Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Walabio and Jakew

Mediation involving: Walabio (talk &bull; contribs) and Jakew (talk &bull; contribs)

Mediator: Sam Korn (talk &bull; contribs) sam DOT korn AT gmail DOT com

Mediation begun 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Initial request for mediation

 * gliding action & foreskin — a certain user tries to pawn off people not liking phimosis as people not liking gliding action on gliding action and on foreskin, the same use claims the the præpuce gives no erogenous sensation and that the præpuce protects against heat cold, mechanical, et cetera, to such structures as the glans, meatus, frænulum, its own inner smooth and ridge mucosa, et cetera. I tried to resolve this with sources and arguments as well as RfCs, but to no avail. —  — Ŭalabio‽  00:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Iff the other party is named and declares themself willing to participate, I will take this on. Remember that mediation is about resolving disputes, not punishing others or forcing someone else's hand.   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jake Waskett for reasons I shall not explain, believes that all præpucii should be amputated.  He continually reverts everything which makes the præpuce seem like a good thing or makes  the world is round  and continuously reverting is just not fun. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you could also say what you hope the outcome of the mediation to be, I'd be grateful. Also, where is the dispute?   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A good outcome would be that when presented with reliable sources, he would accept them rather than just revert. — — Ŭalabio‽ 01:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Sam. Thank you for your message. I'd be happy to take part in mediation, and have no objection to you mediating.
 * I note that the type of mediation has not been specified. Nor has a desired outcome been expressed that can be measured in terms that Walabio and I agree upon (as noted on talk pages, the problem so far has been the lack of conformance with reliable source policy. Hence, as far as I'm concerned, when presented with reliable sources, I do accept them.
 * Walabio also misrepresents things in his request. He has raised no RfC, to my knowledge. Jakew 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Aim of mediation
Before we go about the mediation proper, I want to set out where the case is going to go.

First, I would like you both to refrain from reverting each other. This is to foster good-will between the two of you. Your preferred version may not currently be up, but see The Wrong Version for a humourous enterpretation of why this is necessary. This is wholly a gesture of good will. I'm not going to block you or anything like that if you don't comply (indeed, while mediating this dispute I won't block either of you), but I want to get this mediation off on a friendly foot.

Secondly, I want to set out the goals of the mediation. I want to know what articles we are mediating over. I need to know what parts of these articles we are mediating over. I need to know why we are mediating over them. I would like us to decide that here please, as soon as possible. Please don't be verbose or go into detail about what each other has been doing; just lay out what you want to mediate over.

Process of mediation
After this, I want to hear basically what has happened so far in the dispute. Again, I don't want reams upon reams of discussion, so if you can be reasonably succinct while still being fairly complete I'll be happy. Depending on what you prefer, you can either both post your statements here or we can do this by email.

After this, I shall put together a statement of the dispute, so that we can all see where we are standing. I shall then suggest a way forwards in the mediation proper.

If you have any suggestions or complaints, I am always happy to hear them. Good luck! [[Sam Korn ]] 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As Walabio requested this mediation, I will wait for him to state his position before I respond. However, I would like to take opportunity to expand on my statement above and object to his misrepresentation of the facts. I specifically object to: "Jake Waskett for reasons I shall not explain, believes that all præpucii should be amputated." As can be seen clearly on my user page, this is not the case. I do not consider it helpful or respectful to misrepresent things. Jakew 21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand you feel offended by these statements. However, I request that you follow Wikipedia's sound advice to assume good faith.  Assume that Walabio got this impression of you through a common failure to communicate well.  In my experience, this is the most common cause of disputes, both on and off the wiki.  Indeed, the primary task of mediation is getting the two of you talking properly again.  So I ask that you bear perceived insults for the time being in the hope that this will help you settle your differences and work for the good of Wikipedia.  We will attempt to work through these differences later.  In the mean time, please do state where you would like the mediation to focus.  It won't be successful if you think about it as Walabio vs Jakew: you need to consider it as Walabio and Jakew, working together.   [[Sam Korn ]] 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Basically this starts with a difference of opinion:

I believe that mutilation is wrong; so therefore, human genital mutilation is wrong too. Mister Jake Waskett  believes that if parents want to cut off the præpucii of their children, it is okay because he prefers penes sans præpucii. That is the background. This is the current problem:

Mister Jake Waskett  has extraordinary requirements for evidence. One can bend over backwards all day trying to satisfy him, yet if one tries to include evidence that intact genitals have functions or that genital mutilation is bad, he reverts despite the sources cited and the polls on the talkpage. 

