Talk:Circumcision/Archive 11

message: I'm new here, and made an addition which may have been precipitate (the one concerning Syphilis, Chancroid and Herpes Simplex), which occurred to me after reading the linked article.  After reading a little of the debate here, I realise that it would probably have been better to suggest it here first.  The section in question goes as follows:
"Syphilis, Chancroid and Herpes Simplex
A recent systematic review [41] has suggested that there is strong evidence for a protective effect of circumcision against Syphilis or Chancroid infection, but only weak evidence for a protective effect against Herpes Simplex."
Does anyone have any objections to this addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator supreme (talk • contribs) 
:The text is fine - it's sourced and represents the source accurately - but it might be better suited to Medical analysis of circumcision. I'm concerned that we're beginning to duplicate a lot of the content from that article. Incidentally, please could you sign your comments with ~~~~? Thanks. Jakew 11:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you.  I'll move it over there, and I might also change the heading to "other STIs". Procrastinator supreme 12:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: I smell a featured article here. Seriously, it's beautiful how this sorry mess has turned into a butterfly. I'm very proud of myself (ha!) and everyone else who helped to contribute. The article is fairly neutral, excellently researched, informative, and probably the highest number of sources in any article ever... Sure, here and there, some thingies can be fixed, I really want to have the section about Masturbation back, and if we really want to turn this into a featured article, we'll have to work on many of the related articles as well, but so far... Great work everyone! Dabljuh 11:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I smell a... 

message: I think that Jakew's revision makes sense. Using the two categories for other articles is really making a distinction without a difference. Benami 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It also avoids subtly introducing POV. Jakew 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because in the absence of a real difference, any purported difference is necessarily POV. Benami 20:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related vs See also 

message: Heys again. First of all, hooray for penis pictures.
But what I am currently missing is a *good* set of uncirc'd wangs, especially a pic of an erect wang without the foreskin pulled back. Some uncirc'd guys look almost like circ'd guys when erect, with others the foreskin covers the glans completely even when erect. I have argued before that it is important to have pictures of uncircumcised genitalia for the quite realistic number of people who have never seen such a thing before. 
Its kinda funny, I remember a time when we had no circ'd penises and had to sell an uncirc'd penis with the foreskin pulled back as a circumcised penis... Dabljuh 11:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures again 

message: Jake, I'm not really sure what you are doing there. Sorting by topic? How do you sort the external links by topic? I mean... they're all sort of circumcision related... thats enough sorting for me... Dabljuh 12:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple really, Dabljuh. With such a huge number of links, it's a good idea to help the reader quickly identify links by theme. Thus, we have:
*The more academic aspects, going from medical, through sexual, and then historical views.
*Procedures: retraction, frenulectomy, and restoration.
*Anatomical details: foreskin, circumcision scar.
*Religious: biblical view, holy prepuce, brit milah + shalom, zeved habat, fgc.
*Views and advocacy: fgc (shared with previous topic), genital mod/mutilation, circ advocacy, genital integrity, bioethics.
*Legal: bioethics (shared with previous topic), circ and the law.
As noted, some fall into more than one topic, but I believe the system is more useful than a simple alphabetical order. Those interested in the scientific aspects will find the beginning of the list helpful. Those with a political/legal/ethical interest will find the end helpful. Those with a religious interest will find the middle helpful. Make sense? Jakew 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Listing Medical analysis of circumcision first and Circumcision and law last reflects a pro-circumcision POV.  In my opinion alphabetical order is the most neutral POV. -- DanBlackham 13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying not to somehow put my own POV into things is why I usually resort to lexicographical ordering. Of course it's still possible to put some POV in by simply naming the links accordingly (like, er, ZZZUltra bad aspects of Circumcision) Dabljuh 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting by Topic vs Sorting lexicographically 

message: I have several problems with the inclusion of this image.  Firstly, it's uninformative.  It's impossible to see the procedure, just a bunch of figures gathered around an infant.  Secondly, it would seem to blur the lines between artistic and factual representation:  Is there any proof that Jesus was circumcised, aside from his being Jewish?  Wikipedia shouldn't misrepresent how little is known about him.  And thirdly and most importantly, I think the picture was added in order to provide an argument from authority to legitimize the procedure, ie "circumcision is fine because Jesus was circumcised".  I am strongly in favor of the image's removal.  Comments?  -Kasreyn 05:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed as well. It adds nothing to the article. At the least it belongs somewhere other than the very top of the article.Christopher 04:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's two of us.  Are there any objections before I remove the image?  I'm trying to avoid reverts and hurt feelings here.  I'm sure the statuary in question is very artistic and whatever, but this is an article about a surgical procedure.  I'd say what we need are NPOV images that aid in understanding, which this one is not.  -Kasreyn 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm proceeding with the removal of the image.  I'd say a week is enough time for anyone who cared to have commented.  -Kasreyn 00:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the image is of little relevance to this article specifically.  It's probably much more appropriate in the Christianity section of Circumcision in the Bible.  Tomertalk 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess so, if you feel it would be appropriate.  I searched that article and found no reference to circumcision, so apparently wikipedia does not currently make a statement on whether Jesus was circumcised or not.  I suppose many assume he was because he was Jewish.  -Kasreyn 04:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh...I don't think there's any doubt among Christians that Jesus was circumcised...Luke 2:21 says so pretty clearly—there is even a Holy Prepuce among the relics (that article is, as it happens, a FA presently)...  That said, I don't know how you could possibly read through Circumcision in the Bible#In Christianity and not find a reference to circumcision, but regardless, WP isn't in the business of making statements on whether or not Jesus was anything: WP:NOR requires that we report only what others have said. Tomertalk 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the image has merit.  Although circumcision remains common, it is increasingly rare to see it depicting as an event worthy of artistic capture, and especially so for a religious figure.  The picture invites the reader to consider circumcision from an earlier viewpoint.  20:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Increasingly rare?  Was it ever commonly depicted artistically?  I'm curious.  I'm also not sure of how valid it is to push "earlier" viewpoints.  My specific objections still hold, that the image is uninformative and could be considered a POV push.  I suppose I won't object if it's restored in an appropriate section (such as the Cultures and Traditions).  It certainly shouldn't be above the table of contents.  -Kasreyn 06:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've seen two or three medieval versions of the circumcision of Jesus; I don't know what picture was formerly on this site.  I don't think I've ever seen any graphic depiction of circumcision from the lst 500 years.  So, yeah, increasingly rare.  20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision of Jesus image 

message: "It has been proposed below that Circumcision be renamed and moved to Male circumcision.  The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves."
This "request" is nowhere to be found either on this page (search for "move" has no hits) or on the requested moves page (search for "circ" has no hits).  FlareNuke, from what I've been able to see in the past, has a history of moving pages without gathering consent from the contributors to those pages, and of occasionally failing to move and maintain talk pages.  He seems to feel that, rather than making the article agree with its title, the title should be made to agree with the article's contents.  This Procrustean approach is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, in my opinion.
Since the stated "request below" is nowhere to be found on this page or the Requested Moves page, I'm removing the move request tag.  -Kasreyn 12:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Nonexistent Move Request 

message: I would like to edit the reference to the Cochrane Review to more closely reflect the conclusion of the article.  The conclusion of the article cited reads "The possibility exists that the observed results included in this review could be explained by confounding. Although the positive results of these observational studies suggest that circumcision is an intervention worth evaluating in randomised controlled trials, the current quality of evidence is insufficient to consider implementation of circumcision as a public-health intervention."  Accordingly, I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the article cited "concluded that...there are clear indicators that circumcision can significantly reduce the rate of female-to-male HIV infection in an African population."  To my understanding, a "suggestion" is not a "clear indication".  As such, I would edit that sentence to read "The March 2005 Cochrane review of the medical evidence concluded that, despite widely observed correlation between circumcision and low rates of HIV infection, a causal relationship between circumcision and reduced risk of HIV transmission had not been established." 
Given the contentiousness of this topic, and my newbie status here, I am suggesting this change here before carrying out the edit, and would appreciate any opinions.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a medical anthropologist and am very familiar with the literature on and debate over both male and female genital modifications in a variety of contexts.  (I've been silently observing this  page and the fascinating conflicts herein for some time).  My own research does not address circumcision as an HIV intervention per se, but I am familiar with the Cochrane Reviews on the topic, and that's why this sentence caught my eye.Zandrous 08:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV Section 

message: Alienus, please stop adding personal websites and other non-encyclopedic links and non-reliable sources to this page.  The only way to "balance" them is by removing them.  Wikipedia is not a link repository, and we should only link to reliable, encyclopedic external sources that actually provide information not in the article.  None of the links you provided apply. Please read WP:EL. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Jakew ... You were circumcised as an adult.  The prepuce of adults is fully developed less likely to be damaged during circumcision (relative to infant circs).  I also assume that an adult would specify to the surgeon the precise amounts and location of skin and mucosa to be removed.
My point is that circumcisions in the US are frequently radical. I'm the guy that tried to edit in essentially the following:
"The primary zones of erogenous sensitivity are the frenulum, frenular delta, ridged mucosa, the preputial orifice, and the external fold of the foreskin. All of these zones are orgasmic triggers. Continuous and gentle stimulation of any one of these areas can elicit pleasure, orgasm, and ejaculation. All, save a portion of the frenulum and possibly the frenular delta, is removed during routine infant circumcision (in the US).  The innervation of the remaining mucosa may be damaged by the procedure."
It is my opinion that if your circumcision had been similarly radical, you would feel differently about infant circumcision.
Completely missing from the Circumcision articles are facts about the erogenous functions of normal mucosa and anatomy, and how results of a circumcision will depend on exactly what was excised or damaged.  
Given large differences in individual anatomy, the tools used, and the small size of the infant penis, a surgeon will not predict the extent of a proposed circumcision.  
Jakew ... would you have taken that risk?
In the US, infant circs are frequently radical and thus mutilate.  For example, infants left with only a remnant of the frenulum and a 1/2 inch of mucosa below the corona will have less capacity to enjoy voluptuous feelings.  I know this is original research, but in a ramdom sample of 500 US circumcised guys, 185 were missing their frenular delta and frenulum. 
I have several friends that report they can only reach orgasm (masturbating) by using lube and vigorously jacking their penis.  They put lots of rubbing pressure on the heads of their penis.  They report no special erogenous place on the front of their penis below their corona.  They take longer to reach orgasm (than most men, they notice).  They all had radical circumcisions.
 
I'd hate to be involved in keeping that information from new parents. (unsigned by 172.193.189.204)
:Hi.  I seem to remember that Jakew, not Jayjg, is the one who put his penis under the knife as an adult.  Frankly, I got the two of them confused when I first ran into them, so I wouldn't be surprised if you did.  Then again, perhaps you know more than I do, and both of them did it.
:I wish you the best of luck in getting your point across.  Also, you may want to create an account, because your dynamic IP makes it hard to ever leave you messages.  it's not required, of course, but it's a good idea, and it's free and easy.
Alienus 00:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text that you tried to include was dubious and cited no sources. If you can find reliable sources supporting these claims, go ahead and include them. If you can't, and it is merely your opinion that this is correct, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Jakew 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The trouble with the studies about orgasm rates for circumcised men is that I've seen studies calling it both ways:  some say circumcised men suffer more from premature ejaculation, others say circumcised men have a hard time ejaculating at all.  To me, all this is moot.  The earlobe is a part of the body that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to serve as an erogenous zone (Desmond Morris, "The Naked Ape"), and children must be taught to clean behind them, just like a foreskin.  Parents would shriek in horror if a doctor offered to excise their child's earlobes at birth for "sanitary" reasons, but see no problem in the foreskin being removed.  A trivial example, I know, but it goes to demonstrate how the issue is one of cultural acceptance and taboos, rather than medical knowledge.  Medical knowledge only enters into the debate when circumcision proponents use it as a rationalization for a procedure which is actually being carried out for the purpose of satisfying ancient tribal/cultural taboos, and for "normalization" in cultures where it is the dominant mode.  To quibble over medical details, in my opinion, completely misses the point that circumcision is a cultural phenomenon, largely detached from medical realities.  -Kasreyn 02:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radical Circumcision 

