Wikipedia

Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision/Archive 4

< Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Libel

Wikipedia policy:

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article.


References to Robert S. Van Howe, M.D., M.S., F.A.A.P. impugn his scientific credibility and are libelous statements that are likely to get Wikipedia in trouble if he see them. Such characterizations violate Wikipedia policy. Robert Blair 01:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how describing Van Howe as an anti-circumcision activist is libellous? Libel is defined as a false statement intended to attack a person's credibility. Howe all but describes himself as such here [1]. He has been described as such in print on several occasions, such as this letter to Pediatrics [2]. Please don't be so silly. - Jakew 07:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Jake, I would just sit back and watch how things develop from here on. I read into Robert Blair's (or whoever's) statement the implied threat of legal action. Lets see how quickly the self-styled "guardians of the wiki" act to deal with this breach of rules/policy. Jake, should I hold my breath on this one? - Robert the Bruce 15:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Such statements cast aspersions on a professional's integrity and are clearly libelous. They imply that the science has deliberately been skewed to produce a given result. They expose Wikipedia to the possibility of legal action. No one wants that. The statements must be removed. In any event they are not germane to the discussion of the medical analysis of circumcision.

4.230.234.187 16:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A true and accurate statement cannot by definition be libellous. As demonstrated, Van Howe is an anti-circumcision activist. I would further say without hesitation that the data has indeed been deliberately skewed, and I will take full responsibility for that statement. However, the article does not say that. It only says that he is an anti-circumcision activist - a true statement that has been made repeatedly in the medical literature, with no apparent objection from Van Howe. I would suggest that your objection to the accurate description of him stems from your own nagging doubts about his work, doubts that you would rather not consider. Am I right? - Jakew 17:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jake: I have no doubts about the merit of Van Howe's work. If you have doubts, then you should criticize the work, not the man. Van Howe may have green hair and red eyes but that is not relevant to his work. He is very knowledgable on circumcision issues, because that is a field he has chosen. Your continued posting of this non-relevant defamatory material is exposing Wikipedia to possible legal action. They may ban you if you persist.


Robert Blair 01:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert: You may be confident in Van Howe's work, but I know this subject extremely well, and I am only too familiar with his repeated attempts at deception. I care not what he looks like. No legal action can be taken against Wiki or myself for making true statements. If you seriously believe otherwise, then I suggest that you make a "request for comment" about me.

Since you ask, here are some comments on his work that I recently posted elsewhere:

For HIV, he uses his flawed meta-analysis. The many faults in this were pointed out by Moses et al., and O'Farrell and Egger. These points were addressed in a proper meta-analysis by Weiss et al. Although Van Howe claims to give preference to the most recent studies, he ignores this later meta-analysis altogether.

For complications, he inappropriately combines rates for neonatal circumcisions with those for later circumcisions. It has been demonstrated that newborn circumcision is much safer (one study found 0% complication rate in the neonatal group vs 30% later on).

For deaths, he inappropriately takes the LFS value from Gairdner. As I discussed recently [see below], this is inappropriate. Neonatal circumcision (which, after all, is the title of Van Howe's analysis) does not use general anaesthesia.

For UTIs, he strangely relies on To's study alone, completely ignoring all other studies (both before and after). While he (not unfairly) criticises some of the early US Army studies, his criticisms do not apply to much of the other data.

For penile cancer, he ignores Kochen and McCurdy's work, preferring to take his figures from Europe (strange, but tolerable), then takes figures only from Maden's study. More recent data is also available.

For balanitis, he ignores the overwhelming evidence that circumcised males are at reduced risk. (see Fakjian N, Hunter S, Cole GW, Miller J. An argument for circumcision: prevention of balanitis in the adult. Arch Dermatol. 1990 Aug; 126: 1046-1047; Herzog LW, Alvarez SR. The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. Am J Dis Child. 1986; 140: 254-256; Fergusson DM, Lawton JM, Shannon FT. Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1988;81(4):537-41; Mallon E, Hawkins D, Dinneen M, Francics N, Fearfield L, Newson R, Bunker C. Circumcision and genital dermatoses. Arch Dermatol. 2000 Mar;136(3):350-4 for some examples)

Bizarrely, he claims that 0.1% of men will indulge in foreskin restoration (an improbably high and unjustified figure). Since this is entirely an elective endeavour, it isn't appropriate. If it were, then elective circumcision should be considered a cost of not circumcision. Van Howe fails to do this.

My recent discussion of deaths: Baker´s[1] estimate of 229 circumcision-related deaths per year in the US is based on Gairdner´s[2] value of 16 deaths in 90,000 circumcisions.

This is inappropriate. Gairdner´s deaths were mostly caused by complications of general anaesthesia, which is much more dangerous than local anaesthesia. General anaesthesia is not used for neonatal circumcision.

Wiswell and Geschke[3] reviewed the records of 136,086 boys. 100,157 of these were circumcised. No circumcised boy died, but two uncircumcised boys died of complications of UTIs. They also report that no deaths occur in a larger group of 300,000 boys.

Speert[4] reviewed the records of 566,483 circumcised infants, and found one death.

Gee and Ansell[5] reviewed the records of 5,521 circumcised infants, and found no deaths.

King[6] reported on 500,000 neonatal circumcisions, with no fatalities.

Trevino[7] reports that no deaths occurred in 650,000 circumcised boys.

1 http://www.cirp.org/library/general/baker1/

2 http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/

3 Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989 Jun;83 (6):1011-5.

4 Speert H. Circumcision of the newborn: an appraisal of its present status. Obstet Gynecol. 1953; 2: 164-172

5 Gee WF, Ansell JS. Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview: with comparison of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics. 1976 Dec;5(6):824-7.

6 King LR. Neonatal circumcision in the US in 1982. J Urol. 1982; 128: 1135-36

7 Trevino S. Personal communication to Wiswell T. 1987

- Jakew 14:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see. So he is wrong because his numbers disagree with those who advocate or actually perform circumcisions. That is quite a convenient, and almost categorical form of denial. Seems that no other body part is subjected to this style of analysis: cut a bunch of people first -- do the numbers change? -- oh, well that was the right thing to do! That proves very little, as there is no control group, and no real science. Opposing this methology is not insanity, and a medical analysis is not just a numbers game. We are all involved, like it or not. We would be missing more than our foreskins if certain doctors made decisions about what to take off. Even the pro-genital-mutilation studies that are spread throughout Wikipedia do not disclam "Warning about Van Howe, this guy is a raving circumcision proponent, don't believe a word of it". That has little to do with fact, and more to do with defamation and bias (they are probably public figures in this context). Anti-circumcision folks do not even try to sneak into articles "Wiswell: flaming circumcision advocate wants to cut all boys". That has little merit or purpose except to unbalance the article. DanP 00:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

DanP, Van Howe's paper falls into the general class of papers known as reviews, or surveys. These introduce no new data, but instead attempt to perform some analysis using the existing medical literature. In this case, it's a cost-utility analysis. In these days of evidence-based medicine, articles should be obtained and selected via a well-defined process that is not inherently biased. For example, one might say "I'll search Medline (a well-known database of medical papers) for circumcision, from 1980 onwards". The search strategy is usually stated, so that it can be repeated and thus verified. If one makes arbitrary selections (as Van Howe does), then one can justifiably be criticised. - Jakew 01:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you search any medical database on breast cancer, it's always aimed toward preserving the breast, instead of amputating as a cautionary matter of statistics or risks. If your view that "evidence-based" medicine is appropriate, where is the evidence of foreskin disease in a newborn? It is almost always absent. That isn't bias, that is fact. You've struggled to delete that fact over and over using a probabilistic and interpretation-based approach toward this matter, and now you say a well-defined process should exclude one that will perform some analysis using the existing medical literature. If that is the case, we should immediately purge Wikipedia of all claims of both benefit and harm from circumcision, since Wikipedia is now such a repository of re-analysis. Isn't that correct, or did I misread the title of this article? My only suggestion is that we mention Van Howe's work without judgement, of him or his work, except to say that the paper asserts such things. These accusations work both ways, and numerous "circumcision benefit" links in this article are mentioned without hinting that the author is a single-issue lunatic. DanP 18:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dan, I most certainly do not say that Van Howe's work should be excluded because it "perform(s) some analysis using the existing medical literature", and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It is entirely valid to analyse using the existing literature, and indeed beneficial. When doing this, one has to use a well-defined approach. One can't just be arbitrary. The problem with his work is that instead of being systematic in his review of the literature, he has been selective and arbitrary (see my notes above). In itself, that would be alright (though it would make his paper appear as cranky as it really is), but the trouble is that Van Howe lies, and claims to have used a systematic approach. That's readily disproven by repeating his claimed method, and seeing the papers he chose to omit. - Jakew 00:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is easy enough to say Van Howe's perspective is a lie. Even that judgement is somewhat arbitrary in what you are willing to accept, and what you reject. Many systematic refutations of pro-mutilation junk science are available online. But that has never been sufficient to exclude them from Wikipedia. Why not let the reader decide on their own? I'm sure plenty of research is out there explaining how to save money and avoid surgery, and how to seek alternative treatment for many diseases or disorders involving non-vital organs. Yet that same candle of truth must in no way go near the male genitals? I have difficulty seeing the non-arbitrary systematic approach there, or how Van Howe work differs from any other less-blatantly mutilating fields of medicine. Perhaps you can explain why this is so? DanP 01:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dan, would you please realise that we're not talking about whether to delete Van Howe - we're just discussing whether to include commentary. You say that systematic refutations are available online - so where are they? - Jakew 12:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Commentary or not, the same standards should apply to the circumcision advocates as to genital integrity. Do you dispute this, or should commentary only be valid from your side? As to systematic refutation, every time CIRP article are linked, or commentary as to failures of pro-mutilation arguments are detailed, you oppose them as selective or biased. Yet your wild rampage against Van Howe is warranted? Why? DanP 23:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
DanP, my "wild rampage against Van Howe" consists merely of noting that he's an anti-circumcision activist. Please keep a sense of proportion here. It's unclear what you mean by "CIRP articles" - do you mean a paper that happens to be hosted at CIRP, or do you mean one of CIRP's own discussion pages? While the latter are absurdly biased, I don't object too much to the former. My main gripes with CIRP's pages are a) their little "explanatory notes", designed to guide the reader towards their way of thinking, and b) their highlighting of passages that they like, and c) their habit of linking to only the references that support their position. If they just presented the paper as it was in the journal, I'd have no objection. -Jakew 12:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A sense of proportion

To keep a sense of proportion here one needs to remember that there is no medical indication for neonatal circumcision, in other words neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary. There is no other part of a child's body that doctors will cut off without a valid medical indication. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia policy statement says:

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

--DanBlackham 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Thanks for that Dan. It is always nice to know that we can get an up-to-date anti-circumcision view from you. BTW don't you think it is time to retract the "call-to-arms" posts on various anti-circumcision lists (which you are a member of) for activists to rally and force your POV into Wikipedia articles? - Robert the Bruce 00:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Robert, while your contributions are valuable, why would you criticise someone for having a viewpoint. Are you saying you do not? NPOV does not say eliminate POV. In fact it welcomes both sides, which apparently is something you hate. Go read NPOV and come back and tell us whether your POV is missing from the article. Then let's discuss it. DanP 01:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to indulge in smoke and mirrors to apply some spin to the NPOV definition. There is about to be a ruling made by the AC which will confirm that "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda or advocacy." This then read in conjunction with the following emails [3][4][5] will effectively bring the activities of targeting Wikipedia by one particular fringe group to an end. Wonderful. - Robert the Bruce 04:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whenever the microscope looks at your circumcision advocacy efforts, you would not be happy either. Like it or not, your viewpoint is in the minority worldwide. But I do not promote giving it less prominence in Wikipedia. Both sides of many ethical debates are presented in Wikipedia, the pros and the cons. Saying "no propaganda" is fair enough. But I believe you have tossed the first stone in nearly every instance, and our rules must apply to both sides. By your logic Wikipedia should delete pro-choice or pro-life and declare one "the truth" and the other propaganda. Is this what you are saying? Please clarify what you mean so we can all understand. DanP 18:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes I thought you would take the news badly. But all is not lost yet, however, you can rely on a rearguard action of 5th Cloumnist sympathisers around here to provided an imaginative "interpretation" to help your cause. Again sadly you misrepresent the "worldwide" view. Where is your evidence that any more than a pathetic "worldwide" minority share the level of activism towards male circumcision issues as do you and your "friends"? My point is simple. Just as with Bin Laden there is no possiblity of reaching compromise or achieving consensus. Finally, please don't speak for me, I am happy to be judged my owm words and not those that others put in my mouth. - Robert the Bruce 03:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I am new to Wikipedia. The IP address 24.184.199.202 is me, Mrfunkygenius. I had set my account to “remember me” but it hasn’t worked. Sorry.

