![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The topic of this article is a medical analysis of circumcision. The following historical information is interesting, but in my opinion it is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision. Also the information is already included in the main Circumcision article.
In my opinion the discussion of the history of circumcision should be in the main Circumcision article, not this one. -- DanBlackham 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion the following links from the introduction would be more appropriately located in the sections of the article that discuss penile cancer and complications, instead of the introduction.
DanBlackham 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned about Robert the Bruce's comment:
We need to strive toward the truth and not be concerned it that does not appear to be "balanced"
NPOV requires that both sides be presented, not judging either (or an intermediate one!) as "right". NPOV does not mean that every disputed entry (ie. something that doesn't match Robert's opinion) must be deleted, all while the pro-mutilation propaganda should go unscathed. I'm fully accepting of sections of this article that have constant pro-mutilation slant. So why is this comment about "truth, not balance" even present. Let both sides present their view without "value judgement" and let the reader decide. And let's all wonder why we don't have 'Medical analysis' articles for any other procedure. DanP 17:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that striving towards the truth is important, too. However, striving towards the truth is not aided by a one-sided presentation. Michael Glass 23:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As only 21% of the sample of women in the Williamson study had sexual contact with uncircumcised men it is more accurate to say that most of them had no contact rather than some of them. As Robert says, we should strive toward the truth.
In the section on phimosis I have made two main changes. One was to simplify the wording describing the Oster study and to indent his quoted words. The other was to replace an inaccurate summary of the cohort study in New Zealand with a direct quotation from the PubMed abstract. The study was about penile problems in general. It was not restricted to phimosis.
If anyone has any problem with these edits I would appreciate it if they would state their objections, and not just revert to a previous version. Michael Glass 13:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Michael, the summary of Fergusson's study is accurate. While the study did examine penile problems in general, results were presented relating to phimosis specifically, which is what this section is about. It may be worth moving the quotation from the abstract to another (new?) section. The abstract does not discuss the phimosis findings, but the full text of the study does. - Jakew 19:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jakew, you have acknowledged that the summary of Fergusson's study is accurate. Despite this admission you have substituted a version that is quite inconsistent with the abstract. The Fergusson abstract says:
If the full study says something different, then a full reference should have been given. Instead, in a highly contentious area, you have made things even worse by suppressing the link to the abstract of the article. You cannot expect people to take your assertion about the full article on trust. Give us the evidence or revert to the abstract. Michael Glass 23:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Michael, the abstract is still there, under "Penile Problems". I haven't removed it. I have, however, added Fergusson's specific findings on phimosis to that section.
You raise an interesting point about taking things on trust. Should Wikipedia only include information that is verifiable on the internet? I strongly believe that everything should be available, but the fact remains that for much information, we have to visit a library, bookstore, or specialist (eg medical) library. Is that so unreasonable? - Jakew 11:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jake, I've included the information from the abstract in a new section on penile problems. If you wish to refer to the original paper, then by all means do so, even if it's not available on the net. Of course, a full citation would be necessary, so that people who are interested in checking it could do so. Michael Glass 22:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:Robert the Bruce has made edits suggesting that the participants in the vaginal dryness survey were not women. The survey itself [9] said, "We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men. Participants completed a 35-item sexual awareness survey. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men." Robert has consistently challenged unsupported claims in articles, and I think that this has often improved the articles' accuracy. However, a line has to be drawn. Robert is attempting to discredit the survery merely because he doesn't like its results. He has offered no evidence that the survey's participants were not female. Instead, he seeks to use insinuation to try to discredit the survey by filling the paragraph around it with his own underhanded attacks. This should not be allowed in a Wikipedia article. Acegikmo1 04:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted to Acegikmo1's version. The possible bias of those conducting the survey is mentioned and unless there is any credible evidence of the claim then there is simply no reason at all to assert that the participants might not have been female. -- Starx 04:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In another paper, Bensley and Boyle explain that they surveyed 35 female and 42 gay male participants. In light of this, I think we can believe that the women were indeed female. However, they also admit that "the present findings" were "based on self-selected participants", and fail to explain how they were recruited. Are we looking at another O'Hara-style survey of anti-circumcision activists? - Jakew 11:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're jumping to conclusions. The quote about "self-selected participants" read:
In view of the present findings based on self-selected participants, the possible negative effects on adults' sexual function and psychological well-being need to be discussed in obtaining informed consent for circumcision (sexual reduction surgery) imposed on unconsenting male minors. Much larger representative samples are desirable.
