Talk:Circumcision/Archive 31

message: Article is TOO long
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.158.216 (talk • contribs).
:Please see discussion above. Jakew 11:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... at Article too long? above, where there is ongoing discussion of a proposal to shorten the page and input from more editors is welcome. --Coppertwig 13:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: I would like to see this added to the article.  http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/circumcision.html
Also keep in mind that no circumcision device in the USA has been approved by the FDA.  
areseepee 10 August 2007
:This one might be a useful link as a footnote, perhaps at Medical analysis of circumcision, as this article is already too long, as discussed above.  Thanks for finding an interesting citation that might be useful in improving these articles! --Coppertwig 14:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in at Medical analysis of circumcision. --Coppertwig 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that if areseepee can support his claim that no circ device is FDA approved, it should be somewhere in the main article.  Nothing in the link he provides supports that claim. Blackworm 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This link looks to me like an FDA approval of a circumcision device:  --Coppertwig 13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that FDA approval is needed to market circumcision devices, but areseepee is out of relevant claims in my opinion.  Areseepee what do you think?  Can we close this one? Blackworm 07:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably right.  The problem is, there's a plan to shorten the whole page, including shortening the risks section to 300 words. (See Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?.) It won't be easy. However, for now, maybe it would be good to add something like "The FDA has received reports of injuries involving circumcision clamps, including laceration, hemorrhage, penile amputation, and urethral damage." with the source you give above as a footnote. What do other editors think about this? --Coppertwig 12:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of those are already discussed in "Risks of circumcision", so it would seem rather repetitive. I suggest that, if it belongs anywhere, it should be in the "medical analysis of..." article. Jakew 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the four, I think only hemorrhage is already mentioned in that section, and I don't think there's a mention of device-related injury there. --Coppertwig 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA Warning 

message: These references were deleted from the article but might be useful in other articles or to be put back in later.  From the phimosis section, " Rickwood defined the term 'phimosis' as "scarring of the tip of the prepuce".
 "''
And repeating here what I removed from the leadin:
''
:::Circumcision is generally performed in Africans countries, in North America (United States and Canada), in Australia, on the Pacific Islands, throughout Asia (in countries such as the Philippines
, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea
), in the Middle East, and in Israel. ''
--Coppertwig 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly the point. One is giving specific quotations, which was the compromise instead of quoting long tracts in-line in the article. #70 refers to statements in the BMA that are not directly related to those quotes; rather, it refers to the article as a whole. Thus the duplication. -- Avi 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that might be the case.  It's the same for a couple of other position statements, too, I suppose.  However, the Birley reference seems to be an unnecessary duplication. --Coppertwig 19:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed duplicate references to articles by Glass, J.M. and by Williams and Kapila.  For the Birley duplicate, the access date and PMD numbers differ, so maybe I'll leave that to a more experienced user to clean up if required. (The access dates also differed for Williams and Kapila, but I went ahead and removed one of them anyway.) --Coppertwig 20:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some references that might be useful 

message: This page says "Bleeding is mostly minor; applying pressure will stop it."  The footnoted source says,  "In the majority of cases, bleeding is minor and hemostasis can be achieved by pressure application."  It seems to me that the source is saying that in the majority of cases hemostasis can be achieved by pressure application, while this page seems to be saying that applying pressure will stop it, implying in all cases.  To make the text here reflect the source more accurately, I suggest changing it to "Most bleeding is minor and can be stopped by applying pressure."  This is also better grammar; joining two sentences with a semicolon isn't the best grammar, however frequently I'm tempted to do so myself :-). --Coppertwig 12:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely; it should be changed; it may also be worth stating '[Author] states that ...'; avoiding potential liability problems; let's avoid bad grammar too. Jakew 12:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  "A report by the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association" sounds rather wordy.  (Can we say AMA everywhere except the first time the association's name appears on the page? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations)#Acronym usage in article body).  How about something shorter such as "A medical report says that ..."?  (After all, the footnote is there to specify what report is meant.) --Coppertwig 12:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I combined it with the previous sentence, which seems to depend on the same footnote, to make "According to the AMA, blood loss and infection are the most common complications, and most bleeding is minor and can be stopped by applying pressure."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) 23:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)  (OK, I had forgotten to sign my message --Coppertwig 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleeding 

message: This page says "Fergusson et al found phimosis in 16% of non-circumcised boys."  I think this is an error.  In a table in the cited study it gives a rate of 3.7%, with the number 16 in parentheses.  16 is the total number of affected boys out of their sample of more than 500 boys.  So, it should be corrected to 3.7% not 16%. --Coppertwig 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fergusson et al 

message: Re this part: 
:In 2001, Sweden allowed only persons certified by the National Board of Health to circumcise infants, requiring a medical doctor or an anesthesia nurse to accompany the circumciser and for anaesthetic to be applied beforehand.  Jews and Muslims in Sweden objected to the law,
 and in 2001, the World Jewish Congress stated that it was “the first legal restriction on Jewish religious practice in Europe since the Nazi era.”
 However, in 2006, the United States State Department reported that  most Jewish mohels had been certified under the law and 3000 Muslim and 40-50 Jewish boys were circumcised each year. The National Board of Health and Welfare reviewed the law in 2005 and recommended that it be maintained.
''
I find it ambiguous.  Is it in Sweden or the U.S. that 3000 Muslim and 40-50 Jewish boys are circumcised?  (Sweden, I presume.)  Is the National Board of Health and Welfare a Swedish or a U.S. institution?  (Swedish, I presume.)  I looked at the source document and it seems ambiguous there, too.  Any way to fix it up?  How about inserting a phrase like "in its report on Sweden"?  --Coppertwig 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden or United States? 

message: ... remember that a plan to shorten this page is currently in process.  To make sure information you add is not lost, you may want to also add it to the appropriate subpage.  See Talk:Circumcision#Article too long? above. --Coppertwig 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When editing this page 

message: This sentence "The first Church Council in Jerusalem declared that circumcision was not necessary" cites the Acts of the Apostles directly.  It's not clear to me that the cited web page supports that statement. Maybe someone could find a secondary source?  (Or point out to me where on the web page it says that?) It clearly mentions discussion about circumcision, but I don't see anything about such a declaration by the council. --Coppertwig 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Acts of the Apostles directly 

message: This website Pictures of skin bridges at circumstitions.com seems informative and relevant.  Maybe it could go under "External links"? --Coppertwig 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of skin bridges