When ever he wants to make a point, he often uses flimsy evidence. On gliding action, another user called out Mister Jake Waskett  on an uncited claim '' (the claim was that some people do not like gliding action, which I never doubted because one can find someone feeling any arbitrary way about anything if one looks sufficiently hard).  Mister  Jake Waskett  did a  very '' basic search and found a quotation which reads more like someone complaining about phimosis, the opposite of gliding action. I decided to add some sanity to the debate and found for Mister Jake Waskett  an unambiguous reference to someone not liking gliding action. He insisted on using both citations including his ambiguous source which sounds more like someone not liking phimosis, the opposite of gliding action. 

I wish that Mister Jake Waskett  would have reasonable requirements of evidence from others and hold himself to the same standards as he does others.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 01:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly, a minor correction to the background. I do consider circumcision to be perfectly acceptable, but not because of a personal preference. Other than this, the background is essentially correct. I would like to add something, though: it doesn't matter. Our individual opinions should make no difference because we are here to write an NPOV encyclopaedia. Sometimes I get the impression that you don't fully understand that goal, and that worries me. A recent example is here. While it's on a talk page, and as such doesn't directly affect the content, use of such emotive language as 'mutilators' seems inappropriate and disrespectful of other viewpoints to your own. (It's not the best example, I'm afraid; I'll try to find a better one when I have more time.)


 * Secondly, I see nothing wrong with requiring encyclopaedic sources. It's in our policies (WP:CITE and WP:RS). In the example you gave, foreskin, you haven't conformed with the policies. You've cited an anti-circumcision activist's personal web page (circumstitions.com), a google search, and (finally) a peer-reviewed article that only speculates that the claim might be true. The last is the most credible, but speculation is not sufficient evidence. When I explained this here and in preceding section, you ignored me.


 * As for the polls, as I've explained, they miss the point. Firstly, they ask about a different claim than was made in the article. I explained this and you simply denied it. Moreover, they ask the opinion of Wikipedia editors. But the whole point of WP:NOR is that our opinion doesn't matter! Even if you can get a unanimous vote from a hundred editors to say that the moon is made of blue cheese, it still doesn't belong in an article without a credible, encyclopaedic source.


 * Now, concerning my evidence, it is irrelevant whether you personally think that phimosis is involved. The text of that peer-reviewed article is perfectly clear: "Some likened the presence of a foreskin to wearing a condom". If it said "some likened an unretractable foreskin to..." then I would agree, but your reinterpretation has no validity. The 'unambiguous reference' you proposed was not suitable for inclusion, as circlist does not conform to WP:RS. I believe that a case could be made for relaxing the criteria for anecdotal evidence, but that should be done properly, by getting community consensus for changing policy. Jakew 12:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa, we're all running a little far ahead here. I don't want this mediation to descend into the anarchy of each of you writing essays against the other.  That is only going to be antagonising and will not help to solve the dispute.  Could I ask both of you to note in the above section which pages and which sections of those pages you would like the mediation to approach.  We will come to what is actually happening presently.  I understand you are both impatient with each other, but I hope you will realise that the only way of resolving this dispute is to take a deep breath and try to come at the problem afresh.  The mediation will have the greatest chance of success if you can both resist the urge to take side-swipes at each other, and to be angered.  Take this slowly; there's no rush.  Let me lead the way.  Also, I think it would promote a friendly atmosphere if we all address each other plainly: Jakew as Jake, Walabio as Walabio (unless you have another name...) and me as Sam.  I see no reason why this mediation cannot be successful if we all resolve to come at it calmly and in good faith.


 * Therefore, for the moment, can I ask you to list where you want this mediation to discuss. The matter can then progress from there.   [[Sam Korn ]] 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your patience, Sam. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to discuss whatever Walabio feels we should. I must confess that I don't entirely understand why Walabio felt the need to request mediation, since although we frequently disagree, we seemed (to me at least) to be able to communicate. Please don't misunderstand though - I'm more than happy to take part. I'm just a bit puzzled.


 * Walabio's stated goal is, if I may paraphrase, to change the standards of evidence which I apply. However, I believe that to enter into mediation in good faith we cannot presume such a one-sided outcome. I'd therefore like to propose a subtly different goal, which recognises that the problem may or may not be my standards, but it certainly in the fact that Walabio feels that they are unreasonable. The goal, therefore, would be to lessen or relieve his dissatisfaction.


 * Sam, if I understand correctly, you seem to want to discuss certain edits to specific articles or sections thereof. Is that right? If so, that's fine with me, but I'm concerned that we may be talking at cross-purposes here, since the problems and goals raised seem to be wider and more general. That's my impression, anyway. Jakew 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not really sure what I want to discuss. Neither of you is making the issue exactly clear what you want to discuss.  You, Jake, seem to want to discuss the wider points.  Walabio seems to be more concerned with the dispute about gliding action.  I think it would be helpful to address the wider points, but I am open to persuasion here.  Jake: perhaps you could place your view of the dispute (both this one and those in general) below Walabio's.  When we get that far, I'll suggest a course of action.  Please understand that all my questions are so that I can get a picture of the shape of the dispute, so that I can help you sort it.   [[Sam Korn ]] 14:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I did start an RfCs about foreskin and gliding action. My characterization of the motives of Jake are from observation ''' — I believe that Jake will agree that we both know much about the onlinebehavior of the other. ''' Basically, I wish to break the cycle of endless reverts. Let us get to business:

In gliding action, Jake wanted to find sources claiming not to like gliding action. The statistics already exist in the article '' (a study cited in the article shows that most people like gliding action, which means that some do not). '' Jake wanted an anecdote. I fail to see why it matters whether an anecdote is part of peerreviewed study or not. Individual anecdotes are meaningless except as illustrative examples. It is the percentage of people feeling x or y which is important. Pyramidschemes usually advertise with true but nonrepresentative testimonials. I figure that if Jake wants an anecdote, whence it comes is much less important than whether the anecdote is ambiguous or not.

In foreskin, Jake objects to thats so well established facts '' (everyone knows that the præpuce has protective and erogenous properties). '' At first it seemed as silly as wanting proof that soap makes water wetter. I just reverted. When it became obvious that he is serious, I included a reference to an illustrative anecdote as an example  (anecdotes are useful only as examples)  and a link to over 90 peerreviewed papers supporting the claims. For both gliding action and foreskin, I started polls RfCs about the articlefor breaking the revertcycle.

I would just like the cycle of reverting to end.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I'm happy to discuss specifics. I just got confused by Walabio's talk about 'standards of evidence' in the original request and thought that he wanted to discuss that wider point.

Walabio, having checked that page, I see now that you did indeed start RfCs. I didn't realise that. I'm sorry I said otherwise. I'm dubious about your statement concerning motives, since on this page alone you've stated two different assessments of what you perceive to be my motives. But anyway...

Gliding action

First, I'm glad we both agree that not everyone likes 'gliding action', though as you know I don't take the O'Hara study seriously as she surveyed anti-circumcision activists. It doesn't matter; what's important is that we agree on something. I understand that you don't think it matters whether the anecdote is part of a peer-reviewed study, and as I've indicated, to an extent I agree with you. However, Wikipedia policy does not. It sets out certain standards for sources, and doesn't make an exception for anecdotal evidence. You and I can't just ignore policy just because we disagree with it. We either follow it or try to change it. Maybe it should be changed. If you want to propose that, I'd be glad to support you.

Foreskin

You state that these are 'well-established facts'. I disagree.

An example of a well-established fact is that diamond scores 10 on the Mohs scale of hardness. I haven't even bothered to look, but I doubt that I would be able to find any disagreement with that. Is there disagreement with the claim you want to insert? Yes, it's a controversial issue.

Ok, you want to claim that the foreskin is protective. Let's see some evidence. If I use an umbrella to protect me from rain, I stay dry. If I don't, I get wet. The consequence of the lack of protection is clear, thus demonstrating the protection itself. So what harm does the foreskin protect against? Does the glans keratinise and become less sensitive as antis like to claim? Not according to all the scientific data. Does it become more prone to infections? Quite the opposite, according to the scientific data. More prone to carcinomas? Again, quite the opposite. I can't find evidence of anything affecting the glans that the foreskin is actually protective against.

You want to state that it is an erogenous zone. Certainly, some people agree with you, but others disagree. I can find studies showing that the glans is erotosensual, by testing erotic response with and without local anaesthesia to the glans, but not the foreskin. It's controversial. You state that it is 'very sensitive'. Ok, fine, where are the studies testing its sensitivity? There are none.

Finally, as I said above, the polls miss the point. It doesn't matter whether Wikipedia editors agree with a statement, WP:CITE and WP:NOR are clear. We must cite sources. Jakew 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, Jake, that these two policies are very important. It it important to understand that "no original research" is as much an admonition on Wikipedia as a whole as on individual editors.  Would I be correct in assuming that, for most of these claims do at least have something in print?  If there's nothing peer-reviewed, you can't present something as fact.  However, you can present something as someone's opinion if there's a clear source that shows that opinion.  In that case, the source doesn't need to be peer-reviewed.  However, the article must make the difference between sources where the results are represented as fact and those where the results are used as opinion very clear indeed.  If something is rejected by the mainstream scientific community, say so and cite your source.  I have to say, you both ought to be commended for your dedication to citing sources: not many users are as good at it.  I think you could both benefit from being more flexible.  Jake: if a reference is inserted and you don't think it justifies the statement that has been attached to it, talk to Walabio and work to reword it.  Don't just remove it because it doesn't comply with WP:CITE; make it comply with WP:CITE.  Walabio: the same message applies to you.  If you are providing a source, compare it with WP:CITE and decide how far it falls within that.  Then word how the source is referenced in the article to correspond.  Overall, always discuss your edits with each other and be prepared to compromise.
 * Also, remember that the greatest compliment a Wikipedia article can be paid is that a reader cannot tell the opinion of the writer. Write an article, and see if you can achieve that.   [[Sam Korn ]] 16:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What you say makes sense in general, Sam, but I should explain that in this particular case, the contested section is the introduction. We have already discussed various opinions and controversies in more detail further down. To my way of thinking, an introduction ought to be short, factual, and to the point. Discussion of controversial points, opinions, and so on is fine, but belongs elsewhere in the article. In order to be accurate and balanced, I would have had to have expanded the contested text so much that it would have been confusing to read and would basically have been a poor introduction. In brief, it would have made the article worse. So I didn't feel that I could do that in this particular instance.


 * Nor was I able to move the text to a more appropriate section and then improve it there, because of the fact that this was already in the article.


 * As I saw it (and I should note that Walabio wasn't the author of the contested text, so please don't take this personally), the addition to the introduction basically ignored the controversy and stated one unproven side of it as fact. It moved the article away from WP:NPOV. As such, I felt that it ought to be reverted. I have to say, I was also irritated by Walabio's edit summary for reverting me ("RV: POV"), since my edit removed POV. It didn't add anything at all. Jakew 17:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I often find that a bland "there is controversy that" or words to that effect deal with this kind of problem. Remember, you don't really need to quote in the introduction to the article.  Nothing should be said that isn't repeated in more detail below, and the references can go there.  Weasel words are also pretty acceptable here, so "some critics say" is fine.  Generalities go in the introduction, specifics later.  With regards to POV edits, remember that NPOV doesn't mean the absence of POV, rather the article being a balance of POVs.  If text that is representing a specific and significant point-of-view is included, then make it clear that it is purely an opinion, by words to the effect of those I used above.  As I said before, you can lose the specifics in an introduction, as they aren't important.  The introduction only needs to cover the basic feel of the article.  On the other hand, if there's a significant discussion of the matter later in the article, discuss this. That isn't biased.   [[Sam Korn ]] 17:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As Sam suggests, the bland  “there is controversy that”,  probably will do. My first instinct we Jake removes text is to fight back.  It is a nasty conditioned reflex, which he shares.  This is not the place to debate the functions of the præpuce, but since Jake addresses it:

Jakew 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC):

''	>	Does the glans keratinise and become less sensitive as antis like to claim? ''

Yes, Masters & Johnson did quick and dirty poketests with blunt needles. Such tests would reveal nervedamage, but not not kertinization ''' — unless the calluses are many milimeters thick. '''

''	>		Not according to all the scientific data.

As you know, an ongoing study occurs in San Francisco studying the sensitivity of both glandes of both intact and mutilated men, as well as the præpucii using rounded 100μm nylonfilament exserting mere milinewtons. I wonder what the results will be.

''	>	Does it become more prone to infections? ''

The præpuce is not extraordinarily prone to infection compared to other bodyparts. If you mean that præpuceectomy prevents all infection, then yes. In the same vain, corectomy prevents heartinfections, but none the less is detrimental to overall health as it causes immediate death.

''	>	Quite the opposite, according to the scientific data. ''

Any engineer will tell one that the præpuce offers protection against the enviroment such as temperature mechanical damage to its inner surface and the glans.

''	>	More prone to carcinomas? ''

Since this is a rhetorical question, I believe you meant to write less with the answer no. At any rate, you already know that this claim is already disproven. If you mean that the præpuce itself cannot develop cancer after præpucectomy, then you are right in the sense that an amputated limb cannot develop cancer.

''	>	Again, quite the opposite. ''

According to the numbers of the people pushing the penilecancermyth, one would have to mutilate 100,000 babies for preventing one penile carcinoma. Given that 1/6,000 præpucectomies murders the baby, one would have to murder 14 babies for preventing one elderly man from developing penile cancer.

	>	I can't find evidence of anything'' affecting the glans that the foreskin is actually protective against. ''

Thermal & mechanical

''	>	You want to state that it is an erogenous zone. Certainly, some people agree with you, but others disagree. I can find studies showing that the glans is erotosensual, by testing erotic response with and without local anaesthesia to the glans, but not the foreskin. It's controversial. You state that it is 'very sensitive'. Ok, fine, where are the studies testing its sensitivity? There are none. ''

That is a good idea for a followup after the study occurring in San Francisco. It would be more complicated because it would involve sexual activity of some sort. Unfortunately, the cirumcisionadvocates who proved that the glans generates pleasure completely ignored the præpuce, thus offering no data one way or the other. ¿Could it be that the oversight was intentional?

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 23:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to respond when you reply like that, Walabio. I'll do my best, anyway.

Firstly, Masters and Johnson did not actually describe their methodology. However, Bleustein (2003 and 2005) did describe the methodology of his study, and it was perfectly capable of detecting keratinisation. Also, Szabo and Short (2000) actually measured keratinisation, and found no difference.

Secondly, yes I am aware of NOCIRC's study. It's obviously carefully designed to get the results they want. The Meissner's corpuscles in the foreskin detect brief light touch, so what do they test? The lightest touch that can be detected. By completely ignoring the rich (and arguably more relevant) sensations that other parts of the penis detect, they're able to find what they want to find. It's typical. Regardless, speculating about what some future study might find doesn't help us at this time.

Thirdly, I'll address your comments concerning infections and cancer together. Is there a certain frequency of occurrence at which it becomes protective? Going back to the rain example, does an umbrella cease to be protective because it's only a drizzle and not a torrential downpour?

Fourthly, you talk about environmental protection to its inner surface and the glans. The inner surface is irrelevant because protecting itself is not in the article. As for the glans, can you give a single documented example of thermal or mechanical damage in the literature attributed to the lack of the foreskin?

And lastly, again, speculating about future studies does not help us now. If and when these studies are performed, I have no problem with their inclusion in the article. Jakew 13:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that you did not comment about the erogenous study ignoring the præpuce or penile cancer. As for the fine touch, it should be tested.  jabbing the glans coursely only can distinguish between sensation and no sensation.  ¿What about the amount and quality of sensation?  ¿How much sensation on the glans is lost because of kertinization?  ¿What sensation does one loose with the præpuce?  ¿What if a man and his partner want to make gentle love?  Gentle love main not do anything for him any more.  He might have to find a tight dry orifice and pound it so fast, so hard, and so long that the owner bleeds with agony by the time he finishes  — if he even can. 


 * You ask ¿against what does the præpuce protect? The moist commonthing is meatal stenosis.  Although meatal stenosis is a burn, it is a chemical burn, so we should add chemical to the things against which the prepuce protects.  About half of all mutilated babies develop meatal ulcer which develops into meatal stenosis.  Almost no intact babies do.  The præpuce also protects agaist burns, other thermal injuries, and mechanical injuries.  With about half of the mutilate babies developing meatal stenosis due to lack of a protective præpuce, while none intact babies do, it is obvious that the præpuce protects.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 15:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't comment on sensitivity studies ignoring the prepuce here, because it's off-topic. What we're discussing is whether the glans is affected. You and I both know that we could argue back and forth all day, but let's try to remain focused.


 * If you look again, you'll see that I did discuss cancer, in the same paragraph as infections.


 * Fine touch, as in the sense of the Meissner's corpuscle, is the kind of touch from a butterfly's wings fluttering on your skin or perhaps a very light touch from a feather. It is a tiny part of the sense of touch that we have. Sure, it's fair enough to test it, but to imply that without it significant sensation is lost is simply ludicrous. Bleustein's testing included vibration, pressure, spatial perception, and warm and cold thermal thresholds. You ask how much sensation is lost due to keratinisation. The answer is none, because it does not occur.


 * (Possible) protection of the urinary meatus was included in my later version, implicitly including meatal stenosis, but you reverted this.


 * I could find no examples in the Google searches you gave, by the way. I found nothing about the prepuce protecting against burns or other injuries. If I missed a specific paper, please let me know. Jakew 16:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Erogenous tests  deliberately  ignoring the pleasure the præpuce is ontopic. It shows bias.


 * Fine touch during sex is important because without it, the man must be rough. It is strange that this does not occur to you.  You state empirically that loss of sensation does not occurwhile admitting that Bleustein only measured gross sensation.  ¿How much energy did the vibrators impart to the glans?  ¿How many millinewtons did the proding test use? It would not surpise me if the tests used a decinewton  Since Bleustein tested sensation between glandes of intact and mutilated men, ¿why did not Bleustein bother to learn which sensations exist in the præpuce, which, unfortunately, the mutilated men cannot expoerience because someone stole the præpuce?


 * I know you mentioned penile cancer. It is strange that you did.  You know that the initial study was biased in that it did not control for income and education.  You knew that later studies controlling for this showed no statistical meaning correlation.  You know that using the numbers of the original study, one would have to murder 14 infants for preventing one penile cancer of an elderly man.  You knew I would call you on this.  It is like you know but but do not know.  It almost sounds like cognitive dissonance.  You seem not to know that I called you out on this, even though you read my response.  Earlier, although you am  You might do well to remember what cognitive dissonance did to Eboreg “gur Oehpr” Oebbxrf.


 * You call the protection about protection merely possible. Statistically, it is almost a certainly.


 * You did not see the most relevant papers in the dogfile. Here you go:

  Mechanical:      

  Burn:      

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, we're looking at this from two different perspectives here. You seem to see some conspiracy to exclude the foreskin, and evidence of bias. I, on the other hand, am presuming that it was an honest experiment, and the investigators wanted to compare like with like.


