Talk:Foreskin restoration/Archive 1

message: Last I checked, CIRP did not say they were anticircumcision anywhere on their site.  Indeed those loaded words are often an attempt to confuse this with adult circumcision.  We do not say breast reconstruction is "antimastectomy", so please leave out pro and anti judgements.  Including CIRP as part of men's health issues is fine, nobody is saying they are right or better than anyone else.  So I see that as NPOV, I hope we can agree that emphasizing circumcision one way or the other is not relevant at all in this article.  DanP 23:54, 27 Sep 
2004 (UTC)
:Well I don't see that CIRP has to actually say they are anticircumcision for it to be' anticircumcision, but I do take your point that it is irrelavant on this article. I'll remove the disclaimer. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 05:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Heh heh heh ... nice logic there, Theresa. Sorry to say it doesn't work though. Once again you POV pushing becomes apparent. Sad, really sad. - Friends of Robert 17:00, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever! I've reverted you addition because I agree with DanP on this issue. It's fine by me to have a  cirp disclaimer on the circumcision article, but it's not relavent here Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 21:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: *Is this the trade off to keep this incarnation of "Dan" happy? Robert once tried to set up a universal CIRP Disclaimer but was rudely slaped down by one of the admirers of the foreskin with sysop powers. Maybe we should try again and attach it to all CIRP cites? You, being ever so NPOV and all would maybe like to try a draft of a suitable warning in this regard? - Friends of Robert 04:08, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether a person is an admirer of foreskin or a mutilator of young boys has little relevance in this article.  If CIRP posted a recipe for oatmeal cookies, you'd slap "anticircumcision" on the page hinting that the cookies were awful.  Bottom line here is that many men who restore their foreskins have chosen circumcision voluntarily or had a genuine medical need to cope with.  Many of them knew their situation before circumcision, and preferred it.  I hope you agree that this article is primarily about after the cut is done for whatever reason.  It should not judge an individual's circumcision one way or the other.  If you want to mention that men engaged in foreskin restoration also tend to oppose circumcision of infants, that is a fair addition.  DanP 17:16, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emphasis 

message: The scientific basis of neurochemistry is no less relevant than a far-fetched glans study which has no mention of restoration.  Pertaining to actual restoration, you can see before and after photos of glans texture.  And this theory than the glans does not keritinize has been debunked time after time, as mucous membranes all respond in a similar manner in the body to severe dryness.  In any case, leave the glans study out, or put it back, I don't care which.  But if you include it, then you have to allow science of neural response to be discussed.  The study, flawed as it is, total neglects nerve impulses and focuses only on certain physical parameters.  DanP 17:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep in appropriate categories 

message: We need to get the overview right. I have made the necessary initial change. The next one should include the psycho sexual motivation behind this bizarre practice. I accept that there will be resistance to any wording along those lines so I will see what suggested wording others may introduce before offering my own version. - Robert the Bruce 02:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Improved sensitivity is only "questionable" or "controversial" to people who promote medically unnecessary circumcision.  The majority of men who have restored their foreskin report improved sensitivity.  In my opinion men who have restored their foreskin have more credibility on the issue of sensitivity than people with a strong pro-circumcision POV. -- DanBlackham 10:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Saying that some men report improved sensitivity after foreskin restoration is accurate.  However, since no studies have demonstrated this, we must be careful not to assert it as fact.  I think that Jakew's suggestion that we describe the improved sensitivity as "controversial" is a particularly good characterization.  Acegikmo1 15:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: the Overview

message: I believe the linked article "How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection" for the keratin research is a cheap promotional for circumcision.  Please consider finding a different article with less pro-mutilation spin.  This article shouldn't get caught up in that debate, or else we really should balance by including links to information about restoration not being needed, had circumcision been avoided in the first place.  We should either present both sides, or leave the topic in its correct article. DanP 23:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutilation is usually tissue removal of some sort.  Other alterations (piercing, tatooing, breast enlargement, etc.) do not often qualify either, but I am neutral on the perspective of mutilation necessarily being so all-encompassing.  No I don't object to Szabo and Short's paper specifically.  Their views should be welcomed.  But the "circumcise to stop AIDS" theme is totally out of place here.  I believe the article is just there as a back-door circumcision promotional.  Do you have objections to placing direct links to research opposing circumcision in the context of this article? DanP 18:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: The so-called neutral science of Szabo and Short clearly promotes circumcision, as research should not treat a body part as completely disposable (imagine an article entitled "mastectomy is good for preventing breast cancer", biased? I think so.).  I'm not suggesting omitting it from Wikipedia.  It's good to have the study referenced.  My point is that it's a cheap shot and a back-door insertion - no different that the obvious fact that circumcision is usually involuntary which you asked me to remove, despite its very clear connection to restoration and the personal choice associated with it.  As far as mutilation, check your dictionary and the world in general.  Cutting is usually mutilation.  Yes, there are lacerations, piercings, etc. in the world.  But body building is not mutilation, is it?  Anyway, I am neutral on that expanded use.  The point is that it's a treatment of personal choice, call it mutilation or not.  DanP 18:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with you wholeheartedly in fields of science.  Unfortunately, that standard is not Wikipedia's, nor is it a principle of an encyclopedia in general, which has all people and backgrounds as an audience.  NPOV does not make distinctions about good or bad science -- only that neither side of any debate should be advocated.  There are many who, whether right or wrong, believe those studies are methodologically flawed.  Expanding fully on that debate would be exhaustive and cripping to an article, but I'm OK with leaving it there as a matter of principle. Simply because circumcision is not the topic of this article does not preclude it from being advocated by various links and subtle techniques, which you have also sensed in the "unlike circumcision" phrase.  I have added a link to Taylor's study, and information on tissue expansion, in the "physical effects" section.  This seems at least as relevant as the glans study, since it studies what men might attempt to regain, and I hope this balances out the off-topic slant in the HIV-circumcision study in a balanced way. DanP 21:59, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcision Promotional 

message: In reference to terms used in the article, I believe we should fix some terms which are inconsistently applied.  I hope we can come to agreement here, since Robert's changes are somewhat confusing.
Circumcised men - Although I think the term is OK in moderation, it sounds like it "defines" the man like it's a race or something.  I believe it would be appropriate here to treat this like other procedures.  For instance, we don't say "tonsillectomized men" -- we just say a man who had a tonsillectomy.
Restorers - Restoration isn't a job, or a hobby, or some kind of profession.  Certainly nobody self-applies that term, that I know of.  The accurate phrase should just be: a man choosing foreskin restoration.  For instance, a person who does their own pedicure is not a pedicurer.  Restorer just doesn't work very well, IMO.  When possible, we should use verbs to say what a person does, not what a person is.
Psychiatric - Robert has stuck this and other negative-POV stuff in here.  If there are mental patients who restore, that is already clearly mentioned, even though the circumcision article does not contain psychiatric analyses.  But the effort to constantly push POV beyond actual demographics should be reverted.
Anti-circumcision - As covered before, not all men who restore are active in genital integrity, nor is genital integrity against all circumcision.  There are a few who restore that are concerned with themselves, figuring it won't be helpful to them personally to involve political baggage, and there many who simply don't care to get involved.  Whether a person is for or against circumcision (adult or infant) should be left out, unless we want to include a paragraph on social and political aspects.  I'd be fine with such a paragraph, although it's not tied strongly to the article.  Few other voluntary body modifications have social and political paragraphs intertwined unless it's essential to understanding the topic.
Alleged,reported,claimed - All perfectly fine in themselves, whether it supports or denies a physical change.  But to string together several qualifiers all in the same sentence only serves to use loaded words to tell the reader "don't make up your own mind".  Please use a neutral qualifier to leave the reader a choice.
DanP 20:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Although the Hammond poll mentions restoration briefly, the material focuses on consequences of circumcision.  Whether or not a man chooses restoration is only one small part of the poll, and the whole BJU article is far more relevant to the circumcision article.  I believe it is better to leave this article for restoration, not the circumcision debate.  DanP 20:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the men restoring have chosen circumcision for one reason or another, and many are not opposed to circumcision automatically.  If you're going to make personal attacks and promote circumcision, take that to the circumcision article.  Try to make your edits here tied to the process of foreskin restoration, instead of highlighting the damages caused by circumcision. DanP 18:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: *The Hammond poll found that foreskin restorers were seriously troubled people with a range of issues. This is significant stuff which try as you may is not going to be swept away under the carpet. People should know and understand these facts about these people as it helps to place their claims into context and gives an indication as to why they behave the way they do. No matter how painful it may be to some it is the truth. Learn to live with it. - Robert the Bruce 01:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The poll and the damages caused by circumcision are relevant to the circumcision article.  Nothing should be swept away, but if you want to include the poll in this article (even though this is on restoration which is a different process), don't just insert your POV and claim it is identical to the poll itself.  Your efforts to continually assign psychiatric diagnoses to restoration are completely without merit.DanP 22:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: *Well it remains speculative whether the prevalence of mental illness and substance abuse among foreskin restorers has as a cause their circumcision. All we can say for sure is what Hammond found and that is indeed scary stuff. That is where the facts stand at the moment and the best advice is to learn to live with that. - Robert the Bruce 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: True.  Either way, it seems bizarre that Robert wants a poll on circumcision inserted here.  Many men choose circumcision on their own or have a medical diagnosis that might indicate circumcision.  They may or may not go on to restore, so the relevance to restoration here seems miniscule.  So I'll leave it in without the POV Robert is fabricating, but use Hammond's words instead of Robert's. DanP 18:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammond Poll 

message: Robert, why did you delete the link to National Organization of Restoring Men from the "External links" section on October 26? -- DanBlackham 10:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was the NORM link deleted?

message: Jakew, according to the Taylor study, "smooth muscle bundles are common to both shaft skin and preputial mucosa".  As I understand it, the tightness of the natural foreskin is attributed to the ridged band.  The article should mention this distinction with restored foreskins, which still have dartos muscle, but are not as snug usually.  Any recommendations on rewording?  I am open to ideas here.  DanP 19:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridged Band

message: DanP, in your edit of 23:01, 4 Nov 2004, you incorrectly described your edit as "Removing the POV insertions". In fact, it was a wholesale revert to an earlier version more favourable to your POV. Why? - Jakew 23:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In my above paragraph, I mentioned the obsessive insertions of Robert, who continues to apply circumcision-related material here.  In this article, it's safe to assume a circumcision was already done.  My POV would certainly not be what I reverted to, which has more of Hammond verbatim.  But rather I'd prefer to move the circumcision stuff mostly to a more closely-related article.   Some of it is OK and maybe loosely related, but Robert's POV is still absent from the Hammond article.  He prefers to revert whenever I quote Hammond verbatim.  So revert seems logical until that is recognized as a Robertism.  DanP 01:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The poll was not limited to "male anti-circumcision activists" as you keep inserting.  That is absolute speculation.  Hammond's article neither uses those words, nor asserts such a limitation on participants -- the poll was on circumcision, not restoration.  Robert's wording is not Hammond's, but that does not mean it's neutral, that's for sure.  Do we need a separate "psychology" article on this?   Few other procedures (say "breast construction") try to leverage psychology this thoroughly, and I will certainly post psychological articles on circumcision if you insist it's relevant to physical processes.  The restoration process is primarily a physical one, and Robert's POV is still totally irrelevant here.  The reader should not told a set of views is "correct", nor should the article continue to leave such immediately refutable statements about Hammond's article.   DanP 19:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That is your opinion.  A person who documents loss of eyesight or hearing loss is not an activist for such things.  They may, by providing information, assist activists in those fields.  But that is a different thing from oneself being politically active.  In any case, if you want to expand on the selection process of the poll in this article, I cannot imagine anything more distant from an encyclopedia definition or foreskin restoration.  This is not an encyclopedia of poll results, or poll-gathering techniques.  The poll was not a political one.  Even if it were, mere opinion does not define NPOV.  If you are going to expand on Hammond's poll here, why not in the circumcision article?  That act seems to be where the damage was done, even according the Hammond's poll itself.  Again, I am not totally against Hammond's poll being here.  Just against your slanting it with personal POV in the presentation of it.  DanP 19:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Seems reasonable and neutral.  I've included some of the omitted sections and tried to combine the two variants of the article, at least until Robert sees fit to do a total revert.  DanP 23:39, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Jake, it is already established that the reasons are asserted only by the man engaged in the practice.  To include additional qualifiers changes those to a different context.  For instance, "controversial attempt".  There is no controversy, since that relates to public debate.  I know of no widespread public debate on this matter.  If you want to cast doubt on the success in improving sensitivity or other potential benefits, that is fine as the article clearly leaves that wide open in terms of possiblities of outcome.   Also, the repeated emphasis on anti-circumcision and other political phenomena is diverging far from the topic at hand.  If you continue, certainly we can, in other articles, highlight the pro-circumcisin agenda inherent in HIV-foreskin studies and other pro-mutilation propaganda.  I have resisted that, as I don't believe it's productive.  DanP 00:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea.  Sorry, I might have mixed it up again, since I was changing a few things also to clear up the mess.  I'll hold off until you're done so I don't step on you again. DanP 00:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Several of the statements in this article concerning the Hammond poll fail to note that the physical and psychological consequences are a result of circumcision, not restoration.  Hammond's poll was not exclusively on restoration, so leaving out the true basis of the poll leaves the numbers incorrectly represented here.  For that reason, I am reverting once again until this, and the other extrapolations Hammond never published, can be explained as to its factual basis. DanP 18:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article specifies that respondents were answering with regard to circumcision, not with regard to restoration or any generalized condition.  Based on Hammond's descriptions of the questions and responses, one would not expect a respondent to answer in the affirmative based solely on the presence of a particular problem.  If you cast such doubt on the article and its methods, why is in here at all?  You won't quote Hammond verbatim, but you will allow quotations of yourself or Robert's POV speculation.  I don't see that as neutral in fashion, and I'm willing to consider that ongoing effort vandalism unless you're willing to explain the Hammond poll to the reader without misrepresentation or bias one way or the other.  DanP 19:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The poll itself is not entirely NPOV, IMHO.  But provable evidence for or against either conclusion is a separate issue from accurately reporting the results of the poll itself.  It is a POV to make a choice to accept poll answers from questions that were never asked.  The poll requests answers from the respondent, and any tangible evidence that the problems merely exist (which is not what the poll even asked) is no better or worse than the evidence that the problems were caused by circumcision (which is what the poll actually asked).  You cannot insert your projected conclusions based on the questions that were never asked in the poll (ie. that those numbers are valid without the cause considered).  Those questions asked in the poll were in the context of circumcision (not restoration), and just deleting that fact from this article entirely misrepresents the poll.  If you are going to alter Hammond's poll questions, but then selectively accept poll responses, then how can the results have any meaning?  Please try to come up with a solution that makes no such arbitrary judgement.  DanP 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Right, let's stick with the facts.  Hammond says Respondents reported wide-ranging physical consequences from their circumcisions NOT Respondents have a wide-ranging physical consequences from unknown origin.  If may be that all, none, or just some or the reported consequences are caused by circumcision in reality, we have no evidence.  But if the respondent is asked whether to answer in the context of circumcision, one cannot simply assume they would answer in some other context, and then you can report that broader assumed context as the actual one.  If indeed the poll had some kind of control, that would be better, but it didn't to my knowledge.  