I'm not sure how you interpreted that to mean the survey is "trash". Nor am I sure why you label me an "anti-circumcision activist". I suppose that you you think everyone who challenges your edits must be one. As to why the data from the survey should stay:
While this may not convince you, Robert, I think that it's enough to warrant keeping the survey (along with your disclaimers about it) unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated the the methodology was flawed. I am willing to undertake this investigation, Robert, and I hope you will follow up on what you have previously stated and tell me excatly what details you want to know about the survey. Acegikmo1 00:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1, the movement will indeed be proud of you. A sterling defence of Bensley/Boyle. The problem is that there is very little to be found other than the occasional (carefully selected) snippet of information on this survey. Each of these snippets are served up as a "must include" gem of information. The obvious POV pushing is hilarious. And yet you continue with the "who me?" line. ;-) Surely it is quite reasonable to expect the detail of a study to be public? Why would they not? It is a reasonable deduction therefore (given the low honesty quotient evident among anti-circ activists) that they are hiding something. That is why I challenged you to produce the detail. I did this because you are the main champion in fighting to keep this junk-science in the article. Instead of producing the detail you produce some junk about why the references to the survey should be kept. I say again that until such time as the detail has been produced and scrutinised it should be removed in toto. Now onto the O'Hara piece of trash. Given that the participants were recruited through an "anti-circumcision newsletter" with obvious dishonest intent why should this trash be allowed to be mentioned in Wikipedia other than as an example of anti-circumcision dishonesty? - Robert the Bruce 04:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I agree that being able to see the full survey would be nice. However, since it is not online and since I do not own a copy, I cannot magically "produce" it. Now, I am satisfied that the NZMJ article about the survey provides enough information to include it in the article, for the reasons I list above. You are not. That's fine.
On your talk page, you stated, "you are challenged to produce the detail of the survey. Why don't you email Bensley/Boyle?" Above you stated, "I am asking for the detail to be published. For instance what were the 32 points/questions in the survey? How were the participants recruited? I could go on forever."
As I've said, I am willing to e-mail Boyle. However, you have not been forthcoming about exactly what you want to know before you accept the survey. This prevents me from e-mailing Boyle with specific questions. Other than the two listed above points, what exactly do you want to know, Robert? Acegikmo1 03:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1, please do not attempt the juvenile tactic of trying to pass the buck to me. You want the crap included so the onus remains firmly with you to produce the detail. Email these characters then and try to prise the detail out of them. But in the meantime at least have the intellectual integrity to remove reference until the detail is in the public domain where it can be scrutinised. It is refreshing to communicate with you now that you are out of the closet (anti-circumcision speaking) and you have give up the pretence of feigned neutrality. So today's the day the Bensley/Boyle crap gets deleted, I will watch your reaction with close interest. - Robert the Bruce 03:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The disputed text:
A survey by O'Hara & O'Hara of women who have had experience with both circumcised and intact males reported that the women preferred an intact male sexual partner. [10] However, this study has been criticised on the grounds that it was performed by an anti-circumcision activist, and the subjects were largely recruited from an anti-circumcision mailing list. A summary of sexual awareness survey published in the New Zealand Medical Journal reported that the participants, 35 females, reported that they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised men. [11] However, the small size of the survey, the methodology, the method of recruitment, and the known anti-circumcision bias of the authors has led to doubt as to the accuracy of the reported findings.
Robert has every right to correct things that are not true or inaccurate or distorted. However, that does not extend to suppressing information that doesn't fit his mindset. Let's look at one particularly bad example. I quoted Fink's findings and Fink's words:
Robert mutilates this by cutting out the parts he doesn't like:
Is this honest? Isn't this "hiding something" by using just a snippet? Robert challenges the honesty of others. I challenge him to apply the same standards to his own contributions to Wikipedia. Michael Glass 23:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Michael, thank you for your input. I shall use this as a check on your own standard of intellectual integrity (or the lack thereof). It is clear that you set different and higher standards for other than you or your fellow anti-circumcision activists are able to maintain yourselves. Like with that "sympathetic" admin around here who can be relied upon to support your cause you fail to keep your "own" honest and turn a blind eye when the head-bangers post the most off-the-wall stuff. Unfortunately most the people who feign neutrality fail the test of intellectual honesty as well so you are not alone (although you find yourself in very dubious company). Taken for example the pathetic desperation to neutralise the Foreskin restoration article by turning what is obviously an activity of base psychosexual motivations (by people the majority of whom appear to have serious mental illness) to one where if on these poor "victims" could regain a long juicy anteater of a foreskin they would feel whole again (in the mens room). So please Michael don't lecture me on what should or should not be done, what should or should not be quoted and importantly on how not to be selective in how one quotes from studies. - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, Thank you for your comment. I understand that you don't like to be lectured. However, you had no answer to my point that your partial quote was a distortion of Fink's findings. I will restore the complete quote and I expect it to be left alone. Michael Glass 00:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A second instance of selective quotation was in relation to Moses et al.
Here is how the article read:
Winklemann identified the foreskin as a "specific erogenous zone" with nerve endings arranged in rete ridges. [12] Taylor et al. further developed this information with the discovery of a heavily innervated "ridged band" area near the tip of the foreskin. [13] Circumcision invariably removes this ridged band. Moses et al. commented: +
Here is how Robert edited it to read:
Is that an honest edit? Are we given a fair picture of what Moses et al wrote? I think not. Michael Glass 14:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quote fairly. Michael Glass 03:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ditti - Robert the Bruce 04:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There has been no response to Dan Blackham's comment. I have therefore put back the longer quotation because it more fairly reflects what Moses et al wrote. Michael Glass 05:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Despite evidence that circumcision does not lead to increased keratinization [72] (
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592) or reduction in sensitivity of the glans [73] (
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/independentreference/message/5) anti-circumcision activists continue to make such unsupported claims."
"However, despite the facts some men who undergo foreskin restoration claim that the procedure really does improve glans sensitivy."
Translation: "Despite the fact that it obviously doesn't affect sensitivity these morons still believe it anyway."
How exactly is that supposed to be NPOV?
It doesn't make sense to claim that being circumcised makes you last longer while simultaneously claiming that it has just the same sensitivity (as some pro-circ doctors had mentioned as a benefit). It also doesn't make sense to acknowledge that the glans has increased sensitivity after a circumcision when you're saying it doesn't change sensitivity ("Some men report unpleasant sensitivity of their glans after adult circumcision" from circumcision). I guess some doctors are a bit confused. Should doctors on the same side with contradicting statements be included in this?
- Nathan J. Yoder 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The section on female partners was incomplete and unbalanced. This has been corrected with additional information to form a NPOV. Robert Blair 02:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following paragraph is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision.
The paragraph should be in an article on an ethical or cultural analysis of circumcision, not a medical analysis of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 04:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please explain how the sexual preference of women in Iowa, most of whom had no sexual experience with intact men, is related to the medical analysis of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 07:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There were links to pictures of invasive penile cancer in the article:
Images of Invasive Penile Cancer in Uncircumcised Men ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD52/img0084.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD55/img0066.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD16/img0038.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD14/img0092.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD16/img0037.jpg)
I wrote: "When I clicked on the links provided, all I got was a page that said that dermis net, where the pictures were housed, had expired. (They were there only a few days ago!")
Robert replied:"(They're back! Now fancy that Michael - nice try though ;"
I have tried three times in the last 24 hours and got the following notice:
"This domain name expired on 10/16/2004 and is pending renewal or
deletion."
Robert, as I write this, they're not back. Why did you say that they were back when they weren't? Michael Glass 13:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, you have admitted that you were wrong about the link and have explained why you made this mistake. However, you did not apologise for implying that I was dishonest. Instead you descended to making further baseless allegations about my supposed motivations. I have noted this abuse and will take the action that I feel is appropriate about it. Michael Glass 12:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I can't comment on what you understand exactly and yet don't understand. That makes no sense to me. However, the links to Dermis.net still don't appear to be working right. From my computer they go to Dermis.net's main page. so there may still be a problem with the site. I recommend that you provide a link to web pages instead of jpg pictures. This would be more informative to the reader and may make the link more stable. Michael Glass 20:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I recommended that you provide a link to web pages instead of jpg pictures. You said you wouldn't do that, so I wondered why. I checked out one web page and I found the pictures on one page [20]. The difference: this page mentions the name of the organisation that posted the pictures. Was that a problem to you? If so, why? Michael Glass 06:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I notice that the above question remains unanswered. It is Loony Tunes to have ten links to the pictures, five of which are unstable, when the same pictures can all be viewed with just one link. Michael Glass 05:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have provided information about death rates from cervical cancer but Robert contests this. I believe the figures are relevant because it puts into perspective the relative danger from cervical cancer. This is also relevant because of the claims that circumcision reduces the incidence of the virus that causes the cancer. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with this. Michael Glass 01:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"80% or more of these deaths (up to 5000 deaths per year) are likely to be prevented by screening, which means that about 100000 (one in 80) of the 8 million British women born between 1951 and 1970 will be saved from premature death by the cervical screening programme at a cost per life saved of about pound 36000." So effectively Michael once again you have been caught with your hand inthe cookie jar trying to sell a half truth to the unsuspecting readers. By universal pap smears they are treating the "symptom and not the cause". Think about it. - Robert the Bruce 03:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, could you explain to me what is POV about providing the death rate of a disease that is being discussed? How do you justify removing information about the death rate of a disease that is being discussed? What is your problem with the death rate? Could it be that there is not a big enough gap between the cervical cancer death rates of Great Britain and the United States to suit your purposes? Michael Glass 20:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Robert the Bruce 04:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Robert, I "failed" to "include" the influence of screening on the death rates from cervical cancer, because it was already in the article! I quote:
What I did was to add the death rates from cervical cancer. The very thing you accused me of failing to include was in the article all that time.