 * Next, I don't think you understand what fine touch means in the context of nerve response. As I've explained, the fine touch that Meissner's corpuscles respond to is the very light brush of a feather or that sort of thing. You don't get that during sex. Now, two aspects of nerve function are important. Firstly, they are boolean in nature: they either transmit a full signal or nothing. Secondly, in the case of Meissner's corpuscles, they adapt rapidly. That means that as long as there is continued contact with another surface (such as during sex), they cease transmission. In other words, their function during sex is negligible, and there is no need to 'be rough'. If you read Bleustein's full paper, you'll find full details of the methods used.


 * Next, what you say is simply wrong. Every study to investigate penile cancer has found that it is less common in circumcised men. As for 'murdering' 14 infants, that's obviously nonsense. Death due to circumcision occurs at most in 1 in 500,000 cases (Speert). The lifetime risk for penile cancer in the US is 1 in 1437 (Source: Wingo PA, Tong T, Bolden S. Cancer statistics, 1995. CA Cancer J Clin 1995;45:8-30). And the relative risk for uncircumcised men is 3.2 according to the first study (Maden). Clearly, your numbers do not add up.


 * I can't find anything in the first two links you provide, and the second two seem to be about surgical accidents during circumcision rather than an occurrence happening to a circumcised penis. Jakew 13:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ¿Should studies comparing how sighted and blind people process information leave out light for comparing like to like?


 * Gentle sex would not overload Meissner’s corpuscles. If fine touch would not be important for sex, præpucii, would not have Meissner's corpuscles.


 * Between 200–500 babies a year in the US die.  The most probable deathrate is 1/600. Baker  The rate of penile cancer is 1/100,000 Wallerstein


 * The first mentions mechanical damage in diapers. The second mentions terrible penile burns like thos which happened to  Bruce Reimer.    Bruce Reimer  lost his whole penis.  Doctors tried to make him into a girl named Brenda.  This failed.  He because a man named David Peter Reimer.  It did not work.  He committed suicide.  He never would have got that penile burn if they would have left him intact.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 05:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Has the thought occurred to you that maybe the prepuce has Meissner corpuscles for a reason other than sex?


 * Baker's estimate of the death rate is incorrect. If you read it carefully, you'll see that he bases his estimate on Gairdner's data from the UK, but this included deaths due to general anaesthesia, which is not used for neonatal circumcisions. A more realistic figure is one in 500,000, as reported by Speert and cited by, for example, the RACP. The rate of 1/100,000 is the risk per year, not the lifetime risk. Jakew 11:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward?
Ok, we're don't seem to be getting anywhere and there has been silence for three days. Has this fizzled out? Any ideas as to what to do next? Jakew 12:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I apologise, I have been very busy in the last few days and have not had the time to concentrate on this mediation. I too don't know where we go yet. I think we do need to decide where we are going to go next.  You need to tell me (both of you) where you think we need to go.  Do we tackle a particular article?  Do we address behaviour that one of you doesn't like?  My understanding of the matters under discussion is superficial at best, so I'd appreciate your opinions and guidance.   [[Sam Korn ]] 13:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I am busy in meatspace.  I am still here.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 23:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Sam Korn has been having internet troubles and will be inactive for now. Our chair, Redwolf24, will take a look at this mediation and decide how to proceed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 14:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. Please pass my best wishes to Sam, and I'll look forward to Redwolf24 joining us.
 * Walabio, the original issues you raised now involve a number of other editors, and seem to be largely historical. Do you still think it is productive to discuss them? If so, what would you like to achieve? Also, please be aware that I have left a message for you at Talk:Brian Morris and I would appreciate your response. Jakew 16:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to learn about the [[Sam Korn ]] has with Internetaccess. I once had incompetent jerks buy my ISP and lost access for a month. Now my new ISP gives me only Internetaccess, while I use one service for email, and another for webhosting  — barring WorldWide WebWar Ⅲ  (4WⅢ), ;-)  I cannot loose everything at once now. 

I have more time now, but am not certain I should continue the above debate without a moderator. As for the goal, I suppose agreeing that one should cut the genitals of minor only for medical reasons and only as a last resort is a good goal.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 02:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)