message: Jakew...
I would like to correct the topics opening third paragraph, because I find no controversy in the medical community regarding infant circumcision as being therapeutic.  In fact, all neonatal circumcisions are by definition non-therapeutic because no disease state exists.  From the CDC:  “What controversy that exists pertains to the existence or relevance of potential preventive care benefits.”  
I would like to replace your third paragraph with the following quote:
Routine, non-therapeutic circumcision is not recommended for newborn infants.1 2  The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association classifies neonatal male circumcision as a non-therapeutic procedure.3  The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in a joint publication, Guidelines for Perinatal Care, have reclassified neonatal circumcision as an “elective procedure.”4 5  Medical societies worldwide find that the potential benefits do not exceed the known risks.10 11  They counsel that circumcision should not be routinely performed, meaning that circumcision should not be performed without a specific medical indication.10 11  
The genital integrity movement condemns non-therapeutic infant circumcision as a human rights violation that they consider comparable to female genital cutting,[6] while circumcision advocates stress the medical benefits of the procedure.[7]
Jakew … I have esteemed citations for each of those quotes … will you permit its inclusion?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TipPt (talk • contribs) 
:You're misreading the paragraph. The controversy is not over whether it is therapeutic, but whether it should be performed.
When you read the whole article, the summary "controversy" refers to the potential benefits and risks (the topic), not to recommend (or not) circumcision.  Regardless, where there is a strong consensus on the issue of neonatal circumcision among all the global primary medical associations (and the CDC) it should not be portrayed as a controversy if one lesser body disagrees.  You show bias using that one citation to claim "controversy."
"Controversy" is a dangerous word, because it invites lazy (stick to your prejudices) thinking.TipPt 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy is acknowledged by two major medical associations. To quote the AMA: "Debate on the wisdom of routine circumcision centers on the possible benefits offered by circumcision, and whether they medically justify the risks associated with the procedure." Or the BMA: "Circumcision of male babies and children at the request of their parents is an increasingly controversial area and strongly opposing views about circumcision are found within society and within the BMA’s membership. ... There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself." (Incidentally, please don't insert comments in the middle of comments by others. It makes it difficult to respond tidily.) Jakew 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your proposed paragraph is unacceptable. Firstly, while you've included reference numbers, you haven't indicated to what they refer.
1 Foetus and Newborn Committee. FN 75-01 Circumcision in the Newborn Period. Canadian Paediatric Society News
Bulletin Supplement 1975;8(2):1-2.
2 Committee on Fetus and Newborn: Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants. Sixth
Edition. American Academy of Pediatrics; Evanston, IL, 1977: 66-7.
3 Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American
Medical Association, 1999. Available at URL: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2511.html
4 American Academy of Pediatrics & American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal
Care, Fourth Edition, 1997.
5 American Academy of Pediatrics & American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal
Care, Fifth Edition, 2002.
6 American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement, Pediatrics
1999;103(3):686-93. URL: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686
7 Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision.
Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999. Available at URL: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-
2511.html
8 Commission on Clinical Policies and Research. Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. Leawood, KS. American
Academy of Family Physicians, 2002. URL: http://www.aafp.org/policy/camp/4.html
9 ACOG Committee Opinion Number 260: Circumcision. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2001; 98(4):707-8.
10 Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. (CPS) Can Med Assoc
J 1996; 154(6): 769-780. URL: http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm
11 Beasley S, Darlow B, Craig J, et al. Position statement on circumcision. Sydney: Royal Australasian College of
Physicians, 2002. URL: http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/TipPt 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Next, the first sentence is POV. Since some people do recommend it, it should say not recommended by X (as the current version says). I'll comment further on the other sentences once you've specified what your sources are. Jakew 11:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, your first proposed sentence cites recommendations from the 1970s. It is better to cite modern, verifiable information as the present article does. The second and third are peculiar, as this language is just what these organisations have decided to use. There's no grand declaration, nor any reason to suppose that they intended that language to be a big deal. Why make a fuss about it? The fourth is inaccurate - one Canadian organisation and one Australian is not 'organisations worldwide' - it is two medical organisations. Finally, the fifth imposes an interpretation ("meaning that...") that is not stated by these organisations. In fact it is contradicted by the only organisation to explain what is meant by 'routine circumcision' - the AAP - who stated that it meant that they did not recommend the circumcision of all newborn boys, but instead that parents should make an informed decision. Jakew 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't. The controversy is acknowledged by at least two policy statements, so there is no reason to doubt its existence. Nor did these statements 'settle' the controversy; they simply stated a position which was doubtless a compromise between their members (or, more precisely, the committee writing the statement). Jakew 11:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sure that's your opinion, but it's better to simply cite what they say, rather than interpret it. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We cite the assessment of the American Medical Association. If you can find an equally reliable source which states that a larger number of organisations agree, please present it. Jakew 11:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical association controversy? 

message: Can you make the natural penis pictures the same brightness as the circumcised penis pictures?  You can barely see the uncircumcised penis, and it unfairly looks bad so dark.
Jakew...
Can I make the pictures equal in brightness?TipPt 16:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need my permission. Jakew 20:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture is too dark 

message: I found the following: "Circumcision has been shown to increase the difficulty of penetration,15 16 to cause erectile dysfunction,16 17 and to cause symptoms of sexual arousal disorder in the spouse.18 The overall effect on marital happiness and the frequency of divorce has not been studied."
Jakew ... do you object to the inclusion of those sentences?
15 Taves D. The intromission function of the foreskin. Med Hypotheses 2002;59(2):180.
16 Shen Z, Chen S, Zhu C, et al. [Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue
2004;10(1):18-9.
17 Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF. Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile
Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and Satisfaction. J Urol 2002;167(5):2113-6.
18 Bensley GA, Boyle GJ. Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm. N Z Med J
2003;116(1181):595-6.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by TipPt (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, I do object. As you'll see in sexual effects of circumcision, the evidence is contradictory. Any discussion would have to include all evidence, not just that which supports an argument against circumcision. Since the main article is already written, it's best just to give an overview, rather than going over the details. Jakew 11:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a detailed article that goes over the relevant studies and discusses findings, whether or not they are contradicted by other studies. It is utterly pointless to repeat that here. Since we have pointed users to the in-depth article, we need only discuss straightforward facts in this one. Jakew 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As JakeW points out, there already is an article with the medical details in it.  This is an overview article, not the detailed article. Overviews don't replicate details. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual effects 

message: This is a controversial topic, and the content is slanted and disputed.  The writing is poor.  There should be a warning on the first page.TipPt 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If there's isn't already a POV warning on the article, I'll add one now. Alienus 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please specify what exactly in the article is not written from a neutral point of view?  That will help us determine when it is appropriate to remove the tag.  Thanks!  Nandesuka 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep inserting large amounts of personal opinion into the Talk: page, rather than referencing reliable sources.  Please use the Talk: pages for their intended purpose. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial topic warning... 