So why is it important to include the information about death rates? The answer can be found in the abstract that Robert noted above. I quote:
Clearly, this abstract has to be understood in the light of a controversy over funding the cervical cancer screening program. You see, the death rates from cervical cancer were small enough for some bean counters to argue that the screening program didn't make a great difference to overall death rates. The figures that I quoted help to explain why that argument might arise.
There is another reason for including the overall death rates from cervical cancer. The article implies that Great Britain has suffered an epidemic of cervical cancer because of a lack of circumcision. By including the cervical cancer death rates of Britain and the United States, readers can judge for themselves how much difference it might make:
Once again, I suggest that Robert has failed to demonstrate how adding this information to what was already in the article is telling a half-truth. I contend that deliberately removing this information is the action of someone who prefers to dodge part of the picture for narrow ideological reasons. Michael Glass 14:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, in one place you argue that the death rate from cervical cancer has absolutely no bearing on the article; then you turn round and ask me to do the maths on the cost of saving lives. How can you do that without knowing the death rates? Michael Glass 01:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert has contested the following statement:
Healthy men are likely to have fewer sexual dysfunctions than men who are less healthy. Some illnesses are known to affect sexual function, including circulatory diseases, diabetes and depression, and all these diseases are more prevalent in less advantaged communities. In Laumann's sample, the circumcised men were more likely to come from the wealthier and healthier sections of the American community. Hence it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that this may have had an effect on reported levels of sexual dysfunction. Michael Glass 12:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will drop that speculation on condition that you agree to drop all your speculative comments from the article. Michael Glass 21:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, the question at issue here is the Laumann study's findings, but let us say that you are right in saying that I'm good at finding flaws in one set of studies while you are good at finding flaws in another set. That sounds like a pretty good combination to me. It means that you will be a good check on me and I will be a good check on you. If we can do it that way we can both benefit from each other's insights. Michael Glass 06:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I see that you are not interested in discussing the Laumann study findings. As your interests lie elsewhere, please go somewhere else and discuss your preoccupations with someone else. Michael Glass 23:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This section on analysis appears to be pure the presentation of psycho sexual speculation from anti-circumcision zealots which have been conclusively rebutted. This section therefore no longer serves any purpose. It should be deleted. I suggest we start a count down here on the basis of seeking out those who believe there is anymerit in its retention. Lets work on a seven day count down. - Robert the Bruce 08:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Information about the findings of Winklemann and Taylor must stay. If people are to argue about removing the foreskin they should at least know what the foreskin consists of. Michael Glass 23:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please don’t lecture me on honesty. I have not found your words particularly honest or reliable. You just said "Taylor’s stuff is pure speculation." However, you disprove this when you reveal that he examined cadavers! A link to one of Taylor’s articles, e.g., The Prepuce [22] would enable readers to check what he wrote and make up their own minds. Michael Glass 13:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I described my edit thus:
Robert described his edit thus:
(cur) (last) 08:19, 30 Oct 2004 Robert the Bruce (OK Michael lets get rid of the whole paragraph then - no problems either way with that I hope?)
So what does he do? He cuts out a second paragraph, removing the findings of Winlelmann and Taylor as well. Could Robert explain whether this was carelessness or deceit? Either way, a misleading description of an edit is unacceptable. Michael Glass 23:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, if you want to object to the Winkelmann and Taylor studies so be it. I will be interested to consider why you feel these references are a problem. In fairness to the reader, there should be links to the relevant studies such as Cold & McGrath's paper [23] so that the readers can easily go to these studies and judge for themselves. What I objected to is your misleading description of your edit.
You described your move as ‘suspending’ these words. This is mendacious. You deleted them. You deleted them and you described your edit as deleting something else. This is not an honest description of what you did. "Deceitful" could be a word to describe it.
As for the question of a foreskin fetish, I believe that you may know something about this. Someone who would write about the "long juicy anteater of a foreskin" may well have something to say about this subject. However, there is also the evidence of a sexual involvement in circumcision that also has to be considered, such as Williamson and Williamson’s "the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect." [24] Circumcision Fetishism could also be a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Michael Glass 13:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at robert's "A general clean up" edit. He deleted quite a bit of information in his "general clean up." His blatant lies in edits are a violation of Wikipedia policy. Whenever he responds to comments of this type with very legitimate criticism he just evades the entire point and engages in ad hominem. Nathan J. Yoder 17:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The topic of this article is a medical analysis of circumcision. The following historical information is interesting, but in my opinion it is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision. Also the information is already included in the main Circumcision article.
