Talk:Circumcision/Archive 25

message: I think it's significant to draw other editors' attention to AIDSMAP's report of the preliminary report of AIDS transmission in HIV positive men who resumed sexual relations before the circumcision wound had fully healed. If you read it you will see that there is a lot more detail of what happened and why the information was released at such a preliminary stage. <http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3CBF12A3-A1AC-4A0E-A79C-54FC6EF93E28.asp> At this moment the text of the article described this report as 'a news report'. I think it would be more accurate for the text to read as follows:
:A preliminary report suggested that newly circumcised HIV positive men may be more likely to spread HIV to their female partners if they have sexual intercourse before the wound is fully healed. Researchers described the data as 'inconclusive' and stated that it 'may be due to chance,'<http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/3CBF12A3-A1AC-4A0E-A79C-54FC6EF93E28.asp> but said it was important to put it on the public record at this time because policies on circumcision are currently being drafted.
I think it is better to use the link to the AIDSMAP report because it is fuller and more detailed than the others and also clearer and easier to understand. There is also a report in the New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/health/13prev.html> but it reads the same as the others, as far as I can see. Michael Glass 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AIDSMAP report

message: Delete the link to the video at the bottom at the site. I tried but it came back. That was torture. A little baby! MEAN... He was shouting as hell. Wikipedia can't link to a video like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jannizz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ConsumptionJunction.com - "a sicksitenetwork.com site". "You are one of 12,967 Sick Fucks". Hardly seems encyclopaedic material. Jakew 16:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a circumcision video from intact.ca, a more tasteful source than the previous porn ad laden site. I also added a warning as to its graphic content. Neitherday 19:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DELETE VIDEO! 

message: The present passage quotes the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians and then quotes Boyle et al who give a contrary opinion. While this might seem superficially fair, Boyle et al hardly carry as much weight as two medical academies, one of which announced its findings five years after Boyle published his paper. On a quick reading, the Boyle paper is partly concerned with the effect of circumcision without pain relief, and the possible damage this causes to the infant whereas the Academies, as quoted, were concentrating on penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction. So Boyle was at least partly at cross purposes with the two academies. 
A better approach would be to keep the quotations from the academies, but to balance them with a very brief summary of findings from a range of sensitivity studies. I will try to prepare a draft a little later. Michael Glass 14:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, Boyle's paper is entitled "Male circumcision: pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae" (emph added). The quotations are mostly from the section entitled "Circumcision and sexuality", to which 4 of Boyle's 15 pages are dedicated. Jakew 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested revision - discussion

message: I'm interested to learn more about this, but nowhere can I find a truly in-depth reference.  Specifically, I'm interested to learn whether, in the study, anyone bothered to cross-check intercourse frequency before and after circumcision.  This is the angle which is never mentioned at all in the widespread newspaper accounts of the studies, which puzzles me, since it's the exact sort of thing a layman would ask first.  I would certainly look askance on any study that didn't take compare pre- and post-circumcision intercourse rates and compare this to HIV infection rates.  Of particular importance is the duration of these tests; ie., for how long after circumcision were these men studied?  Jake, if you know anything or have any links, this would be a great way to improve the article.  Kasreyn 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll see what I can find over the next few days. I'll probably add it to medical analysis, though, since it is too detailed for the main article. Jakew 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid you're mistaken. From Auvert et al.: "When reducing the M1–M3 period by 42 d in the intervention group, the RR was RR = 0.43 (0.26–0.73), p = 0.0016, a value close to the RR obtained in the intention-to-treat analysis. This indicates that the 6-wk period of abstinence plays a minor role in explaining the effect of the intervention during the period M1–M21." (emph added) Jakew 10:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe I am mistaken.  In fact, I believe you make my point for me.  If the "6-wk period of abstinence" plays any role in explaining the effect, then surely all abstinence plays a role.  Were all subjects forced to have intercourse after exactly six weeks?  Was the frequency of sexual activity and number of partners the same in the mutilated and unmutilated groups after the so-called "6-wk period of abstinence?"  Were the female partners in the same social groups before and after the mutilation?  Was the 6-wk period of abstinence forced and strictly monitored?  (Obviously not, judging by the reports of women being infected by HIV by men who did not abstain from sex after having their foreskins and frenulums amputated (http://www.dallasvoice.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/4898).)  Is it possible the "period of abstinence" went much longer, owing to pain, embarrassment, lack of interest, and feeling different from the other men in the culture?  Given that there has been a worldwide movement to cut up penises for hundreds and thousands of years, almost always based on either superstition or morality (e.g. as an anti-masturbation measure), don't you think we should really ask the hard questions this time before being fooled again? Blackworm 04:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of this original research. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: sadly, since those article are new, we have to wait a lot before a review article is published, finally showing that these 3 studies are methodologically flawed. --BMF81 09:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the recent World Health Organization study citations

message: Originally, I thought that linking to PDF versions, where available, was preferable, as it more accurately reflects the printed text. Now I am thinking that as these are convenience links, and not the sources themselves, perhaps the HTML version is better as it allows more widespread access and easier linkouts. Thoughts? -- Avi 14:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about, for example, pages at the BMJ website, then I would think that either is fine. I would, however, have a slight preference for pdf links, if only because they make it blatantly obvious that this is not Yet Another Website but, in fact, something rather more substantial: a peer-reviewed academic paper. Jakew 15:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that anyone can produce a PDF document... The OpenOffice.org suite, for example,  has this functionality built in. Anyway, I think PDFs are better as they more accurately represent the original text. You can also download and store them easier than an HTML file. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [Getting a little off-topic] True, but the quality of such pdfs tends to be fairly poor in comparison to those from journals. The latter have been typeset by professionals using high-end DTP software, and this is usually apparent. Jakew 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about that... I'd hate to sound like an advocate but OpenOffice.org can do all those things without being a high end DTP product. .V. [Talk|Email] 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDF vs. HTML 

message: Please follow the references. Everything I brought in the text is either a direct quote or a direct paraphrase of the sources listed. There is no original synthesis on my part. -- Avi 23:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits