Talk:Circumcision/Archive 17

message: The lead section of an article should not contain lengthy quotations, and certainly not from one specific medical association; rather, the lead should succinctly summarize an article's contents in a neutral way.  Articles should also try to have a global perspective, rather than focussing exclusively on the American POV.  Please don't insert this absurdly long quotation (134 words!) in the lead again. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg I take your point and (basically) agree, however when I put that quote in it was in an attempt to correct the clear bias inherent in stating that the AMA, et. al. do not recommend routine circumcision without mentioning that neither do they discourage it.  The "non-theraputic" qualifier does not fix this problem, and previous attempts to negotiate an editorial solution have failed.  This appears to be a problem that long pre-dates my involvement with this article and represents "cherry picking" of quotations by advocates on one side of the debate.  As I said, I wasn`t particularly enamored of the idea of placing that quote where I did, and I would prefer a more elegant editorial solution to the problem. I will certainly defer to your request to not reinsert the disputed quote, however I think that there is still an egregious problem with this article misrepresenting the policy of the AMA and other medical organizations and will look forward to any ideas you may have to resolve this.Dasondas 19:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you think your latest edit handles the issue? I'm fine with it, if you do. Jayjg (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with it for now; there may still need to be some minor tweaking on this general point, and other sections of the article do still need attention (not necessarily to correct any bias), but I think that my last edit helps and is certainly magnitudes better than my previous clumsy attempt.  In any event, at this point I'm not perceiving a great deal of bias one way or the other in the article;  I'd like to see comments from other interested editors (on all sides of the issue, obviously). Dasondas 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead section 

message: In the culture section I'd like to see someone add discussion on circumcision technique. For example is there any difference in the quantity of foreskin removed when comparing Jewish, Islamic and secular US circumcision?  Are there any technique differences? 149.167.200.118 11:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no such thing as secular circumcision, medicalized yes, but not secular.  Circumcision was started in america in the late 1800s as a means to "cure" masturbation and was introduced by religious zealots.  Many people still say they are doing it "for religious reasons" (even when they belong to religions that do not circumcise), and there is an example in the news recently of a man in canada who had the government pay for plastic surgery to graft skin onto his penile shaft to replace skin lost to a very henius circumcision.  He was held down by two priests at approx age 8 and crudely circumcised "for his masturbatory ways" - they held him so forcefully they broke his arm and jaw and circ'ed him so severely that he couldn't get an erection without it being painful for the rest of his life (until the surgery). Lordkazan 13:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumcision and Culture

message: Negative effects are not shown in sufficient detail, and much information is outright missing.  See the following pages (which cite medical studies) http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm and http://www.noharmm.org/snip.htm Lordkazan 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of the pages you cite satisfy WP:RS. Furthermore, if you bother to follow up references, you'll find that a) many are misrepresented, b) many others are merely opinion pieces, rather than scientific studies, c) several contradict each other, and d) a simple literature search often reveals that the (carefully) selected references are in fact anomalous results and/or opinions contradicted by research. Jakew 09:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jakew I give your opinion about this much weight: 0.  Pulling "That violates wikipedia rule XYZ" out of thin air every five seconds is REALLY tiring.  They're a reliable source because they cite their sources.  Even if you say NOHARMM is unreliable they cite their sources.  I'm sick and tired of you keeping this article in a pro-circ NPOV and abusing wikipedia rules to do it. Lordkazan 14:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more to reliable sources than merely citing other work, Lordkazan. Try reading the policy. Jakew 16:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Aspects POV 

message: There's a decent chance this is old news, but this is a pretty good, accessible source of research (though a direct link might not be allowed?)
Check it out:  http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3986639769399148778&hl=en-CA
Scix 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's an oldie, but goodie :D Lordkazan 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, what a spectacular episode.  And not least for the startling revelation when I looked up Dr. Fleiss.  I think the only thing they missed was the fact that the majority of the world does not circumcize; but then, P&T is intended for an American audience, so unlike us, they can be forgiven for such a lapse.  Of course, none of the specific details were anything I hadn't already learned, but the presentation was very engaging.  Kasreyn 09:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Penn & Teller's Bullshit

message: In the references section, you will find the following line with an incorrect ISBN:
* Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard, 1996. (ISBN 0-964-44895-3-8) 
Please change the ISBN number to 0-9644895-3-8 (3rd group loses a 4, hyphenation changed to standard) and remove the template, to read as follows:
* Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard, 1996. (ISBN 0-9644895-3-8)
Thanks. --Kevin_b_er 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. JPD (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN fix 

message: Pro-circ information emphasised, but relevant factual information is blocked from the reader.  We know the cast of characters.  Unfortunately, the article is quite unstable.  Anyway, here's some primary problems or omissions:  
1. The main article is too long, but potential medical benefits are listed and detailed as though they are particularly relevant to the decision to circ (or medicine).  They are not, but they are detailed again in the medical aspects main article.  They are listed again in the CPS statement.  The following sections should be summarized in the main (circ) topic, and then detailed in the "main article." (Medical analysis of circumcision) should be combined with the main (medical aspects) article ... 4.2 HIV 4.2.1 Studies 4.2.2 Methodology 4.3 HPV 4.4 hygiene 4.5 Infectious and chronic conditions 4.6 Penile cancer 4.7 Phimosis and paraphimosis 4.8 Urinary tract infections.
2. The medical association opinions should be edited to reflect their full (unbiased) statements and current position (reaffirmation by the CPS).
3. The sexual effects section is a joke..."They are discussed more fully in the full article."  Makes me smile every time, but I digress..
We know that the frenulum is a primary erogenous zone, and it (or part of the delta zone) is generally reduced and may be removed during neonatal circs.  The following information is blocked:  Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum or that include a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft," according to Hass and Crooks in college sexuality textbooks.ref Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100.  Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129  The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.
4. Given the importance of the frenulum, the article should inform the reader immediately (in sexual effects) of the following:  "In 28 percent of our pediatric population undergoing elective circumcision we have demonstrated a previously undescribed ventral chordee of the glans, the result of a tethering effect of an unusually prominent frenulum ... Twenty of the 70 boys (28%) demonstrated a ventral glandular tilt (glandular chordee) due to an unusually prominent frenulum ... Persistent frenular chordee after circumcision may result in deformity of the penis on erection making sexual intercourse difficult or uncomfortable." AS. Griffin and RL. Kroovand, Frenular chordee: implications and treatment, Urology 1990 Feb;35(2):133-4
THERE MIGHT BE A ~28% CHANCE THAT A (hospital setting) NEONATAL CIRC ALSO REMOVES THE FRENULUM
5. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Hygiene :  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics 1975 statement "A program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of circumcision without the attendant surgical risk."   Studies in Denmark indirectly suggest that "good hygiene with regular washing may be just as effective at preventing the diseases treated by circumcision.”.  One researcher concludes that access to clean water and regular washing “should all but eliminate the risk for foreskin-related medical problems that will require circumcision.” 
6. Any or all of the following paragraph, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality) because it is a later statement, which qualifies that cited statment.:  A 2002 peer reviewed journal of the AAFP reported on research finding “participants reported significantly reduced erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no significant change in sexual activity, and significantly improved satisfaction after circumcision. This improved satisfaction represented a more satisfactory appearance of the penis and less pain during sexual activity. These results cannot be generalized to neonatal circumcision.”
7. Any or all of the following paragraphs, to be placed in Sexual (or s/b effects on sexuality):  There are few studies on sexual partner preference for penises with or without foreskins, and the results are varied. The intromission function of the foreskin may facilitate penetration and vaginal wetness.TipPt 00:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussed already. Numerous times. See Talk:Circumcision/Archive 16, etc. Jakew 10:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: that doesn't mean that information doesn't belong in the article Jakew - you cannot roadblock information that showsa circ to be unneeded but continue to insert information that suggests that it is.  This article isn't your personal property. Lordkazan 13:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, Lordkazan, and review the earlier discussions. Jakew 13:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Expirience with you takes precident over assumption Lordkazan 14:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why There’s a POV 

message: Why is there a link  to a circumcision article written by a Systems Analyst at the Univeristy of Missouri ? I am open to having someone explain what Mr. Winkel's particular expertise is on this subject, but at this point I don't see the relevancy of his article for inclusion here. Dasondas 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are those citations ... could you provide the wiki link?TipPt 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: circumcision#circumcision opposition first listed link Dasondas 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rich Winkel