In my opinion the discussion of the history of circumcision should be in the main Circumcision article, not this one. -- DanBlackham 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion the following links from the introduction would be more appropriately located in the sections of the article that discuss penile cancer and complications, instead of the introduction.
DanBlackham 09:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am deeply concerned about Robert the Bruce's comment:
We need to strive toward the truth and not be concerned it that does not appear to be "balanced"
NPOV requires that both sides be presented, not judging either (or an intermediate one!) as "right". NPOV does not mean that every disputed entry (ie. something that doesn't match Robert's opinion) must be deleted, all while the pro-mutilation propaganda should go unscathed. I'm fully accepting of sections of this article that have constant pro-mutilation slant. So why is this comment about "truth, not balance" even present. Let both sides present their view without "value judgement" and let the reader decide. And let's all wonder why we don't have 'Medical analysis' articles for any other procedure. DanP 17:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that striving towards the truth is important, too. However, striving towards the truth is not aided by a one-sided presentation. Michael Glass 23:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As only 21% of the sample of women in the Williamson study had sexual contact with uncircumcised men it is more accurate to say that most of them had no contact rather than some of them. As Robert says, we should strive toward the truth.
In the section on phimosis I have made two main changes. One was to simplify the wording describing the Oster study and to indent his quoted words. The other was to replace an inaccurate summary of the cohort study in New Zealand with a direct quotation from the PubMed abstract. The study was about penile problems in general. It was not restricted to phimosis.
If anyone has any problem with these edits I would appreciate it if they would state their objections, and not just revert to a previous version. Michael Glass 13:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Michael, the summary of Fergusson's study is accurate. While the study did examine penile problems in general, results were presented relating to phimosis specifically, which is what this section is about. It may be worth moving the quotation from the abstract to another (new?) section. The abstract does not discuss the phimosis findings, but the full text of the study does. - Jakew 19:49, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jakew, you have acknowledged that the summary of Fergusson's study is accurate. Despite this admission you have substituted a version that is quite inconsistent with the abstract. The Fergusson abstract says:
If the full study says something different, then a full reference should have been given. Instead, in a highly contentious area, you have made things even worse by suppressing the link to the abstract of the article. You cannot expect people to take your assertion about the full article on trust. Give us the evidence or revert to the abstract. Michael Glass 23:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Michael, the abstract is still there, under "Penile Problems". I haven't removed it. I have, however, added Fergusson's specific findings on phimosis to that section.
You raise an interesting point about taking things on trust. Should Wikipedia only include information that is verifiable on the internet? I strongly believe that everything should be available, but the fact remains that for much information, we have to visit a library, bookstore, or specialist (eg medical) library. Is that so unreasonable? - Jakew 11:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jake, I've included the information from the abstract in a new section on penile problems. If you wish to refer to the original paper, then by all means do so, even if it's not available on the net. Of course, a full citation would be necessary, so that people who are interested in checking it could do so. Michael Glass 22:42, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:Robert the Bruce has made edits suggesting that the participants in the vaginal dryness survey were not women. The survey itself [9] said, "We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men. Participants completed a 35-item sexual awareness survey. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men." Robert has consistently challenged unsupported claims in articles, and I think that this has often improved the articles' accuracy. However, a line has to be drawn. Robert is attempting to discredit the survery merely because he doesn't like its results. He has offered no evidence that the survey's participants were not female. Instead, he seeks to use insinuation to try to discredit the survey by filling the paragraph around it with his own underhanded attacks. This should not be allowed in a Wikipedia article. Acegikmo1 04:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've reverted to Acegikmo1's version. The possible bias of those conducting the survey is mentioned and unless there is any credible evidence of the claim then there is simply no reason at all to assert that the participants might not have been female. -- Starx 04:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In another paper, Bensley and Boyle explain that they surveyed 35 female and 42 gay male participants. In light of this, I think we can believe that the women were indeed female. However, they also admit that "the present findings" were "based on self-selected participants", and fail to explain how they were recruited. Are we looking at another O'Hara-style survey of anti-circumcision activists? - Jakew 11:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're jumping to conclusions. The quote about "self-selected participants" read:
In view of the present findings based on self-selected participants, the possible negative effects on adults' sexual function and psychological well-being need to be discussed in obtaining informed consent for circumcision (sexual reduction surgery) imposed on unconsenting male minors. Much larger representative samples are desirable.
