Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 2


 * Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 1

Historical information
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.
 * Circumcision, a religious requirement in Muslim and Jewish traditions, and a cultural practice in some other communities, was taken up by doctors in the late 19th century in several English-speaking countries, often as a cure for masturbation. It never gained popularity in continental Europe, but became more or less accepted in the United States, the United Kingdom and much of English-speaking Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


 * More recently (first in the United Kingdom and then in other Commonwealth countries), circumcision has become less popular. As this happened, voices of concern were raised in the United States about neonatal circumcision and it is now considered highly controversial by some American medical professionals.

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)

Links from introduction
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)
 * Penile cancer:
 * Complications:


 * I've included the penile cancer information in the relevant section. I've also removed lengthy discussions of now irrelevant ancient medical studies, and NPOVd the text, which was obviously written from an anti-circumcision viewpoint (e.g. pro-circumcision advocates were described as such, anti-circumcision advocates were not, etc.). Jayjg 15:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Concerns
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)


 * In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the remainder of the sample was sexually experienced only with circumcised men.

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.

Correcting Inaccuracies
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:


 * By 8 years, circumcised children had a rate of 11.1 problems per 100 children, and uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100. The majority of these problems were for penile inflammation including balanitis, meatitis, and inflammation of the prepuce.

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)

Bensley/Boyle survey
User:Robert the Bruce has made edits suggesting that the participants in the vaginal dryness survey were not women. The survey itself 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 challenge you to produce the detail of this survey by these two Bensley/Boyle anti-circumcision zealots. I would suggest that unless this detail is made available all reference to this survey be deleted from Wikipedia. It should be unacceptable to those who claim to be in search of the truth that the use of such snippets of information be attempted to be introduced as incontrovertible fact. This is an absolute disgrace and brings shame on Wikipedia. In other words we have reached a point where either "you put up or shut up". BTW good to see you have come out of the closet (so to speak) and given up your previous pretence of neutrality. - Robert the Bruce 05:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The survey was published in full in Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem. Details are provided at the link to the article, inlcuding numebr of participants, age of participants, age of partners, number of items in the survey, etc.  No-one is trying to claim that the results are incontrovertible fact, as your qualifying statements in the article make clear.  You're being unreasonable.  I never had a "pretence of neutrality".  I was and am interested in ensureing that Wikipedia articles are accurate and adhere to the NPOV policy.  Acegikmo1 05:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I am not being unreasonable. 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. There is nothing more disgraceful than someone who pushes a POV while hiding underthe veil of supposed neutrality and then swears on a stack of Bibles that all he wants is to ensure that NPOV is achieved. You should be ashamed of yourself. - Robert the Bruce 16:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, it was published. The fact that it isn't online doesn't mean it wasn't published, not does it mean we can't use it as a resource.  I have even offered on your talk page to e-mail the authors of the survey, requesting more information.  You have specified two things you want to know above.  What else is there?  If you will prepare a list of the things you want to know about the survey, I will contact Boyle and ask for the information.  I think that demonstrates that I'm the one interested in accuracy and neutrality while you're more interested in pushing your own point of view. Acegikmo1 00:13, 22 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)
 * Now why does that not comes as a surprise? Acegikmo1 supports the assertion that "the world is flat" and you now agree that it is up to those who believe that the world is round to prove their point. You you will no doubt state (with a straight face) that you are contributing to NPOV? ;-) - Robert the Bruce 05:09, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, my assertion was that the participants in a sexual awareness survey about vaginal dryness were female, as the survey stated. You're the one who thinks they were male.  Acegikmo1 05:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You read the survey? Where? There is not enough detail on the survey anywhere I know of. Post the detail by Sunday morning or the trash gets deleted. - Robert the Bruce 16:52, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Everything I stated above appears in the New Zealand Medical Journal article. I don't find your argument that "there is not enough detail" very persuasive.  If the information above was thorough enough to appear in a medical journal, why not Wikipedia?  Acegikmo1 00:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that Jake. Well I suppose no one should be surprised that this turns out to be yet another pile of dog shit. Have these people got no shame? Based on what we know and still don't know about the O'Hara and Bensley/Boyle pieces of trash they should be deleted from Wikipedia. Before deleting this trash I suppose one should give Acegikmo1 and his fellow anti-circumcision activists a day or so to post a plea in mitigation. No explanation of why it should stay then by Sunday morning they will be gone. - Robert the Bruce 16:52, 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)
 * It contains information about the effects of circumcision on sexual intercourse.
 * It is a contemporary investigation of the claims made by O'Hara, Bigelow, Moynihan, and Leiblum.
 * It was conducted by Gregory Boyle, who holds two Ph.Ds and has published over 150 research papers in national and international journals
 * It appeared in the New Zealand Medical Journal
 * It is revelent to the article at hand and the information it contains cannot be found elsewhere.

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)


 * As I said above, "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 the only one challenging the inclusion of the survey.  You are the only one who thinks that the information that appeared in a medical journal is not detailed enough.


 * I have removed the paragraph from the article myself, to show that I am interested in recognizing that you dispute it and discussing your problems with it here. However, you'll have to be willing to work with me.  I cannot simply make the full survey appear online.  We have established that.  I can, however, e-mail the author, which I am willing to do.  So tell me Robert, what questions should I ask in the e-mail?


 * Acegikmo1 04:04, 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. 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. 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.

Evidence of the sexual effects of circumcision
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:
 * Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

Robert mutilates this by cutting out the parts he doesn't like:
 * However, of the men 50% reported benefits, 38% reported harm and overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

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. Taylor et al. further developed this information with the discovery of a heavily innervated "ridged band" area near the tip of the foreskin. Circumcision invariably removes this ridged band. Moses et al. commented:	+
 * There is indirect evidence suggesting that the foreskin may have an important sensory function, although aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure. Some loss of sensory function may not be an important consideration, or may not even be felt to be disadvantageous by men and women more troubled by premature ejaculation than concerned with increased penile sensitivity. However, few studies have investigated the relation between male circumcision and sexual pleasure or satisfaction; more research is needed to clarify the role of the foreskin in sexual health.

Here is how Robert edited it to read:


 * Winklemann identified the foreskin as a "specific erogenous zone" with nerve endings arranged in rete ridges. Taylor et al. further developed this information with the discovery of a heavily innervated "ridged band" area near the tip of the foreskin. Circumcision invariably removes this ridged band. However, as Moses et al. noted, "it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure.";

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)
 * As they say around here those interested can follow the link and read the detail for themselves. What say now? - Robert the Bruce 14:29, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quote fairly. Michael Glass 03:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ditti - Robert the Bruce 04:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * In my opinion Robert's selective quote of Moses, et al is misleading. The whole sentence should be included, "There is indirect evidence suggesting that the foreskin may have an important sensory function, although aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure." -- DanBlackham 07:52, 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)
 * Actually what you tried to do there was to slip in the Bensley/Boyle junk science. See archive for discussion on this - Robert the Bruce 05:22, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated to medical analysis
The following paragraph is not relevant to a medical analysis of circumcision.
 * A 1988 study of new mothers found that 71% preferred a circumcised partner for sexual intercourse, and 83% for giving fellatio. When asked why, 92% responded that it stays cleaner and 90% that it looks sexier. Although 78% of the women had not had direct contact with an uncircumcised penis, those who did expressed the same preferenceHowever, this study has been criticised for alleged pro-circumcision bias of the authors and the fact that the study was done in an area of the United States where circumcision was the norm.

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)
 * Dan I welcome your sudden change of heart in that you have a new concern for keeping content focussed narrowly on the article subject on hand. Would I be naive to expect your total support when I get amongst the off topic anti-circ propaganda that has been insidiously inserted into numerous articles over a period of time? Ok then ... somehow I thought not. - Robert the Bruce 10:54, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good God. How can you guys wage wars over such banal issues as circumcision? Aesthetics and personal preference are simply not medical issues -- unless you decide to include the pleasure of the significant other as a condition of mental health and then argue that that has anything to do with the initial topic (kinda like saying many men prefer bigger breasts on women in an article about boobjobs). There's really nothing you can argue about here -- aesthetics are aesthetics and medicine is medicine. If you want to talk about aesthetics (which is as POV as a topic can get, unless you don't believe in cultural bias) do so in the circumcision article, not in the one about the medical issues related to circumcision. Christ. --Ashmodai 17:03, 15 Jun 2005 (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)

Loony Tunes Link
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)
 * Dermis.net has often been intermittent. This should suit you agenda, no? I guess you can be glad that they are not always available ... truly horrific stuff. Enough to turn the stomach of even the most ardent foreskin admirer, yes? I have learned something though. I was told by someone that the fact that they are always visible to me is that my browser has them cached. So it is only when I refresh the page that I can establish that the site is in fact down. Don't worry though Michael, I will be sure to let you know exactly when the site is up again. - Robert the Bruce 18:21, 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)
 * Michael I still don't know what you are on about. As of now the links are working. What exactly is your problem? The site is intermittent. Try it and see for yourself. PS: I understand exactly why you are so keen to have the links deleted. I sympathise. - Robert the Bruce 16:57, 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)


 * Anyway thank you for drawing attention to this "problem" Michael. I have found some alternative URL's which seem to work just fine. On the other matter michael, no. The links should go direct to the images and not to the home page where people will battle to find the right images. As you well know Michael ... a picture is worth a 1,000 words. ;-) - Robert the Bruce 03:34, 27 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. 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)


 * This seems to be raising an old question, but why exactly are there five images of invasive penile cancer? Would not one do? Is someone attempting to prove a point? If so, Wikipedia is not about proving points.   &mdash; Asbestos | Talk 11:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cervical Cancer Death Rates
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)
 * To focus purely on reported deaths covers only part of the story. The British research stated quite clearly:


 * Robert, once again you have resorted to personal attacks and abuse instead of concentrating on the issue. It was certainly not my intention to deceive, but to put the disease into perspective. Your concentration on subtracting information rather than adding it fits your description of trying to sell a half truth. If you are interested in telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth you should be concentrating on adding information instead of subtracting it. If you feel that the information was distorted or wrong, then work with me and others to get better information. But don't just cut out information. That is not fair dealing. Michael Glass 06:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Michael it is very difficult to work with someone committed to inserting their POV in articles. If you have any idea how such alliance of truth would be possible given the history of POV insertions around here I would be keen to hear about it. - Robert the Bruce 17:14, 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)
 * Simple Michael, because you are failing to include the influence screening has had on the incidence of related deaths in the UK. It is up to you to write an NPOV piece which will include the total picture and not to just slip in a half truth. Your source for this is:
 * The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15262102

- 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:
 * ...scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine found that had it not been for effective cervical screening fully one in 65 of all British women born since 1950 would have died from cancer of the cervix.

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:
 * BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that the reduction in mortality achieved by the UK national cervical screening programme is too small to justify its financial and psychosocial costs, except perhaps in a few high-risk women.

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:
 * In 2000, cervical cancer deaths in Great Britain were 3.9 per 100,000.(USA, 3.3; Canada, 2.8; Australia, 2.4.)

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)
 * You have every right to suggest what you may but that does not change the situation one iota in that you are deliberately attempting to sell a half truth here. The death rate from cervical cancer has absolutely no bearing on the article as it is only the end result of a process which can largely be avoided through screening. Anyone who understands a jot about the great circumcision debate will know that your single intention is insinuate that "risk" to partners of both circumcised and uncircumcised men is about the same. This is clearly not so. Do the math as far as the UK is concerned and put a cost on the whole situation at GB pounds 36,000 per life saved. It is this pathological fear you and your ilk have of the foreskin being recognised as a public health risk that drives you to such extraordinary lengths. Very sad Michael, very sad. - Robert the Bruce 15:44, 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)

Limitations of the Laumann study
Robert has contested the following statement:


 * Laumann also found that circumcision was less prevalent in Black and Hispanic males and those whose mothers had less education. As health is worse amongst non-whites and the less well educated in America, this could have influenced the above findings.

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)
 * This is uneducated speculation. It has no place in Wikipedia. Drop it Michael. - Robert the Bruce 17:09, 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)
 * Michael you seem very astute at findings limitations in studies which do not have foreskin friendly findings but I wonder why you seem to miss glaring aspects relating to those which seem to provide a means for the promotion of the foreskin. The next question should be considered as a test of your intellectual integrity. Using your "sharp eye" for such limitations would you provide us all with your take on the O'Hara survey? I would love to get your take as to any possible "limitations" or even a fatal flaw with it. - Robert the Bruce 03:50, 28 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)
 * Michael it would perhaps be good if you start and explain why you need to be "checked on". Share with us what floats your boat? Are you a foreskin restorer? Maybe that done you can turn your attention upon the O'Hara survey, yes? - Robert the Bruce 15:36, 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)

Sexual Effects
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)
 * Michael I have responded to you on this (below) in some detail. The problem is that the use of Winkelmann as a source of foreskin friendly information is somewhat less tha honest because he did not state what you want to present him as having stated. (Does this sort of detail bother you?) And secondly that Taylor stuff is pure speculation. I suggest it is prudent to delete all reference to Taylor until there has been some independent finding which support the conclusions he leapt to after looking at some skins form cadavers under a microscope. We need to remember we are working on an encyclopaedia here and not a publicity brochure for the anti-circumcision movement. The need for honesty and accuracy is clearly much higher here at Wikipedia. Please respect that. - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 31 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  would enable readers to check what he wrote and make up their own minds. Michael Glass 13:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Misleading Description of Edits
I described my edit thus:


 * (cur) (last) 06:04, 30 Oct 2004 Michael Glass (Sexual Effects - Robert, the snippet distorts what Moses et al wrote. A distorted quote is not good enough.r.)

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)
 * The problem is your selective approach to this subject. You want to closely examine what Moses stated but you just want to keep a sound bite from Winkelmann. By introducing such information you kind of open a "Pandora's box" where if is difficult to know where to begin and where to end. That is where the POV comes in. For example you want to include a soundbite that a person named Winkelmann included the foreskin in his study of erogenous zones you need to explain the differences in function between Meissner and Vater-Pacini corpuscles and explain that Winkelmann also included the oral cavity, conjunctival region, the perianal region and the lip. And then we need to explain that the enervation of the foreskin is closer to that of the oral cavity than the clitoris or the glans penis. I mean how far do you want to go with this Michael? The one thing for certain is that it will lead to your anti-circumcision deceit about the sexual function be debunked once and for all and all that will remain will be the psychosexual aspects (such as foreskin fetishism) but no scientific or anatomical evidence to prove your case. So if you want to include something along the lines in the now "suspended" (rather than deleted) paragraph why not work it out here before trying to reinsert nonsense into the body of the article. BTW, have you noticed how nicely the Foreskin fetish article is starting to take shape? But boy has it touched some nerves in the process. Would you like to bring your expertise to that party? - Robert the Bruce 02:53, 31 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 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." 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)