So you can only report on questions that were asked in the poll  The article indicates that A standardized questionnaire was formulated from details of circumcision damage reported by men who had contacted circumcision-related organizations, which I cannot envision would mean automatically request affirmative answers from any cause whatsoever.  But I am willing to leave that question open, whereas you are trying to close it as being irrelevant and unmentioned as to the validity or context of the poll results.  DanP 23:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I am not determined either way, it's up to you.  Either describe the poll without selectively judging or altering it, or leave it completely out.  Rarity aside, it's safe to assume foreskin restoration is only done after a circumcision is already carried out.  To include this level of analysis on circumcision is totally off-topic from the encyclopedia description of a foreskin restoration process.  If you recognize the difference between reality and reporting, why do you want to report select slices of Hammond's poll, leaving this article without the real assertion that the poll was about circumcision, not restoration in particular.   DanP 00:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Then include facts about what poll questions were actually asked instead of arbitrarily changing them.  DanP 18:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually I was not suggesting that.  Although now that you mention it, technically it's a POV to make such an assertion -- the poll scarcely mentions "problems", but "consequences" were clearly stated over a dozen times as the metric.  Regardless of that discrepancy, problems and/or consequences (take your pick) of any and all causes were never included in the poll as I read it.  The fact is, the article clearly indicates the poll was concerning circumcision, not restoration.  Why would you want to delete the procedure which the poll was based on, and then leave reported consequences out-of-context in this article?  I think that only serves to add confusion, don't you?  DanP 23:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with your recognition of lack of evidence of consequence.  But we also have no evidence and only their word that the problems exist.  Further, the questions were asked in the context of circumcision, not other unrelated causes of unknown origin.  Your solution to censor one side is no less of a slant than the POV problem you identify.  The best we can do is claim that any problems reported are consequences reported, regardless which report is the true one (you cannot use this article to be a judge one way or the other).  DanP 15:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Jake, your accusation of "serious mental problems" is unmentioned in the poll.  Your POV of no consequence is not supported by evidence that such problems, physical or psychological, existed prior to circumcision.  It is your fabrication, which I respect your right to make and even slip into this article.  But your science is weak on this with respect to the Hammond poll, as is any absolute connection to restoration, and I only ask that you report the poll without altering it totally.  In case you haven't noticed, the article does not say the problems are consequences, only that the problems are reported/described as consequences by the poll and its respondents.  The same goes for problems -- reported, not simple "are".  What I am saying about both assertions is perfectly compatible with your POV that they are not consequences, and I think the article leaves open both interpretations, even your somewhat sadistic interpretation that poll respondents are all dishonest about what the physical cause might be.  Neutrality should not automatically judge the poll answers as being unconnected to the questions.  DanP 15:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Jake, sorry for the mixup.  You are repeatedly reverting to Robert's POV.  The inclusion of consequence, as I read it, was inherent in the poll data.  One cannot know the prevalence of problems of arbitrary cause, since those numbers were never asked for, nor were they collected.  If there were three answers in the poll: Do you have this consequence from your circumcision? (A=Yes; B=No, but a similar problem exists from other causes; C=No and any similar problem does not exist), then you could know get numbers on a "pure" problem-basis.  So, yes I agree.  There is a difference between data and interpretation.  But you are injecting interpration into the data by removing the very question asked of the respondent.  Only the subset reported as consequences of circumcision were collected, and based on Hammond's description of the poll we would expect a simple "no" on any problems of some alternative cause you might imagine.  Theresa added a phrase which clearly leaves the possibility of a "yes" answer on alternative causes, even though Hammond's data never collected that possibility.  To go further than stating this numerical uncertainty would be interpretation, not data.  DanP 18:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hammond Poll Again

message: Please explain why you reverted my change of the word expansion to stretching? I don't understand your reasoning that you gave in the edit summary. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 06:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your change Theresa.  I have pleaded with Jakew and Robert.  I have been open to including both sides in this article, and I still am.  Instead, there is continued stubborn efforts to revert even the most balanced set of factual statements.  I don't care if they stick their POV in the article, but they should at least be able to also accept an opinion other than their own.  DanP 19:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Somehow?  Your recklessness is no accident.  Where are my additions in your favored version?  DanP 19:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Answering my own question: OK I've researched T tape, it's all over the web, and is certainly used for foreskin restoration. I can see no reason not to have it in the article, so I'm going to add it back in. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 15:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: *Bully for you Theresa! Now you need to research PUD and foreballs. I'm sure readers will be fascinated by the assortment of weights these people hang from their penises. Let it all hang out, I say. - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm happy to do that, when i get a moment. But since you already know about them, why don't you add them in? Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 08:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would prefer to leave the stuff fit for Ripley's Believe It or Not! for those with an interest inthe bizarre. After you dear lady. - Robert the Bruce 05:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * So you've no interest in writing an encylopedia then? Ok I'll find out about them and add them in myself when i get a chance. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 08:35, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Don't be naughty now Theresa and put words in my mouth or "creatively" interpret what you think are my thoughts. The stuff in question comes straight out of 'Ripley's Believe It or Not! there is nothing encyclopedic about it. Kind of sad really. - Robert the Bruce 13:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Robert you are the one who suggested that PUD and foreballs should go into the article. I don't even know what these things are - if they are devices that are used to aid foreskin restoration, then clearly they are encylopedic. If you know of something that is relavent to this article - and you are not prepared to put it in, them you are  not interested in writing an encylopedia. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 21:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Look Theresa you are the one who insisted that T-tape should be included in the article without fully knowing jack about it. Why do you think your buddies have not inserted all the gory details about the methods yet? Simple, because they know that will expose the process as something straight out of 'Ripley's Believe It or Not!. Now should we do that? - Robert the Bruce 02:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone does knoww "all the gory details" please insert them into the article. This is an encylopedia after all. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 22:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert and Jakew what are you up to?

message: Exploding Boy, I agree with most of your changes.  However, the section on dartos muscle should not refer to just a ring of muscle.  Dartos was inserted as a compromise with regard to the ridged band, which was previously objected to with regard to muscular function.  I didn't see an issue with having ridged band, but the dartos is more general and extends all the way to the scrotum.  The article should reflect that only a small portion of it extends out to the foreskin acting to hold it in place.  DanP 18:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dartos Muscle

message: It is valid to include the word 'psychiatric' in this context. After all, this section briefly discussed Mohl's article, "Prepuce Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects". - Jakew 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "psychiatric" carries a strong anti-foreskin restoration POV.  It seems that Jake and Robert want to paint men who choose to restore their foreskin in the worst possible light.  It appears they can not accept the fact that some men who were circumcised are not happy when they learn that (1) neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary, (2) an intact male's foreskin has a high concentration of nerves, and (3) most men in the world have intact genitals. -- DanBlackham 11:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Just because Moh's articles uses the word psychiatric - doesn't mean we have to. The four cases studies presented were all "obsessive compulsive" men - well they were all diagnosed as obsesive compulsive anyway. Many obsessive compulsives choose cleanliness as there obsession of choice. This does not mean that most people who wash are obsessive compulsive. Lot's of people who are procircumcision say it's becasue it's cleaner - does that mean that there is a psychiatric aspect to their opinion? Let's leave loaded words out of the article. Remeber that psychiatists use jargon words all the time (as does everyone of course) it is perfectly reasonable to assume that  someone who has been asked to perform a psychiatric pre op assesment, might use the word in a subtly different way to the general population. Most people equal psychiatric with some sort of nutter. The Mohl article explicitly states that the four men in question were not psychotic. Let's use a different word. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 16:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *Why are you so desperate to use a different word? Why does your agenda require the word change? Should we not just place the facts in that sub-section and "let the readers decide for themselves"? - Robert the Bruce 01:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: But this section of the article isn't about OCD. It's about how forskin restorers feel. That's why emotional and psycological is a better description than psychiatric. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 21:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of these men? The study in question was of four men. Extrapolating four to many is hardly encylopedic. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 22:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *The mental pathology found among a significant % of these men (Hammond) indicates that the "problem" clearly extends beyond the mere "emotional and psychological". Now for you. Why is it that you wish to santitise the word out of the article. What exactly is your agenda? - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please indicate where the hammond poll uses the word "psychiatic" becasue i can't find it there. The Hammond poll talks about emotions and feelings and uses the word psycoligical. The reason I want the word gone is because as I already explained, the word is loaded. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 09:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hammond poll talks about men so scarred that they need to medicate themselves with alcohol and drugs! You allow that the Hammond poll talks about "emotions". I don't know of any definition of psychiatry that does not describe it as the science of emotional disorder. If you are so upset by not having a foreskin that you take to substance abuse, can you not be said to be disordered emotionally? Dan should note that there is nothing in "psychiatric" to suggest "psychotic". It is quite simply the correct word here.Dr Zen 05:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm -what about "emotional scarring"? The poll says 29% are dependant on some form of drug or another. What percentage of the adult male population smoke? in this country (UK) I believe it's around the 25% mark. Of course most british men aren't circumcised. Regular drug users - not sure but the percentage is high here in the uk -around 30% have tried drugs, a fair proportion of them are regular users. Likewise alcohol -many people regulaly drink too much. The Hammond poll is itself POV and tries to push the idea that circumcision causes psychological problems - but even that poll doesn't go as far as using the word psychiatric. BTW psychiatry isn't a science, it's a branch of medicine. Psycology is a science albeit a fledgeling one. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 17:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lots of people smoke, Theresa, but the poll is quite specific that these men do so to "relieve their suffering". It doesn't matter that the poll is POV. May I remind you that the NPOV policy does not require the omission of points of view, but the inclusion of all? By all means include a poll that says it has no psychiatric effects. He doesn't use the word "psychiatry" because he doesn't need to. It's implicit. Theresa, I'm going to pretend I didn't read "BTW psychiatry isn't a science, it's a branch of medicine" because I find it hard to believe that an intelligent woman does not know that medicine is a science itself! Dr Zen 01:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr Zen's discussion inline Medicine is not a science Tell it to Webster's. Lord alone knows what definition of "science" you are using. I use a definition of science that says it's anything that can be learned systematically.- although it's becoming more based on science that it used to be. What does "based on science" have to do with it? Are you working under the misconception that pure sciences are "science" and applied sciences are somehow not? However that's an aside. The point I'm making is that you are using a POV poll to justify using a loaded word that even the poll didn't go as far as using. How can the poll be POV? That's ridiculous. If the people said they self-medicate, and the poll reported that, what's the problem? Most people associate the word psychiatry with mental illness. Do they? Did you take a poll? So you are disputing the use of "psychiatric" solely on "your" understanding of what "most people" think? Are these the same people who think psychiatry is not a science, perhaps? Whether this is right or wrong is beside the point. The word is loaded. It gives the impression that forskin restorers are nutters. No. It gives the correct impression that some have been affected by it emotionally to the point of disorder. The science of emotional disorder is called psychiatry. The word psycholigical isn't so loaded. Psychology is the science of the mind in general. It is simply broader than psychiatry. It describes what the paragraph is about without the connotations. What is the point of having both words in the header? What does psychiatric add that psycholigial not cover? It covers the notion of emotional disturbance, Theresa, which you are seeking to remove from the article, even though Robert has fully substantiated it.Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 09:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychiatric applies to the text relating to Mohl's study, does it not? - Jakew 14:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: It is fascinating that Jakew and Robert systematically struggle to remove every milligram of psychology and emotional motivations behind circumcising babies, insisting it is POV to explore that issue no matter what.  But here, a voluntary modification deserves being called psychotic, along with whatever vision of insanity they can imagine.  I welcome their efforts, as long as both sides are presented.  DanP 23:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: *Dan I don't believe that you need to push the limits on this. The usual crowd of "insiders" seem to be mounting a campaign in support of your cause. Don't spoil it for them. - Robert the Bruce 04:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychiatric aspects

message: We are writing an encyclopaedia here, not the Sun newspaper. I find it astonishing that an editor is suggesting that we leave the word "psychiatric" out of a heading because none of the people in a study was "psychotic" and "psychiatric" implies some sort of "nutter". Well, neither are the overwhelming majority of people who are under treatment for psychiatric disorders. Most of them have depression or anxiety that will never progress to psychosis (although the treatments they take for it might conceivably induce it). I think talk of people with psychiatric disorders as "nutters" should be deplored here, not encouraged, and I do deplore it. And I certainly don't think we should pander to that kind of thinking in a serious work of reference. Dr Zen 00:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This is supposed to be a work of scholarship

message: Jake, you have no basis for saying skin bridges are less relevant than psychiatry or substance abuse.  Indeed, with regard to the restoration article, they are more relevant, since this is an encyclopedia, not forum to judge one way or the other.  Further, you have no basis for including POV against proponents of restoration, while leaving critics unscathed.  Both of these issues are what you and Robert have slanted.  While I fully welcome your POV (and Robert's too), you should at least allow opposing viewpoints.  DanP 00:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: DanP, read the paragraph. Stretching (ok, expanding) the skin can potentially have an effect on every item mentioned, with the exception of skin bridges. Secondly, could you show me where there is POV against proponents? -Jakew 12:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, having an essential effect is not a necessary criteria for inclusion in the article.  If it were, things like substance abuse would not be mentioned by the very same pseudostandard you're suggesting.  Second, physical effects of circumcision and restoration definitely, without a doubt, involve skin bridges.  I would think this would be obvious.  With regard to POV against proponents, what the hell are "psychiatric motivational forces"?  If I can put that in the circumcision article and you would fully support that as nonjudgemental of circumcision proponents, then fine.  But please present NPOV paragraphs without the spin. DanP 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of relevance, it is reasonable to include something if restoration might be expected to "fix" it. For example, stretching skin will cause blemishes such as scars to fade, so it's quite reasonable to include prominent scarring. But restoration can't do a thing about skin bridges, so it's pointless to include them (remember we're talking about restoration here). On the other hand, you mention substance abuse. Now, if a guy is suffering from psychiatric (in the literal sense) problems that are so bad he has to drown his sorrows, and restoration might help to resolve them (as Boyle and friends suggest), then it's relevant. The substance abuse is caused by (we assume) the depression and so on, just like the pain and bleeding is caused by (we assume) the tightness of skin on erection. As for psychiatric motivational forces, that could be phrased better, I agree, but I should point out that it has to do with men wishing to restore, not those who advocate it for others. -Jakew 12:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument fails to hold water.  First of all, supposing this was not solution, any skin bridges are still necessarily involved in restoration.  Whether restoration "solves" them is not germaine, since solving them is not the same as pointing out their presence and any special considerations regarding whether or not (or how) to restore.  Second, restoration sure does have potential to solve them, as skin bridges would be tensioned by the device along with everything else. DanP 19:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance of skin bridges to restoration? -Jakew 11:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I not do that?  Whether it is prominent scarring, painful erections, etc., all of these issues are possible.  Are you saying that skin bridges are irrelevant to restoration, or what are you even trying to say? DanP 18:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-mutilation bias