message: I need some insulation from Jakew.  I will rewrite these articles properly, but the best solution would entail deleting most of the current content.  It will take considerable effort.
If my proposed rewrite is accepted as neutral and accurate by some governing body within Wikipedia ... can it's essential focus and scope be protected from Jakew?
How would you like me to correct my above (see the Controvercial topic warning reply to editors) proposed "fix" toward neutrality?TipPt 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will do my best to help, but Jakew has a small but determined cabal (with Jayjg and Nandesuka) that reverts changes to these articles.  Then again, between the two of us and this Glass person who's been making constructive changes, perhaps there is sufficient force of numbers to defend the article from the cabal. Alienus 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The articles are exquisitely neutral, and extremely well sourced.  You have yet to be able to articulate exactly what is "non-neutral" about the article, aside from the fact that it doesn't conform to your personal point of view. And Alienus won't be able to help you if he gets himself sanctioned or banned for his continual violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly (I'm being nice) didn't read my reply to Nandesuka's question in Controversial topic warning above.  Again, the topic should reflect the current practice.TipPt 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it.  You want to call circumcision "mutilation".  You think the picture is too dark. Etc.  Please re-read WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't really have made an "empty" threat when I haven't made any threats at all, and so I can't have violated the civility policy.  You, on the other hand, have made continual empty threats, interspersed with civility violations - continually placing those who disagree with your POV and policy violations in an imaginary "cabal" would be one small example.  As for TipPt's sources, the problem is they tend to be poor at best, and generally don't back up his claims.  So, yes, we're 100% on this, just not the 100% you imagine. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's perplexing that you state that it's 'clear' that Tip has reliable sources, since he has so far presented very few. It may well be that he will present some in future, but one can hardly call that 'clear'. Jakew 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should spend a great deal of time reading our policies before making suggestions about banning. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been quite impressed with the wiki process, and assume that clear cases of vandalism are treated harshly.TipPt 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not clear to me what vandalism has been done here, I don't know which edit you are referring to.  In general, vandalism is simply reverted.  If it continues, then the vandal is warned.  If it is persistent, then the vandal is blocked, usually for a brief period, then for increasing periods.  When was this link "messed up"? Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, perhaps, but since it's clear you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia's content policies, it is inevitable that your "great article" will not be appropriate for this site. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Inevitable" is a bit strong.  I'm interested to see what he comes up with, though. Nandesuka 05:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on prior experience, it would be better to work on incremental changes. Jakew 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You know, I happen to agree with some of your substantive points, but your methods of pushing it are anything but appropriate here.  Like it or not, Jake and Jayjg are here and here to stay.  You can either compromise like an adult, work with them, and produce something that might not be perfectly what you wish to see, but will at least be an accomplishment - or you can continue to insist on having it all your way, and be stonewalled out.  It's your choice.  This is a site that rewards consensus and punishes unilateralism, and you're putting yourself in a position where you're going to learn that the hard way.  Learn to separate the person from the position.  You may disagree with Jakew but he is not an evil person and he's not your enemy.  -Kasreyn 07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My "method of pushing" my view was to try to work with these people here in the Talk page to find an acceptable way to mention CA-MRSA.  See the history for why this didn't, doesn't and won't work.  The truth is that Wikipedia punished unilateralism but rewards cabals, which is why Jayjg, Jakew and Nandesuka have formed one.   Therefore, the only consensus we'll ever get that allows such things as the CA-MRSA is one that is viciously opposed by the existing cartel that owns this article, yet overcomes it. Call it cynicism, call it realpolitik; either way, it's the simple truth. This article will not get one bit better until the current cartel is overthrown by another one. Alienus 07:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an anti-circ POV cabal would be any better for Wikipedia or for its readers.  You make a lot of claims about conspiracies, but those are extraordinary claims that require proof that you're not supplying.  If you're wondering why you're getting blasted for violations of WP:CIVIL, that's why.  Calling people conspirators is uncivil, no matter how right you think you are.  I'll agree with you that Jakew has a definite POV and guards the article zealously, but he's also one of the most well-informed people who's ever contributed to this page.  He's contributed a great deal here, and if some bias has come with it, then (IMO) that's just life - apparently no one on the anti- side has cared as much as Jake has, to educate themselves and contribute.  Democracy, which includes Wikipedia, is a system that favors those who get involved.  Jake has invested a great deal of his time here, so as a result the article has a lot of his stuff in it.  That bothers you, I know.  It bothers me too, at least a bit - but since I haven't taken the time to educate myself and become equally involved, it obviously must not bother me that much...  -Kasreyn 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I'm making a rather ordinary claim, well supported by the evidence, but you wouldn't know because you haven't actually looked into this and likely never will.  That's the problem with getting sucked into someone else's problem; you enter unprepared and can easily be used as a tool.  Right now, Jakew has taken your text out of context and used it in an Rfc whose goal is to silence me.  It's not bad enough that he has bias of his own, but he wants to make sure that anyone who doesn't share his bias doesn't get to contribute.  Oh, and you're helping him. Congrats. Alienus 05:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Kasreyn ... I am eager to work efficiently with all editors.  Let me give you an example of gross wasting or time and worse.  I change "young" to read "new" mothers [] and it's changed back to "young" ... but the cite reads "new" mothers.http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html
Again, I will devote considerable effort, but can't waste that kind of time. 
===Some thoughts on policy===
I first edited this page back in October 2004. I had a POV then, and I still have one now. So too does each and every contributor. It may be strongly held, or less strongly, but you have one. Anyone who tried to convince himself or herself otherwise, or that their POV is the neutral POV, only deceives themselves.
We may be certain of your viewpoint. We may be passionate about it. We may be able to make a very good case that it is unassailable truth (alternatively, we may be able to make what you think is a very good case - which is somewhat different). None of this makes our viewpoint neutral. Nor does the quality of our 'case' justify ignoring NOR.
Policies are there for a reason. This is a controversial subject, and that makes it all the more important to adhere to these policies. An encyclopaedia does not endorse a point of view. It does not present new lines of reasoning. It reports on current knowledge, accessible in reliable sources.
I don't pretend to be perfect, but I make an effort to separate my POV from what is suitable for inclusion, and include only that which is based upon factual, verifiable evidence.
It's not easy to write from a truly neutral viewpoint, and that's perhaps why this article is somewhat cold and clinical. "So-and-so suggested", "Blahblah found", "the XYZ organisation states" - all these statements are verifiable. They are neutral (assuming that XYZ did indeed state that), and they are reliable sources. There is no original research, no novel narratives or interpretations, and no surprising conclusions.
The article may not be perfect, but it would be hard to find a part that is unverifiable or non-neutral. Even if you may disagree with a source cited, I doubt that you could argue that the source is misrepresented. Can anyone proposing a change say the same? Please, think about this. Jakew 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this would come across as genuine if I didn't know better. Frankly, your actiosn speak much more loudly than your words, and they say something different. (Quick, quote this in your bizarre Rfc attack on me.  Make sure to omit all context!) Alienus 05:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help. 

message: I first edited this page back in October 2004. I had a POV then, and I still have one now. So too does each and every contributor. It may be strongly held, or less strongly, but you have one. Anyone who tried to convince himself or herself otherwise, or that their POV is the neutral POV, only deceives themselves.
We may be certain of your viewpoint. We may be passionate about it. We may be able to make a very good case that it is unassailable truth (alternatively, we may be able to make what you think is a very good case - which is somewhat different). None of this makes our viewpoint neutral. Nor does the quality of our 'case' justify ignoring NOR.
Policies are there for a reason. This is a controversial subject, and that makes it all the more important to adhere to these policies. An encyclopaedia does not endorse a point of view. It does not present new lines of reasoning. It reports on current knowledge, accessible in reliable sources.
I don't pretend to be perfect, but I make an effort to separate my POV from what is suitable for inclusion, and include only that which is based upon factual, verifiable evidence.
It's not easy to write from a truly neutral viewpoint, and that's perhaps why this article is somewhat cold and clinical. "So-and-so suggested", "Blahblah found", "the XYZ organisation states" - all these statements are verifiable. They are neutral (assuming that XYZ did indeed state that), and they are reliable sources. There is no original research, no novel narratives or interpretations, and no surprising conclusions.
The article may not be perfect, but it would be hard to find a part that is unverifiable or non-neutral. Even if you may disagree with a source cited, I doubt that you could argue that the source is misrepresented. Can anyone proposing a change say the same? Please, think about this. Jakew 12:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would come across as genuine if I didn't know better. Frankly, your actiosn speak much more loudly than your words, and they say something different. (Quick, quote this in your bizarre Rfc attack on me.  Make sure to omit all context!) Alienus 05:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts on policy

message: Probably twice now.  There's no way to stop these kinds of actions?TipPt 23:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out WP:Vandalism.  Add an appropriate warning template to the vandal's talk page.  Once they get enough warnings for vandalism, an admin will consider blocking them.  That's how.  -Kasreyn 09:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read that, thanks, but I don't have the time.  I write well, and welcome a good editor managing over.  I will never be an editor.TipPt 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone has Vandalized the pictures again 

message: I've been watching this page as part of a health class-related project I'm doing.  I have not seen any Soouth Africa circumcision rates, but I know the practise there is nowhere near universal.  Shouldn't Souh Africa be removed if no official source gives its rate as 50%+?  Also, on that note: I know there are rates somewhere near the mid-50% range?  Why aren't those being used?  They are more recent, I believe.  Shalom. --Trafton 07:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figures given in the article for US rates are the most recently published. Some anti-circumcision activists claim to have more recent data, but they are not reliable sources. Jakew 09:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which anti-circ activists are these, Jake, and why aren't they reliable?  Please tell me you don't think they're unreliable because they're anti-circ, why that would just be...  umm...  circ-ular.  (ouch.  yes, I know, I deserve to die horribly for that pun)  But seriously, I'm merely curious as to how vast your information network really is.  ;)  -Kasreyn 11:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had in mind a press release from MGMBill.org and the CIRP website, Kasreyn. I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that press releases are not always totally factual, so let's focus on CIRP. As the personal site of two anti-circ extremists, CIRP does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Furthermore, they have previously ignored requests to change false statements on their site, the stats they present are unverifiable (they do not specify their criteria, and when I tried, I got different results), and they airily claim that the NCHS data disagrees with theirs due to a technicality that - again - cannot be verified. Jakew 15:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you are so vigilant in regards to accurate sources, Jake - kudos on that.  Now that we've settled that, could you please provide the accurate source for the South Africa claims?  I can understand assumed indicators (Israel, Muslim countries, etc.), but in South Africa - where rates are nowhere near 100% - information needs to be sourced or there should be an "unknown" status.  Don't you agree? --Trafton 07:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa rates and updated U.S. rates 

message: Just to keep ya'll up ... hopefully more editors when I actually have a product ... here's TipPt and Jakew's last conversation:TipPt 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just explain a) what changes ought to be made, and b) what sources support what you think the article should say. Jakew 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will now, just please be fair.TipPt 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Benefit they might, but our policy is clear: no original research. Jakew 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll need other editors to chime in on that one ... it's an intuitive workable mathematical formula that edifies.  We assume the reader understands basic math.TipPt 22:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. People? Your thoughts, please? Jakew 13:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: America has a lot of very smart people. Let's just stick to the facts and trust them to form their own conclusions. Jakew 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, if and when you can cite evidence that the frenulum is erogenous, then you cite that evidence. If you can find evidence that the frenulum is removed in a certain percentage of circumcisions then cite that, too. Neither is an excuse to start including POV language. Jakew 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please study the definition of mutilation.  If the frenular zone is erogenous and the parents are not informed that it might be damaged (and that this result may be difficult to avoid) ... if it is damaged (not missing), that is certainly mutilation.  It is relevant to many subs of the topic.TipPt 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I have examined two definitions of mutilation, and it is not clear that circumcision is mutilation. If you can show that it definitely is, I'd be interested, though if you care to study no original research, you'll see that such a 'proof' still does not belong in the article. Jakew 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, which is why you need to find a source that mentions this, so that they have no excuse to revert you.  We know they'll use any excuse available, so don't give them one. Alienus 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: TipPt, have you read the WP:NOR and WP:RS policies yet?  They're rather crucial.  In a nutshell, you can't draw your own conclusions, but must find reliable sources which draw those conclusions.  A "teen survey" would hardly be reliable, particularly when compared to the many medical studies cited in this article, would it? Jayjg (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so. Jakew 20:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The teen survey would not belong in the adult sub article.TipPt 22:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What survey in particular do you refer to, Tip? If we knew what it was, it would be easier to evaluate whether it meets the criteria of WP:RS, and as such, whether it would belong in any article. Jakew 13:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to see this survey.  In addition, I don't understand what you mean by an "adult sub article"; this article deals mostly with infant circumcision.  Is there enough material about adult circumcision to put it in a "sub-article"? In what way is the surgery radically different when performed on adults? Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that your advice in this case is worth only $0.02. Nandesuka 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should restrict your comments to things you are familiar with. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable resolution with Jakew 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in User:Jakew/Alienus_RFC.  If you have an opinion, I encourage you to participate. Alienus 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc against me. 

message: The Mastood (2005) study is correctly cited in the text, but wrongly in the table.
In the Summary of Research Findings table, this study is listed three times stating that the "Finding" was "no difference," or "favors circumcision."  In fact the "finding" in all three should be the study conclusion "CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."
Basically, the 61% "overall satisfaction" was considered low, given the disease state prior to circumcision.
Nowhere in the study do the authors state "no difference," or "favors circumcision."  At best, someone is trying to interpret results. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_effects_of_circumcision&action=edit§ion=5
:If you would like to discuss that article, the correct place to do so is Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision. Not here. Jakew 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I WAS HOPING TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF EDITORS INVOLVED IN MEDIATION.  See what kind of junk goes on here....TipPt 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already addressed this issue above.  What's more important than the percentage number is the simple and scientifically undisputable fact that asking someone whether they are satisfied with one of two states of being where they have no memories of the opposite state of being, is a completely worthless question.  It is a "study" only in the sense that it reveals the universality of the self-serving bias.  It has nothing to do with real science, since any real scientist could instantly see the underlying logical fallacy of using loaded questions.  The "study" does not deserve to even be a part of this article, much less this talk page.  -Kasreyn 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets just try to fix ONE misleading misquote.... 

message: There seems to be a "pro" article.  I see no information sited from books such as: Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a Meidcal and Cultural Tradition by Billy Ray Boyd
OR What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision: Untold Facts on America's Most Widely Performed'and Most Unneccessary-Surgery by Paul M. Fleiss, M.D.
You have to think of it this way: Would you want a girl to be circumcised because it prevents cervical cancer, Urinary Trac infection, etc?  The view point from N. America is that "no", then it should be the same as boys.  This article sites little risks for uncircumcised boys (2% UTI).  
Let's put it this way: if it was given to you by your creator and if the hospitals are not doing it to baby girls, then why on earth would parents want to do it to little baby boys?  (I am speaking to the fact that it is a non-religious thing like in USA).  None, of these points are mentioned in the article, after reading the article it seems like it is a "pro" circumcision article.
Conclusion: Doctors want to get money for infant circumcision (most insurances do not pay for it anyway which should be a wide wake up call to parents).  I would recommend the two books above to parents.
:You seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. An NPOV encyclopaedia should not 'make points'. It should present factual, verifiable information.
:I've removed your addition, since you used the wrong section (external links contains links). If you care to look, you'll see that Boyd is already listed in the 'further reading' section. Jakew 12:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Help us find specific cases of bias (other than the general use of misleading words and misleading qualifying phrases).  You will never change Jakew.  His control over this topic needs to be restricted.TipPt 05:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baised article? 

message: Jakew lables "penile sensation" results from studies that only tested the glans.TipPt 04:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another general problem with the table 

message: I'm concerned about the reference link to thelancet.com.  When arriving at the site, it requires a free registration before you can log in and see the article.  I personally have no wish to have to spend time creating a proliferation of new accounts merely to check up on an article's sources, and I don't doubt many other Wikipedia users feel the same.  I'm of the opinion that sites that require a user login (or worse yet, a paid account), should not be considered or used as sources on Wikipedia as they put a burden on the reader and raise an unneccessary bar to checking our sources.  
I've raised this question as a matter of policy on the talk page for WP:RS.  My question may be found here.  I will report back here on this article if an admin replies to me or any sort of consensus is reached.  Kasreyn 20:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lancet certainly meets the criteria of WP:RS. However, I agree that the link presents a problem. I'd suggest linking to the PubMed abstract instead, which contains the full print citation, but also includes a link to the publisher's website. Any thoughts? Jakew 17:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIV section ref link to thelancet.com:  remove? 

message: A number of changes have been recently made that seem questionable at best. In my view, these should be reverted.
*Removal of the images.
:I actually like the difference in brightness.  It helps the reader see the topic bias.TipPt 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was from the cite, based on benefits relative to other surgical procedures of similar risk.TipPt 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you say 'according to X...' Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good lord ... we'll be saying 'according to' very frequently!  Should I start removing "improper" sentences from the existing article ... there won't be much left. Seems like when a citation follows a sentence, it pertains to the sentence contents.172.195.43.176 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends upon whether something is an opinion, an disputed fact, or an undisputed fact. In the case of the first, Wikipedia does not hold opinions (NOR/NPOV), so we must specify who has the opinion. In the case of the second, we do not take sides (NPOV), so we must specify who found what. In the case of the last, there is no problem. Jakew 18:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was in the cite.TipPt 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you say 'according to X...' Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I just find it easier to paste and didn't check the spelling.  Sorry.TipPt 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't paste, then. Edit. Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was in the Hass citation.TipPt 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not their opinion, but they don't provide the supporting citation.  It is a widely used university textbook.TipPt 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is an unverifiable assertion. Is it widely used in the field of epidemiology? Jakew 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The Hass cite states that there was no difference in disease incidence between men in the two countries ... one almost exclusively circ'd, and the other intact.  This citation corroborates the lack of net benefit (in the cost/benefit with respect to longevity).TipPt 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your interpretation. Comparing aggregate statistics for varying nations is known in epidemiology as an ecological study. It is considered a weak methodology. Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not including my interpretation in the topic.  Epidemiology studies are OK if the samples are large.TipPt 21:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sample size is not the only concern. Study methodology is equally, if not more important. Jakew 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was based two studies cited in the study THAT I provided the citation for...I will provide the specific citations required.  The estimate (2%) seems conservative when you consider meatal stenosis occuring almost exclusively in circ'd boys at roughly a 5% rate, generally requiring a meatodomy (which does more damage to the frenulum).  We should also consider redo's a complication.TipPt 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Singh-Grewal et al had no knowledge of your contributions to Wikipedia when they wrote their study, and therefore could not base their chosen figures on any studies that you cite.
Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood ... Singh-Grewal have two citations in their analysis to support their 2% as being conservative within the 2%- 10% range.  I will provide those two citations directly in the text (instead of just citing Singh).  I have also given you four cites showing very high rates of meatal stenosis and redo complications TipPt 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless someone wants to make sure the reader is biased.TipPt 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new paragraph is generally used in English to introduce a different subject. The subject, however, is the same: Singh-Grewal's comparison. Jakew 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All of these changes sound good. The pictures need to go back in; without them it is uncertain that the reader will know what is being discussed. There is no reason not to use the pictures of real penises either: if readers have a problem with seeing penises, they probably wouldn't be reading an article about their mutilation. Christopher 03:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them sound good? Perhaps you could explain why, for example, attributing criticism to the AAP that they did not make "sounds good"? Jakew 16:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I was unclear with my wording. By changes, I meant your proposed changes. Christopher 02:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am taking action to restore the pictures now.  An anon (IP) user removed them without attempting to garner consensus.  IMO that's next door to vandalism no matter how good the reasons one suggests.  -Kasreyn 23:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Jake, I've made some changes.  I've restored the images, since they were removed without gaining consensus by an anon user.  I've reverted what appeared to be a pro-Islam POV push.  And I've removed a dead link.  Hope this helps.  Kasreyn 23:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: Female circumcision is only practiced in few countries around Horn of Africa i.e. Somalia, Ethiopia, etc. It is unknown in the other parts of Islamic world. 
Siddiqui 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on female circumcision would seem to disagree with your assertion.  I think I prefer to believe it over you.  -Kasreyn 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Circumcision 

message: Dear 81.159.10.202, or 81.159.14.95, or whoever you are today (hint: get a user id):  Please stop removing content from this page without even attempting to gain consensus from the other users.  Your removal of the images because you believe there is an "inherent bias" (specifically, you feel one of the pictures is apparently prettier than the other and that this was the result of a deliberate conspiracy) borders on vandalism.
Please refer to WP:Point and WP:OWN; it is not appropriate to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, nor is it appropriate to treat an article as your personal property.  If you continue to remove the images on this page without attempting to gain consensus from the other editors, I will have no other option than to report you for vandalism.
I have in the past and will continue to revert any edit which blanks content which is not obvious vandalism without attempting to gain consensus.  Wikipedia is a group effort.  Please take part in the discussion with us.  I've tried being polite, and it doesn't seem to have worked.  I'm also asking the other editors of this article, at least two of whom appear to agree with me that the images should remain, to assist me if this user tries to make a revert war out of this.
As for your substantive "point":  ridiculous.  Most reasonable editors and readers would not find the images to be substantially unbalanced or unfair.  Any two pictures of two different men's penises will naturally have different lighting and focus qualities.  To obstruct Wikipedia over such a trivial issue is a violation of WP:Point.
Please reply in this section with your arguments in favor of removing the images.  I will continue to revert (up to the 3rr limit) any removals of the images which are not at least accompanied by a justifying argument.  Thanks, Kasreyn 01:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see that you did so while I was writing this, using IP 81.159.12.112.  Reverted, of course.  Please reply here, not with the edit summary.  Use of the edit summary to carry out an argument is inappropriate.  Kasreyn 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Note to other editors who may be concerned with this issue, I have reached the 3rr limit.  One further revert from 81.159.12.112 will place him at the 3rr limit.  It IS the same person, after all, and he has not denied it.  Other editors interested in maintaining the images will therefore realize that if 81.159.12.112 reverts my most recent edit, they could then revert him and a further revert would be a violation of WP:3RR.  Failing that, I will have to resort to administrator arbitration or the warning/block steps for vandalism.  I don't exactly know what else to do.  Kasreyn 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have semi-protected the article from editing by anons for a bit. Nandesuka 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: "inherent bias" in images 

message: You've made your contempt for engaging in any sort of discussion with other editors quite clear.  I won't waste my breath on trying to get you to be part of this project any more.  Shame.  Kasreyn 02:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have semi-protected the article from editing by anons for a bit. Nandesuka 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very well then.