The Rural Uganda Study [6]

The article that I found read as follows:

where circumcision was carried out before the age of 12 it results in a reduction to 0.39 of the odds of an uncircumcised man. The degree of protection changed according to the age at which circumcision was performed, however, with those circumcised at between 13 and 20 years at an odds ratio of 0.46, and those circumcised after the age of 20 at an odds ratio of 0.78. The researchers concluded that "Prepubertal circumcision is associated with reduced HIV risk, whereas circumcision after age 20 years is not significantly protective against HIV-1 infection."

However, a closer reading of the source reveals that those who were circumcised at the age of 21 or more had a higher rate of infection than those who remained uncircumcised. It said:

"HIV-1 prevalence was 14.1% in uncircumcised men, compared with 16.2% for men circumcised at age > or = 21 years."

I believe it is important to state this if only to show that circumcision alone is not a sure protection against HIV. Michael Glass 04:14, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry Michael but once again you misrepresent the findings of the study. I posted this paragraph to clarify the position in the main article.
"It is noted that the researchers' found among those circumcised after the age of 21 years: 
"HIV-1 prevalence was 14.1% in uncircumcised men, compared with 16.2% for men circumcised at age
> or = 21 years. While anti-circumcision activists emphasize this fact it should be noted that in
this community, where circumcision when carried out is during adolescence, circumcision after the 
age of twenty-one is most as a result of medical conditions of the foreskin and/or repetitive and/
or persistent sexually transmitted disease (STD). It is therefore likely that a significant number
of these men actually became infected with HIV while still uncircumcised."

So sadly Micheal the anti-circ line has been exposed for what it is. Now a question. If circumcision can actually reduce the number of HIV infections by millions world wide why are anti-circumcision activists, who incidentally claim to be concerned with child and human rights, so desperate to counter such findings? Is it a case that the mindset of the average anti-circumcision activist places the foreskin as more important than millions of human lives and the accompanying human tragedy that is part of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It makes one think. - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, this is a fine piece of invective, but it is without substance. I left the quotation that I found but added another quote to point out that those circumcised after the age of 21 had a higher rate of infection than those who remained uncircumcised. The last two sentences of your paragraph are simply speculation. That is why I removed them. However, if you have solid evidence for them, by all means post it for everyone's consideration.211.31.53.27 06:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Your first two posts and seem to know your way around here pretty well. Some may even be forgiven thinking that you may be a sockpuppet. Perhaps one of the more unbiased sysops may check out that possibility. Which list are you from BTW? - Robert the Bruce 17:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since we know that the difference is not statistically significant, and that after adjusting for confounding variables, males circ'd after 20 are still at more risk, it seems rather pointless to include all this discussion. It's a non-point. Forget it. - Jakew 15:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Doctor' Van Howe

Michael, nobody disputes that Van Howe is a doctor. However, if you read the rest of the article, you'll see that in accordance with academic tradition, authors are introduced by surname only. In no other cases do we introduce titles or first names - why should we make a special exception? If you decide to change it to "Dr Robert Van Howe" again, I hope that you'll be consistent and change every other author, too. - Jakew 14:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is it in accordance with academic tradition to brand people as being pro or anti-circumcision? If not, then perhaps we should also remove the comment about him being an anti-circumcision activist. Michael Glass 15:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, if you look through the literature, you'll find plenty of references to people's stance in published articles. For example, see Fleiss and Hodges or Schoen. - Jakew 15:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV requires that opposing viewpoints are equally acceptable and both should be presented without bias. This means that pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision viewpoints must be allowed. Robert the Bruce simply cannot delete material that does not conform to his mind-set.

Factual material may be presented also.

HIV

Van Howe's point of view is offset by O'Farrell. Likewise, Kebaatetswe's viewpoint is offset by Hill-Denniston and by Boyle. These are opposing viewpoints and are entitled to be represented.

Robert Blair 12:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

I've corrected a typo and removed the "Dr Robert" from Van Howe, for reasons discussed above. I've also made some stylistic changes.

I've removed the paragraph about the finer points of the Uganda study. What on earth is the point of discussing something that we already know is not statistically significant (as noted in the quoted conclusion in the previous paragraph)?

I've shortened the quote from Kiwanuka so that we just include the conclusions. After all, we're providing a link to the study itself, so it seems overkill (and from a copyright perspective is also dubious) to quote the entire abstract.

