Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 3

message: The following sentence from the introduction is disputed by contributors with a pro-circumcision POV.
:Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death).
In my opinion the sentence accurately summarized the policy statements of the professional medical organizations.
Also the introduction includes a short quote from the policy statements of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In my opinion these two statements accurately represent the range of opinions of professional medical organizations.  The BC statement is the strongest in terms of saying infant circumcision is not medically necessary and the AAP statement is the weakest.  However a contributor with a pro-circumcision POV repeatedly deletes the statement by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. -- DanBlackham 10:51, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In their view the benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not sufficiently outweigh the risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death) to recommend that all males be circumcised. - Jakew 12:45, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction dispute

message: The current introduction says that a number of national medical organizations have placed circumcision under scrutiny. However, only the American Pediatric Society's policy is cited. This causes the article to lead off with a US-centric viewpoint, affecting the POV. Other medical associations should be cited (whether neutral, pro or con). I say this not to make the article pro- or anti-circumcision, but to curb the US focus that so often emerges in Wiki articles. I recognize, of course, that the article is slated for clean-up.--Westendgirl 18:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction Cultural Bias

message: The findings of Winkelmann and Taylor are important and relevant to this article.  Robert, please stop deleting them.  Dr. Taylor found the ridged band of the foreskin has a high concentration of specialized nerves.  In my opinion that is probably it single most important fact that needs to be included in the section on sexual effects of circumcision.  -- DanBlackham 11:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, describing them as specialised is deceptive. What he found was that a certain part of the foreskin (the ridged band of mucosa) was comparatively rich in Meissner corpuscles. They're no more specialised than any other nerve cell. It's true that later Taylor did speculate that these were specialised tissue, but this was pure speculation with no basis in fact. Saying that the ridged band of the foreskin is comparatively rich in superficial touch receptors is apparently factual, but I'm afraid that any poetic essays about specialised receptors inducing sexual ecstacy (etc.) must be considered junk and treated accordingly. - Jakew 11:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Winkelmann and Taylor

message: The following is relevant information that should be included in the article:
:Van Howe (2004) examined male neonatal circumcision both from a cost perspective and a medical perspective. His analysis found that male neonatal circumcision is poor health policy and cannot be justified financially or medically.
:In June of 2004 the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia stated that neonatal circumcision is medically unnecessary.
::"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries.  Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit.  Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention." 
If you do not agree that this information should be included in the article, please explain why before deleting it. -- DanBlackham 00:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jake, please cite the Wikipedia guidelines that say it is not "appropriate to include partial quotations from organizations".  The quote is from the section "Medical Perspectives" of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia Policy Manual.  The quote is relevant to the article. -- DanBlackham 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting relevant information

message: If you choose to revert changes on this page, please do not revert changes to fix syntaxes, for example my change of "Long NPOV}}" to "". If you would refrain from using words such as "Vandal" when referring to another user's edit, it will go a long way towards creating NPOV pages
Also, there is a ban against reverting a page more than 3 times a day. (Thus I, and Robert Blair, may not revert this page until tommorrow starts for wikipedia's timezone) Effective today, violation of that policy will be enforced with 24-hour period bans. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement--Josiah 04:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert War - Request + Information 

message: In interests of ending this edit war, I suggest the following proposal. Keep the cost-benefit section, as well as the phimosis and balanitis sections. Please vote "aye" (yes) or "nay" (no) below.
:Wouldn't it be better to address each section by itself (phimosis, balanitis, complications, and cost-benefit)?  If there is only one proposal, I think the proposal should include keeping the section on complications too. -- DanBlackham 07:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The following section from the introduction has been repeatedly deleted from the article.  In my opinion this section is accurate, has neutral POV, and should be included in the article.
:Currently neonatal circumcision is not considered medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In their view the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision (including a lower rate of urinary tract infection in infants, a lower rate of penile cancer in adults, and a lower rate of infection of some sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV) do not significantly outweigh the potential medical risks (including bleeding, infection, surgical mishap, and rarely death).
Every medical analysis of circumcision by professional medical organizations has concluded that neo-natal circumcision is NOT medically necessary. -- DanBlackham 08:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction