Talk:Circumcision/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Various topics

Editing of Introduction

Reference to ridged band and speculative "sensitivity" deleted to maintain neutrality. It is not acceptable to focus only on male circumcision as this indicates that circumcision is only mentioned so as to criticise the male practice. For the rest editing serves to balance the introduction between male and female circumcision. The subheadings are in need of review and extensive editing and rewriting. Robert Brookes

---

References removed to review

The references were such that would be more inplace on an anti-male circumcision web site. They have been removed with the intent to compile relevant references once the whole article has been reviewed. Robert Brookes

---

External links weeded down ...

Starx wrote: External links weeded down to 7 on each side, though I think that's still too much.

This article is called "circumcision", no? The article should be about male and female circumcision and not a platform for the debate around male circumcision, yes? In an article about the earth would you insist that the "flat earth society" got the right to an equal number of external links? Why?

I suggest that when the entire article is rewritten and restructured and this particular aspect reviewed in detail later on in the process a selection of references and external links can be made. There is little point in keeping any of the references or external links as they now stand. Robert Brookes

*Obviously a complete article on circumcision is going to have to address the debate.  

And your comment about the Flat Earth society is absurd. The earth is round, this is a scientific fact that is not disputed by anyone with credibility. The pros and cons of circumcision are disputed by credible people on both sides. Untill that's resolved to a certainty by the medical community the article, in the spirit of NPOV, should try and represent both sides equally. --Starx 17:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Responding to Starx

If you analyse the volumes of trash posted by someone (I suppose it would have to be anti-circumcision) to the circumcision article you can see that the entry is not supposed to be an explanation of circumcision but rather a platform for a anti-circumcision rant. I am sad that this simple fact seems to escape you.

By all means have an entry/article by the title The circumcision debate where the "debate" will be the central point and where each side can have 10kb to state their case, but would it need any more than a passing reference and a link on the circumcision page?

Now a question. For the love of G_d can you explain to me what a link to foreskin.org is doing on the page of the circumcision article? Now I suppose it follows that the entry on "foreskin" should be dominated by coments and links to circumcision sites and issues?

As to absurd comparisons. The comparison with the flat earth society is not as absurd as you may think. It takes a fertile imagination and a joint to turn the humble old mammalian penile sheath into the prime sexual organ of the male. Its off the wall stuff. By all means mention this stuff but for heavens sake keep it in perspective otherwise it is really like demanding the Flat Earth Society is granted equal time at every geography conference. Robert Brookes

• If you think the circumcision debate should be in it's own article then go ahead and do it. But there's no need to take a bad attitude towards people trying to keep NPOV of the article as it currently is. And once again, about the comparison. You obviously don't share the views of those that are vehemently anti-circumcision, neither do I, but as you are probably not a doctor, I am certainly not doctor, and as there are plenty of doctors advocating both sides, it clearly does not take a momentus lack of common sense to be anti-circumcision as does to believe the earth is flat. --Starx 16:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Of bad attitudes and NPOV. Well I come back to my analogy with the Flat Earth Society. You see it as being a pro side and an anti side, so you see a debate, so give them equal exposure/time, right? My question remains, would you grant equal time to the Flat Earth Society at a geography convention? Would you provide equal time to the growing anti-vaccination movement at all conferences/meetings/discussions relating to immunization? That is why I call for perspective. Let no one make the mistake of allowing a small (vocal and obsessed) single issue group to exploit wikipedia for propaganda purposes. The current "circumcision" article is a disgrace. It is not really about circumcision at all but rather about why people shouldn't circumcise. Surely you can see that? I mean you who claims to be striving to maintain a NPOV and all? The article needs to be restructured, cleaned up maybe even rewritten. Now having observed the debate around the "genital integrity" article I'm am not sure the wikipedia sysops are up to the task reaching truth, accuracy and a NPOV rather than a mere compromise where those very same factors are sacrificed on the alter of expediency. -- Robert Brookes

• • No, I would not give the Flat Earth Society the same exposure. The concept of NPOV doesn't apply because the shape of the earth is not debatable. Circumcision, on the other hand, is debatable, so NPOV applies. Why does my edit even bother you? I trimmed down the links, what I wrote wasn't meant to encourage any kind of debate, just simple reasoning as to why I did what I did. You complain about the article but take no steps to fix it, you copy and paste my edit description into the talk page so you can jump on me for it. What are you waiting for? If you think something needs fixing, go fix it; that's what I did. --Starx 04:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • I am not jumping on you. (Stop being such a fragile flower). I am responding to what you term my absurd comparison. Behind the facade of the male "genital integrity" and "intactivism" movements is the off the wall premise that the foreskin is the prime sex organ of the male. This is about as much a lunatic assertion as that of the Flat Earth Society. As to those who simply do not support male circumcision that is simple. The potential benefits accruing through male circumcision are not considered sufficient for the AAP and most other medical associations to recommend the routine circumcision of every male infant. That's a no brainer. So they leave it to parents to decide (on the basis of the potential benefits) what would be in the best interests of their child. A matter of either you do or you don't. Who cares? Aha ... but there is a small but vocal single issue group that does care. They are prolific in posting to the internet and go way beyond what any medical association does by claiming that male circumcision is actually harmful. Back to the Flat earth Society analogy then. While the earth is claimed to be "round" most know that it is not exactly so in that it is somewhat oval. Round or oval or whatever that is where reasonable and sane discussion can take place but the moment you let the Flat Earth Society in you the wheels come off. It is the same with ALL matters relating to the foreskin and circumcision the moment you let the lunatic fringe in all hell breaks loose. You've seen the crazies and their antics in the "genital integrity" debate what more evidence do you need? - Robert Brookes 06:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • The crazies and their antics that appeared on the Genital Integrity VfD don't represent everyone who shares their feelings. For every issue there is going to be a fanatic minority obsessed with it, that doesn't mean that that entire side of the issue is fanatic and without base. You're using the nonsense that happened over the Genital Integrity page to build yourself a strawman, and to corner me and others into a debate so you can push your POV. There are credible doctors that believe circumcision is a helpfull practice. There are credible doctors that believe circumcision is a harmfull practice. There are credible scientists that believe the earth is round. There are NOT credible scientists that believe the earth is flat. It's a stupid analogy. --Starx 14:53, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Ok so you are a little slow on the uptake. Let's try it from another angle then. Clearly the crazies (having got in early) have had the opportunity to post the biggest load of non-NPOV stuff on the subject. What I am trying to do is to work towards balanced articles which will not result in the kind of ridiculous situation that developed around the "genital integrity" entry. The aim is a series of balanced entries, yes?. My point is simple, that unless one confronts the crazies of the lunatic fringe it will deteriorate into a "box of frogs" once more. I have no problem with my edits being re-edited (as some have been already) to improve and bring a greater neutrality to the article. My point once again is that the crazies have no word such as "neutrality" in their vocabulary and as such need to be slapped down if sanity is to prevail. From (the experience of) the "genital integrity" fiasco it is doubtful if the sysops have the balls to do this. That is why what should be a reasonably simple exercise will in all likelihood turn into a real mission. - Robert Brookes 18:04, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • The solution to dealing with crazies is not to become a crazy for the other side of the debate. That's childish and it's only going to escalate things. The solution is to just keep working toward NPOV, it's the adult thing to do. --Starx 04:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the advice. As and when the crazies start to pop up all over the show can you be counted upon to yank their chains? - Robert Brookes 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Female circumcision

Recent editors of this page have seemed to act under the conception that male circumcision and female circumcision are both forms of circumcision, and therefore should both be the focus of this page. However, it seems to me that circumcision is a modification of the male genitalia, and while some modifications of the female genitalia are sometimes called "female circumcision" by analogy, they are not circumcision.

Therefore, I think this page should contain a sentence in the header that acknolwedges that female genital modification / mutilation is sometimes called female circumcision, provides a link to the article on these practices, and states that this article concerns the removal of the prepuce.

The approach adopted by these recent editors seems aking to writing the article at ship to equally concern oceangoing vessels and lighter-than-air aircraft, on the grounds that the latter can be called airships, or writing the articles at carriage to concern horse-drawn vehicles and automobles, on the grounds that the latter can be called horseless carriages. Shimmin 17:49, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Response to Shimmin

It is not helpful when to dabble in a subject you clearly know little about. Quite clearly there are aspects of female circumcision which are unique as there are aspects of male circumcision. The anti-male circumcision mob hang onto the female circumcision activism (not because they give a jot about what happens to women but) so as to attempt to have some of the respectability of that activism rub off on their own psycho-sexual obsession. 30 odd KB can't do justice to the subjects of both female and male circumcision. It would make sense to then have a "circumcision" page which acknowledges the two, highlights what is common and what is different and the allows interested parties to go to either (or both) a female circumcision or a male circumcision article.

This is the easy part. The difficult part is ensuring the objectivity of the end result. Take a read through the "circumcision" article as it was (and mainly still is) and see what a lack of NPOV and also the lack of factual accuracy means (this is a glaring example). One understands that the “first in” get to decide on what gets posted but eventually sanity must prevail, yes?

Seeing you see only a major difference between male and female circumcision would you like to draft such a paragraph? Robert Brookes

Re-establishment of Male circumcision as a separate entry

I propose that as for the "Female circumcision" that "Male circumcision" be re-established as a separate entry. I would have done this myself if I had known how to terminate what appears to be a redirect to the "Circumcision" entry. This will effectively leave the circumcision entry with only an introduction and any areas of specific gender commonality together with internal links to sub-topics. Some help with removing the redirect will be appreciated. - Robert Brookes 19:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Establishment of History of male circumcision as a separate entry

History of male circumcision has been established as a separate entry. I have exported all the relevant stuff to the new entry but left "Origins of male circumcision" in place as it seems to be applicable to both entries. - Robert Brookes 19:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Terminology

I've been following with great apprehension this renewed discussion on circumcision. I'm not going to comment on any other matter at the moment besides nomenclature. "Circumcision", without attribution, refers to what this article is now redundantly calling "Male Cicumcision". It's not logical, it's not equitable, and it's sexist, but it's the way English works. Using "circumcision" to mean "both circumcision and female circumcision" is just a misleading misuse of the language. Nohat 21:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, the recent edit of the introduction tacitly admits that there is nothing much in common between (male) circumcision and "female circumcision" by, instead of beginning "Circumcision is....", beginning, "Male circumcision is.... Female circumcision is...." It's more or a tacit admission that there's nothing that can be said about circumcision in general without reference to either male or female circumcision. The one thing I can think of that could be said in general, "Circumcision is a form of gential modification...." suggests what I think is the correct strategy.

The small amount of material that relates to circumcision in general probably belongs at genital modification and mutilation. This page should discuss (male) circumcision, with a sentence in the introduction telling where to find info on female circumcision. There should be (and is!) a separate article on female circumcision.

"Male circumcision" is a redundancy. "Female circumcision" is a euphemism, but is probably the best NPOV term we're going to come up with. Shimmin 23:22, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Ok so you have made the changes necessary to support your contention. Further you carried out a minor edit. Too many inacuracies in such a short piece. Do you really feel up to this NPOV thing? - Robert Brookes 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am actually glad that someone has initiated the task of cleaning up the state the last edit war left this article in. However, this work will only be worthwhile if it can be undertaken without starting another edit war. Key to doing so will be the maintenance of civility on the talk pages. Please read over Wikipedia: Civility before continuing the Great Work. It will, I hope, lead to greater durability in the eventual product. Shimmin 16:46, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Separating article

I think that creating a separate article for "male circumcision" is completely unnecessary. The word "circumcision" almost universally refers to the circumcision of the penis, so moving all the information related to this practice is not good. Acegikmo1 23:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• OK so let the work begin. Can you be counted upon to work towards NPOV in the article? - Robert Brookes 16:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hope that I can. I believe that the NPOV policy is especially important when it comes to controversial articles like this one. You have been bold in your edits to the article and I think that's a good thing. My edits to this article and others related to it haven't been quite as substantial. Nevertheless, I feel that it is important that the pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision arguments are given equal consideration in the article, and I hope that my future edits will display this view and bring the article to a NPOV.

I do have one question for you. Why have you made History of male circumcision a separate aritcle? It doesn't seem to have enough substance to warrent its own page. Nor is the circumcision page too long. I'm just wondering.

Acegikmo1 16:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is verbose. Prune it heavily to the bare necessities and then flesh it out where appropriate later?

I thought the article was about circumcision, no? If you want a debate start an article "The circumcision debate" and give each side 1,000 words to do their thing. The article should aim at "explaining" about circumcision and should not be a platform to either promote it or attack it, no? This would be the best way of achieving NPOV.

It was too long when the history was included. Perhaps after the cleanup it can all be put back together again? - Robert Brookes 17:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should try to trim the article. If cleanup is sucessful, then we can reinstate the history.

Regarding the topic of the article, I understand your point. The article shouldn't be a platform for any type of activism. At the same time, the fact that the practice is so controversial is important and the reasons why each group feels the way it does should be outlined. Circumcision isn't listed at Wikipedia:List of controversial issues for no reason. As an analogy, the article on Euthanasia would not be very useful if it simply described the practice without detailing the arguments for and against it (in fact, it has its own section for doing preciesly this). The idea is to present those argumetns in a neutral way, which is what we must do here. Acegikmo1 18:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirect restored

The redirect from "Male circumcision" has been restored. I am happy to give the current option the best chance of working out. - Robert Brookes 16:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Acegikmo1 16:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other English-speaking countries

The sentence, "In the other English-speaking nations, this is no longer the case." has caused some problems. I think it should be included because it it significant.

The preceeding sentence is, "In the United States, the majority of men are circumcised for medical purposes." Hence, the sentence above states that other English-speaking countries (e.g. Britain) the majority of men used to be circumcised for medical purposes but no longer are. This relates the the following section, "Prevalence of Male Circumcision".

Acegikmo1 16:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• That would be factually incorrect. Are you trying to say that in all English speaking countries the majority of males were (at one point) circumcised (for medical reasons) or that of all the males circumcised the majority were for medical reasons? Perhaps we can cut the crap. If your point is that in English speaking countries (other than the US) there has be a significant reduction in the number of non-religious circumcisions then say so (and support it with facts). - Robert Brookes 17:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Athough I agree that the statement could be more precise, I think the implication is clear that the "other English-speaking nations" are the ones in which the majority of men were circumcised for medical reasons in the past.

This is clarified later in the article: "Historically, routine neonatal circumcision was promoted during late Victorian times in the English-speaking parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom and was widely practiced during the first part of the 20th century in these countries. However, the practice declined sharply in the United Kingdom after the Second World War, and somewhat later in Canada, Australia and New Zealand."

Sadly, most of the statistics regarding circumcision rates (espeically historical ones) come from sites that are either strongly pro or anti-circumcision. This page from CIRP gives a few historical statistics indicating that in countries like Australia and Canada, the circumcision rates have dropped substantially in the last few decades. I'm not sure what you think about using it as a source. Do you have an objective and accurate source in mind for statictics?

Acegikmo1 18:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Penile body modification

Because most circumcisions are done for religious or cultural reasons, not medical reasons, it is correct to describe non-therapeutic circumcision as a form of permanent body modification. Non-therapeutic circumcision is the most common form of permanent body modification of the penis. DanBlackham 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Medical benefits vs. risks and harms

There is a broad consensus in the medical community as expressed in the official policy statements of national professional medical organizations that the small potential medical benefits of infant circumcision are about equal with the medical risks and harms. Stating the potential medical benefits of circumcision are larger or smaller than the medical risks and harms is POV. DanBlackham 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Nonsense. How the benefits and risks weigh against each other is finite. Circumcision advocates would tend to exaggerate the benefits and understate the risks while the other side will do the opposite. Subsequently anti-circumcision monomaniacs often win arguments that the benefits and risks balance each other out on the basis of being the “last man standing” rather than on the merits of the argument. - Robert Brookes 11:33, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and social reasons, not medical reasons

Although the majority of male infants in the United States are circumcised by doctors, they are circumcised primarily for cultural or social reasons, not medical reasons. DanBlackham 22:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I recently discovered this tempest in a teapot, out of a combination of amusement and dismay at learning that this topic was considered "controversial". (Just so you know where I'm coming from, I was circumcised shortly after birth, and am quite happy with what I've got. If I had a son, I probably wouldn't have him circumcised, but neither would I refuse my consent if his mother wanted it done. If there's a holy war going on here, I think I'm pretty much an agnostic.) I haven't researched the full history of the article, so forgive me if I rehash something, but I do want to offer a few observations from a fresh set of eyes:Tverbeek

• • Maybe one should consider that as the article has got so far out of hand that one starts from scratch and uses the vaccination article as an example? Robert Brookes
• The article as it reads now has a definite anti-circumcision slant, mostly coming from the volume of information that serves to question the practice. Reading it, I felt like someone was trying to wear me down with the weight of their arguments (not the strength of them). The "contemporary attitudes" section is very one-sided, neglecting to even acknowledge the main argument parents present when questioned about their decision to circumcise: conformity. It's still done by a majority; there must be reasons why. If circumcision advocates (or fair-minded opponents) can't come up with enough verbage to explain this and balance the section, then the negative side should be made more concise to avoid giving it an obvious POV.Tverbeek
  • Exactly all the article is, is an attempt to hijack a wikipedia article and turn it into an anti-circumcision rave. Robert Brookes
• The citation of Kellogg and the citations from experts criticising 19th century beliefs on the subject (i.e. 90% of the "Anti-masturbation panic and male circumcision" section) seems like it's just setting up pro-cirumcision strawmen to ridicule. I don't believe anyone today considers these theories valid, so there's no point in quoting and refuting them so extensively. A brief acknowledgement of past attitudes (and let the reader infer whether they're behind current attitudes or not) should be sufficient. And it seems like this is a section better suited for the "history of" article in any case.Tverbeek
  • Of course it is ridiculous. Any sane person can see that.Robert Brookes
• The link to foreskin.org makes no sense, except to serve as anti-circumcision propaganda (analogous to photos of children attached to an article about abortion). If it were a link to photos of circumcision or its outcome, it might be justifiable (albeit provocative); instead, it's simply off-topic. If someone wants to learn more about foreskins and see photos of happy, smiling penises wearing turtlenecks :), they can click foreskin in the opening paragraph and be on their self-educating way.Tverbeek
  • That has been said before. Robert Brookes
• The comparison of circumcision critics to the Flat Earth Society is unjustified and prejudicial. Robert, you may deep down in your heart believe that the research cited by circumcision critics is pseudoscientific nonsense, but that doesn't make it so. A substantial population of the world's experts apparently think it's valid or at least worthy of consideration. That doesn't mean they're right, but it means they have the right to present their case - concisely and dispassionately - here. (And speaking of "dispassionately", you might want to lay off the remarks about "crazies" with a "psycho-sexual obsession". That's inflammatory, and suggests a dogmatism that's just as hostile to reaching NPOV as the original propaganda piece was.)I'll try to do some work on the article in the next few days to address some of the issues I pointed at here, but I wanted to give fair warning before doing so.Tverbeek
  • Your comments are read and understood. My point was simple and your comment on the article bears that out (as does the fiasco around the genital integrity article). Try to get your head around this. There are people who are vocally pro-circumcsion and there are those who are vocally anti-circumcision and there is the vast mass in the middle who don't talk/care about it. Then we have the crazies. Like we saw on the genital integrity fiasco. Do you or anyone really think that they can make any positive contribution whatsoever to shaping an article here? This is a disccusion, comments made here do not make it to the article, so I'm as free as the next man to call it as I see it. And while we are about it if you are able to point to any edits I have made which are anything other than striving to reach NPOV please point them out. My point is simple the circumcision article should be an encyclopedia entry about circumcision and not an opportunity carry forward any debate on the subject. At the end of the article there can possibly be (like with the vaccination entry) two entries each for pro and anti sites. What say? - Robert Brookes 04:37, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(This message was posted by Tverbeek) - Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It appears as if you posted it. Can you explain why? Robert Brookes

I don't think it does. If you check the edit history, it is clear that the message above was posted by Tverbeek (See [1]). It is also clear that in replying to several messages, I signed for him ([2]), much like you did to some individual sections ([3]). Acegikmo1 05:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's good to see that someone who hasn't edited this article before is interested in bringing it to a NPOV. While I don't think that anyone can be entirely objective on this issue, I do believe that the edits you have proposed above will help balance the article and I support your intention to make them. Acegikmo1 22:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did you invite this person in? Robert Brookes

No, I did not. Acegikmo1 05:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I neglected to sign my remarks; Acegikmo1 noticed my oversight and did it to clarify. You're being excessively suspicious, Robert. As for your contribution to NPOV, I'd say that your generally insulting and sometimes hysterical tone in these comments serves to provoke responses and resistance from those you're belittling, and discourages centrists from participating in the process. I know that I don't plan to put up with it for very long; I'm gonna take a crack at a few revisions and then get away. Todd VerBeek

Before you go, pray tell where this little gem you slipped into the text came from? "(A circumcised penis has fewer sensory nerve endings than one with a foreskin.)" I suggest that you consider that a "centrist" position between a point of view in favor and that of the lunatic fringe in the other direction is not necessarily NPOV. There is a major difference between the style of the "talk" around an article an what a person attempts to edit into the article. I would have thought that would have been obvious. But well done on some further weeding out of more garbage from the article, now we wait for somone willing to be bold in pursuit of NPOV. - Robert Brookes 16:06, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That "gem" I inserted is mathematics: You start with the number of sensory nerve endings in an uncircumcised penis, then you subtract the number of sensory nerve endings in the foreskin that is removed, and you end up with "fewer sensory nerve endings". Do you dispute the comment's factuality? If so, then go stand in line with the Flat Earthers. The purpose of that information in that context is not to argue an opinion, but to explain the scientific basis for anti-circ-ers' claim of greater sensitivity. So it is consistent with NPOV. Your objection is noted, but it is also baseless.Tverbeek

Oh dear. So you were really called to "help out" with the little problem on this article. I would suggest that you save that argument for children in the future for most adults know that nerves have different and specific functions. Suddenly all sensitivity becomes "sexual sensitivity"? Suddenly all sensory nerve endings have a sexual function? Is that the lie you are trying to sell here? That is an opinion. That is rank speculation. That is stupidity. That is not NPOV. Robert Brookes

With all due modesty about my own contributions, I think the article in its current form is pretty close to NPOV. The historical background (with its biased selection of facts) is a separate article, and can be tackled separately. The bulk of the information about the anti-circumcision movement (which was not about circumcision per se, and introduced bias by discussing a specific POV) has been removed; a separate article about the movement as a social phenomenon, where copious information about their agenda and arguments would be on-topic and not inherently biasing, would be appropriate I think. There's certainly still room for quibbling, corrections, and such over this article, and I'm sure folks from both lunatic fringes will object to the other's viewpoint still being represented without ridicule. But that just supports the notion that it's close to NPOV. Tverbeek 18:04, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Save the contrived modesty. What we see is merely the offer of a "trade off" whereby you take out the garbage and offer the opportunity for republishing in another article and insert your wild speculation about nerve function. Do you really believe the truth has been served (let alone NPOV) or is everything in your view negotiable? - Robert Brookes 05:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)