Persistent frenular chordee after circumcision may result in deformity of the penis on erection making sexual intercourse difficult or uncomfortable." AS. Griffin and RL. Kroovand, Frenular chordee: implications and treatment, Urology 1990 Feb;35(2):133-4
THERE MIGHT BE A ~28% CHANCE THAT A (hospital setting) NEONATAL CIRC ALSO REMOVES THE FRENULUM
3. The main article is too long, but potential medical benefits are listed and detailed as though they are particularly relevant to the decision to circ (or medicine).  They are not (according to the AMA), but they are detailed again in the medical aspects main article.  They are listed again in the CPS statement.  The following sections should be summarized in the main (circ) topic, and then detailed in the "main article." (Medical analysis of circumcision) should be combined with the main (medical aspects) article ... 4.2 HIV 4.2.1 Studies 4.2.2 Methodology 4.3 HPV 4.4 hygiene 4.5 Infectious and chronic conditions 4.6 Penile cancer 4.7 Phimosis and paraphimosis 4.8 Urinary tract infections.
4. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Hygiene :  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk."   Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”.  One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” 
5. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality) because it is a later statement, which qualifies that cited statment.:  A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding “participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision. This improved satisfaction represented a more satisfactory appearance of the penis and less pain during sexual activity. These results cannot be generalized to neonatal circumcision.”
6. Any or all of the following paragraphs, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality):  There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are varied. The intromission function of the foreskin may facilitate penetration and vaginal wetness.
7. The medical association opinions should be edited to reflect their full (unbiased) statements and current position (especially the reaffirmation by the Canadians (CPS) that there is no medical purpose for the neonate).TipPt 20:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  == Why Neutrality is disputed (POV tag) ==