I'm not sure how you interpreted that to mean the survey is "trash". Nor am I sure why you label me an "anti-circumcision activist". I suppose that you you think everyone who challenges your edits must be one. As to why the data from the survey should stay:
While this may not convince you, Robert, I think that it's enough to warrant keeping the survey (along with your disclaimers about it) unless and until it is conclusively demonstrated the the methodology was flawed. I am willing to undertake this investigation, Robert, and I hope you will follow up on what you have previously stated and tell me excatly what details you want to know about the survey. Acegikmo1 00:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1, the movement will indeed be proud of you. A sterling defence of Bensley/Boyle. The problem is that there is very little to be found other than the occasional (carefully selected) snippet of information on this survey. Each of these snippets are served up as a "must include" gem of information. The obvious POV pushing is hilarious. And yet you continue with the "who me?" line. ;-) Surely it is quite reasonable to expect the detail of a study to be public? Why would they not? It is a reasonable deduction therefore (given the low honesty quotient evident among anti-circ activists) that they are hiding something. That is why I challenged you to produce the detail. I did this because you are the main champion in fighting to keep this junk-science in the article. Instead of producing the detail you produce some junk about why the references to the survey should be kept. I say again that until such time as the detail has been produced and scrutinised it should be removed in toto. Now onto the O'Hara piece of trash. Given that the participants were recruited through an "anti-circumcision newsletter" with obvious dishonest intent why should this trash be allowed to be mentioned in Wikipedia other than as an example of anti-circumcision dishonesty? - Robert the Bruce 04:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I agree that being able to see the full survey would be nice. However, since it is not online and since I do not own a copy, I cannot magically "produce" it. Now, I am satisfied that the NZMJ article about the survey provides enough information to include it in the article, for the reasons I list above. You are not. That's fine.
On your talk page, you stated, "you are challenged to produce the detail of the survey. Why don't you email Bensley/Boyle?" Above you stated, "I am asking for the detail to be published. For instance what were the 32 points/questions in the survey? How were the participants recruited? I could go on forever."
As I've said, I am willing to e-mail Boyle. However, you have not been forthcoming about exactly what you want to know before you accept the survey. This prevents me from e-mailing Boyle with specific questions. Other than the two listed above points, what exactly do you want to know, Robert? Acegikmo1 03:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Acegikmo1, please do not attempt the juvenile tactic of trying to pass the buck to me. You want the crap included so the onus remains firmly with you to produce the detail. Email these characters then and try to prise the detail out of them. But in the meantime at least have the intellectual integrity to remove reference until the detail is in the public domain where it can be scrutinised. It is refreshing to communicate with you now that you are out of the closet (anti-circumcision speaking) and you have give up the pretence of feigned neutrality. So today's the day the Bensley/Boyle crap gets deleted, I will watch your reaction with close interest. - Robert the Bruce 03:47, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The disputed text:
A survey by O'Hara & O'Hara of women who have had experience with both circumcised and intact males reported that the women preferred an intact male sexual partner. [10] However, this study has been criticised on the grounds that it was performed by an anti-circumcision activist, and the subjects were largely recruited from an anti-circumcision mailing list. A summary of sexual awareness survey published in the New Zealand Medical Journal reported that the participants, 35 females, reported that they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised men. [11] However, the small size of the survey, the methodology, the method of recruitment, and the known anti-circumcision bias of the authors has led to doubt as to the accuracy of the reported findings.
Robert has every right to correct things that are not true or inaccurate or distorted. However, that does not extend to suppressing information that doesn't fit his mindset. Let's look at one particularly bad example. I quoted Fink's findings and Fink's words:
Robert mutilates this by cutting out the parts he doesn't like:
Is this honest? Isn't this "hiding something" by using just a snippet? Robert challenges the honesty of others. I challenge him to apply the same standards to his own contributions to Wikipedia. Michael Glass 23:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Michael, thank you for your input. I shall use this as a check on your own standard of intellectual integrity (or the lack thereof). It is clear that you set different and higher standards for other than you or your fellow anti-circumcision activists are able to maintain yourselves. Like with that "sympathetic" admin around here who can be relied upon to support your cause you fail to keep your "own" honest and turn a blind eye when the head-bangers post the most off-the-wall stuff. Unfortunately most the people who feign neutrality fail the test of intellectual honesty as well so you are not alone (although you find yourself in very dubious company). Taken for example the pathetic desperation to neutralise the Foreskin restoration article by turning what is obviously an activity of base psychosexual motivations (by people the majority of whom appear to have serious mental illness) to one where if on these poor "victims" could regain a long juicy anteater of a foreskin they would feel whole again (in the mens room). So please Michael don't lecture me on what should or should not be done, what should or should not be quoted and importantly on how not to be selective in how one quotes from studies. - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, Thank you for your comment. I understand that you don't like to be lectured. However, you had no answer to my point that your partial quote was a distortion of Fink's findings. I will restore the complete quote and I expect it to be left alone. Michael Glass 00:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A second instance of selective quotation was in relation to Moses et al.
Here is how the article read:
Winklemann identified the foreskin as a "specific erogenous zone" with nerve endings arranged in rete ridges. [12] Taylor et al. further developed this information with the discovery of a heavily innervated "ridged band" area near the tip of the foreskin. [13] Circumcision invariably removes this ridged band. Moses et al. commented: +
Here is how Robert edited it to read:
Is that an honest edit? Are we given a fair picture of what Moses et al wrote? I think not. Michael Glass 14:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Quote fairly. Michael Glass 03:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
ditti - Robert the Bruce 04:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There has been no response to Dan Blackham's comment. I have therefore put back the longer quotation because it more fairly reflects what Moses et al wrote. Michael Glass 05:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"Despite evidence that circumcision does not lead to increased keratinization [72] (
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7249/1592) or reduction in sensitivity of the glans [73] (
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/independentreference/message/5) anti-circumcision activists continue to make such unsupported claims."
"However, despite the facts some men who undergo foreskin restoration claim that the procedure really does improve glans sensitivy."
Translation: "Despite the fact that it obviously doesn't affect sensitivity these morons still believe it anyway."
How exactly is that supposed to be NPOV?
It doesn't make sense to claim that being circumcised makes you last longer while simultaneously claiming that it has just the same sensitivity (as some pro-circ doctors had mentioned as a benefit). It also doesn't make sense to acknowledge that the glans has increased sensitivity after a circumcision when you're saying it doesn't change sensitivity ("Some men report unpleasant sensitivity of their glans after adult circumcision" from circumcision). I guess some doctors are a bit confused. Should doctors on the same side with contradicting statements be included in this?
- Nathan J. Yoder 07:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The section on female partners was incomplete and unbalanced. This has been corrected with additional information to form a NPOV. Robert Blair 02:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The following paragraph is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision.
The paragraph should be in an article on an ethical or cultural analysis of circumcision, not a medical analysis of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 04:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please explain how the sexual preference of women in Iowa, most of whom had no sexual experience with intact men, is related to the medical analysis of circumcision. -- DanBlackham 07:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There were links to pictures of invasive penile cancer in the article:
Images of Invasive Penile Cancer in Uncircumcised Men ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD52/img0084.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD55/img0066.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD16/img0038.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD14/img0092.jpg) ( http://www.dermis.net/bilder/CD16/img0037.jpg)
I wrote: "When I clicked on the links provided, all I got was a page that said that dermis net, where the pictures were housed, had expired. (They were there only a few days ago!")
Robert replied:"(They're back! Now fancy that Michael - nice try though ;"
I have tried three times in the last 24 hours and got the following notice:
"This domain name expired on 10/16/2004 and is pending renewal or
deletion."
Robert, as I write this, they're not back. Why did you say that they were back when they weren't? Michael Glass 13:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, you have admitted that you were wrong about the link and have explained why you made this mistake. However, you did not apologise for implying that I was dishonest. Instead you descended to making further baseless allegations about my supposed motivations. I have noted this abuse and will take the action that I feel is appropriate about it. Michael Glass 12:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I can't comment on what you understand exactly and yet don't understand. That makes no sense to me. However, the links to Dermis.net still don't appear to be working right. From my computer they go to Dermis.net's main page. so there may still be a problem with the site. I recommend that you provide a link to web pages instead of jpg pictures. This would be more informative to the reader and may make the link more stable. Michael Glass 20:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I recommended that you provide a link to web pages instead of jpg pictures. You said you wouldn't do that, so I wondered why. I checked out one web page and I found the pictures on one page [20]. The difference: this page mentions the name of the organisation that posted the pictures. Was that a problem to you? If so, why? Michael Glass 06:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I notice that the above question remains unanswered. It is Loony Tunes to have ten links to the pictures, five of which are unstable, when the same pictures can all be viewed with just one link. Michael Glass 05:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have provided information about death rates from cervical cancer but Robert contests this. I believe the figures are relevant because it puts into perspective the relative danger from cervical cancer. This is also relevant because of the claims that circumcision reduces the incidence of the virus that causes the cancer. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with this. Michael Glass 01:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"80% or more of these deaths (up to 5000 deaths per year) are likely to be prevented by screening, which means that about 100000 (one in 80) of the 8 million British women born between 1951 and 1970 will be saved from premature death by the cervical screening programme at a cost per life saved of about pound 36000." So effectively Michael once again you have been caught with your hand inthe cookie jar trying to sell a half truth to the unsuspecting readers. By universal pap smears they are treating the "symptom and not the cause". Think about it. - Robert the Bruce 03:42, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, could you explain to me what is POV about providing the death rate of a disease that is being discussed? How do you justify removing information about the death rate of a disease that is being discussed? What is your problem with the death rate? Could it be that there is not a big enough gap between the cervical cancer death rates of Great Britain and the United States to suit your purposes? Michael Glass 20:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Robert the Bruce 04:00, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Dear Robert, I "failed" to "include" the influence of screening on the death rates from cervical cancer, because it was already in the article! I quote:
What I did was to add the death rates from cervical cancer. The very thing you accused me of failing to include was in the article all that time.
So why is it important to include the information about death rates? The answer can be found in the abstract that Robert noted above. I quote:
Clearly, this abstract has to be understood in the light of a controversy over funding the cervical cancer screening program. You see, the death rates from cervical cancer were small enough for some bean counters to argue that the screening program didn't make a great difference to overall death rates. The figures that I quoted help to explain why that argument might arise.
There is another reason for including the overall death rates from cervical cancer. The article implies that Great Britain has suffered an epidemic of cervical cancer because of a lack of circumcision. By including the cervical cancer death rates of Britain and the United States, readers can judge for themselves how much difference it might make:
Once again, I suggest that Robert has failed to demonstrate how adding this information to what was already in the article is telling a half-truth. I contend that deliberately removing this information is the action of someone who prefers to dodge part of the picture for narrow ideological reasons. Michael Glass 14:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, in one place you argue that the death rate from cervical cancer has absolutely no bearing on the article; then you turn round and ask me to do the maths on the cost of saving lives. How can you do that without knowing the death rates? Michael Glass 01:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert has contested the following statement:
Healthy men are likely to have fewer sexual dysfunctions than men who are less healthy. Some illnesses are known to affect sexual function, including circulatory diseases, diabetes and depression, and all these diseases are more prevalent in less advantaged communities. In Laumann's sample, the circumcised men were more likely to come from the wealthier and healthier sections of the American community. Hence it is perfectly legitimate to suggest that this may have had an effect on reported levels of sexual dysfunction. Michael Glass 12:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I will drop that speculation on condition that you agree to drop all your speculative comments from the article. Michael Glass 21:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, the question at issue here is the Laumann study's findings, but let us say that you are right in saying that I'm good at finding flaws in one set of studies while you are good at finding flaws in another set. That sounds like a pretty good combination to me. It means that you will be a good check on me and I will be a good check on you. If we can do it that way we can both benefit from each other's insights. Michael Glass 06:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, I see that you are not interested in discussing the Laumann study findings. As your interests lie elsewhere, please go somewhere else and discuss your preoccupations with someone else. Michael Glass 23:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This section on analysis appears to be pure the presentation of psycho sexual speculation from anti-circumcision zealots which have been conclusively rebutted. This section therefore no longer serves any purpose. It should be deleted. I suggest we start a count down here on the basis of seeking out those who believe there is anymerit in its retention. Lets work on a seven day count down. - Robert the Bruce 08:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Information about the findings of Winklemann and Taylor must stay. If people are to argue about removing the foreskin they should at least know what the foreskin consists of. Michael Glass 23:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please don’t lecture me on honesty. I have not found your words particularly honest or reliable. You just said "Taylor’s stuff is pure speculation." However, you disprove this when you reveal that he examined cadavers! A link to one of Taylor’s articles, e.g., The Prepuce [22] would enable readers to check what he wrote and make up their own minds. Michael Glass 13:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I described my edit thus:
Robert described his edit thus:
(cur) (last) 08:19, 30 Oct 2004 Robert the Bruce (OK Michael lets get rid of the whole paragraph then - no problems either way with that I hope?)
So what does he do? He cuts out a second paragraph, removing the findings of Winlelmann and Taylor as well. Could Robert explain whether this was carelessness or deceit? Either way, a misleading description of an edit is unacceptable. Michael Glass 23:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Robert, if you want to object to the Winkelmann and Taylor studies so be it. I will be interested to consider why you feel these references are a problem. In fairness to the reader, there should be links to the relevant studies such as Cold & McGrath's paper [23] so that the readers can easily go to these studies and judge for themselves. What I objected to is your misleading description of your edit.
You described your move as ‘suspending’ these words. This is mendacious. You deleted them. You deleted them and you described your edit as deleting something else. This is not an honest description of what you did. "Deceitful" could be a word to describe it.
As for the question of a foreskin fetish, I believe that you may know something about this. Someone who would write about the "long juicy anteater of a foreskin" may well have something to say about this subject. However, there is also the evidence of a sexual involvement in circumcision that also has to be considered, such as Williamson and Williamson’s "the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect." [24] Circumcision Fetishism could also be a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Michael Glass 13:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Take a look at robert's "A general clean up" edit. He deleted quite a bit of information in his "general clean up." His blatant lies in edits are a violation of Wikipedia policy. Whenever he responds to comments of this type with very legitimate criticism he just evades the entire point and engages in ad hominem. Nathan J. Yoder 17:09, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)