message: Ok, the lists of countries with high/low circumcision rates have changed dramatically. One problem: not a source in sight, so it's impossible to verify that the new lists are accurate. Can it be rectified? Jakew 10:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No cite, get rid of it.TipPt 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Long lists of countries

message: Check out these articles:
[]
"Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised. This disorder is characterized by an upward deflected, difficult-to-aim urinary stream and, occasionally, dysuria and urgent, frequent, and prolonged urination. Surgical meatotomy is curative."
:(Can we use an emedicine citation?)
[]
[]
Here's a recent study we can cite: []
"All of the boys with meatal stenosis were circumcised neonatally (exact OR=3.54, 95%CI=0.62-infinity). The ratio of circumcised boys to noncircumcised boys in this study provided 80% power to demonstrate a 21.4% difference in the incidence of meatal stenosis between circumcised and noncircumcised Tanner I boys 3 years and older. Meatal stenosis may be the most common complication following neonatal circumcision."TipPt 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatal Stenosis 

message: Is preputial plasty addressed in the topic?  It is pertinent because you don't (per cites) have to be circ'd to gain several of the potential benifits of a circ.  Here's a way to retain erogenous tissue!TipPt 23:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's included in the phimosis topic, as another form of treatment. Jakew 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  But it prevents phimosis and paraphimosis, cancer, and complications (and should be in those main article sections).  It may belong in the UTI, the sexual effects, procedures, and history sections.TipPt 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps you'd like to document the evidence of all these benefits in a new article and/or include mention of these effects in the relevant articles on those conditions? Jakew 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, in the relevant article's talk page. If you want to include it in urinary tract infection, you need to discuss it in Talk:Urinary tract infection. Editors interested in that page can then comment, but they can have no way of knowing that you previously mentioned it here or, for that matter, at Talk:Jet engine, so they're denied the opportunity to discuss it. Jakew 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one insisting on including all potenital medical benefits in the main section.  The reader should know (at the same time) that those benefits do not require a circ.TipPt 20:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preputial plasty 

message: "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks - read more here. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents." ... "It is clear from the list of factors that are relevant to a child’s best interests, however, that parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
[]TipPt 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something from the British Medical Association 

message: Images should be retained
#Jakew 09:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images: views please 

message: I intend to quote from two books held at the UCLA central library.  One is the human sexuality encyclopedia reference book, and the other the UC system human sexuality course textbook.  
Any problems with that?TipPt 03:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you intend to cite them in the context of sexuality? Jakew 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and on the Topic page.TipPt 16:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I don't foresee a problem. Jakew 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jakew saying I can't cite a UC sexuality textbook? 

message: I would like to explain my study result reservations more clearly. The results are frequently "not statistically significant," but Jakew insists on saying "no difference."
At a min., you need to say "not statistically significant" when you say "no difference." Right now, the table [] contains violations of a neutrality.
The specific point I wanted to make is ... when you have SMALL SAMPLES (especially with poor participation rates) and LOW VARIABILITY within those samples you very frequently get insignificant results. For example, a study where guys generally say "I'm went from a 1 to a 2", or "5 to 3" or "7 to 6," will provide weak correlations relative to studies where guys range "1 to 4," and "2 to 9," and "3 to 7," and "7 to 1."
There simply isn't enough information in several of those Tabled small study samples to say anything, including "no difference." The proper thing to say is simply "insignificant results," or "not statistically significant." Most readers don't understand the limitations of regression analysis, and saying "no difference" without lengthly qualification is introduces bias.TipPt 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics misrepresented in the Topic.... 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html.  Just wanted to point that out to the regular editors of this article.  Postdlf 23:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times article on potential of circumcision to address AIDS 

message: -	I notice that this picture has been removed under the pretext that it is "propaganda". I suspect that this is a pretext for removing a picture that the editor, for ideological reasons, finds not to his liking. If there is a rational objection to the picture, present it. Otherwise, the picture should be restored to the article. Michael Glass 23:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of image of Turkish child being circumcised

message: Well I think  the article shouldn't use the "uncircumcised" word because well there are no "unamputated" or "unmutilated" words in the mutilation and amputation articles, are there? I think this whole article is biased towards circumcised people.
By the way, when I was a kid (11, 12 years) I began watching pr0n movies and that kind of stuff, and all of the male actors were circumcised (now I know this is normal because those pr0n movies were mostly made in U.S. and other countries where pretty much everyone is jewish) and since I had a foreskin I tought I was anormal or something, but now I know THEY were the anormal ones, the mutilated ones. I think there should be an article about "un"circumcision in pr0nography as well.
Cuzandor 01:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, which points out that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  If "unamputated" was the commonly accepted English word to describe a person with two hands and two feet, then Wikipedia would use it.  While I understand that your particular political, moral, or ethical beliefs make you believe that circumcision is wrong and that the word "uncircumcised" is therefore politically charged, your linguistic position does not agree with the common English usage.  Kind regards, Nandesuka 02:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But Wikipedia must be neutral point of view, not biased toward cultural aspects of anglophones, unless that "neutral point of view" policy is merely BS designed to sound pretty, cool, "scientific". Also I know several guys who had doctors to circumcise them because they watched pr0n movies and tought they were anormal and because in the school a guy once came to show pictures of DSTs and then there was a picture of a "un"circumcised d*ck and one of a circumcised one and he said "Look in this one the foreskin covers the glans and this is WRONG, the glans must be uncovered like this (points to the other picture)" and then they thought they had phimosis. The article should also point that at least 1% people who get circumcised at like 12 or 13 only do so because they were somehow tricked into doing that. Cuzandor 02:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hear you stating your belief that use of the word "uncircumcised" somehow implies that "circumcised" is the normal, healthy state and that "uncircumcised" is abnormal or wrong.  I disagree.  I am a non-smoker.  That doesn't imply that smoking is normal, or indicate cultural bias in favor of smoking.  This issue has been discussed in detail here: Talk:Circumcision/Archive_7#Uncircumcised_vs._Intact.  You might want to read through that.  It's interesting reading.  Regards, Nandesuka 02:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course, according to WP:UE (use english), we are biased towards anglophones.  That is to say, we use English as it is used by native speakers in the English-speaking world.  This only affects our naming conventions, not our presentation of facts, so it's not really incompatible with our NPOV policy, but it does dictate our choice here. -lethe talk [ +] 17:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Un"circumcised 

message: Who added it anyway?  Is the particular issue for which it was added resolved?  I don't see anything here on the talk page indicating what was in dispute.  If no one can provide an explanation for its presence, I'm going to remove the NPOV tag.  Kasreyn 22:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Nigelj 22:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Replace with Controversial tag --BerserkerBen 16:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Can someone archive this discussion page now? --BerserkerBen 12:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the love of god!