I've incorporated Robert Blair's version of the RCT paragraph, but have removed the sentence about researcher bias (citations?).

Describing Kebaatetswe as an opinion piece is false, since it is based upon surveys. And I'm adding the fact that the criticisms are from anti-circumcision activists.

I've also made some stylistic changes to Lagarde. - Jakew 12:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have grouped all the overviews (USAIDS, Cochrane, RACP) together. This is helpful in showing where the different bodies agree and disagree about their assessment of the relationship between HIV and circumcision. Michael Glass 07:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake has questioned why I think it is important to include the following passage from O'Farrell and Egger in the article:

There is debate on the role of male circumcision in HIV transmission. Most case-control and cohort studies from Africa have shown an association between a lack of circumcision and an increased risk of HIV infection in men. The evidence is conflicting, however, with cross-sectional surveys from Tanzania and Rwanda either showing no relationship or an association in the opposite direction.

I believe it is important to point out that there is conflicting evidence about the relationship between circumcision status and incidence of HIV. This backs up what the Cochrane Library said and helps to explain where Van Howe got his raw data. In turn, this puts the reader in a better position to understand and assess the comments of Moses et al in criticising Van Howe's meta-analysis. I originally broke the quotation into two parts: one that dealt with the conflict in the evidence and the other that dealt with the criticism of Van Howe. I think this is clearer than having one long quotation. However, I can quite understand if others felt the passage should be quoted in one block.Michael Glass 13:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Michael you certainly must get an "A" effort for the way that you tirelessly work towards supporting the unsupportable. Why even foreskin guru Geoffrey T. Falk (the "org" behind cirp) has reported that Van Howe himself admits that his findings are weak. I quote:
"I spoke with Bob Van Howe recently, and he agreed that there was some merit in Moses' criticism of
his meta-analysis. Some of the statistics were not as refined as they could have been. Bob is now
working on a revised analysis using the numbers from these studies. However, one must remember that
the data from these studies themselves is subject to numerous confounding factors. There is also
publication bias, which means that studies with negative results (no correlation) are less likely
to be published." - Geoffrey T. Falk
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.circumcision/msg/07775bd5d88833c3

So Michael, give one good reason why the Van Howe trash should not be deleted in toto from Wikipedia? - Robert the Bruce 17:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Robert. I think it important that people should be aware of the flaws in Van Howe's work, and for that reason alone, we should discuss it. I'd have a great deal more respect for CIRP if they had the decency to include one of their little notes, directing readers to the relevant letters, but unfortunately they don't appear to have that much integrity. The burden of exposing the facts about circumcision - and about Van Howe - thus falls to us. - Jakew 22:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that CIRP continues to display the trash on its website says all that needs to be said about the lack of integrity of that organisation ... but it goes further ... what does it say about the integrity of those POV warriors that continue to relentlessly present this Van Howe trash as being a scientific counter to the ever mounting evidence of the relationship between the lack of circumcision and a higher risk of HIV infection among the uncircumcised and their partners? Here it is called a Wikicrime ... but don't hold your breath for any sysop to take action in this regard. - Robert the Bruce 04:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert Brookes, I have no particular brief for Van Howe. If his meat-analysis is flawed, then there are two ways of dealing with this issue. One is to discuss it and the criticisms; another is to remove all discussion of that particular study. It would all depend on the influence that the Van Howe article has had. If it was particularly well-known and influential, then it is better to include information about it, including the flaws that people have detected in it.

However, I have a great problem with your latest edit to the section on HIV/AIDS. Under the excuse of removing clutter you have suppressed evidence that is not to your liking and skewed the whole section towards your own point of view. The version that you mutilated was something that both Jake Waskett and I felt reasonably comfortable with. Now you have turned it into a propaganda piece once more. This is not a positive contribution to the article. Michael Glass 09:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Michael, of course you will not be in agreement with much that is written on this subject. Walabio has identified you as a "full time intactivist" [7] and as such you are totally anti-circumcision POV. Now we (who follow the circumcision debate) know just how desperately anti-circumcision activists are to break or discredit the link between the lack of circumcision and a higher risk of HIV infection for the uncircumcised and their wives partners. We also know how apoplectic they are at the thought of the RCT's confirming this protective effect. Michael, I know all this is bad for the foreskin but it does not mean that you or other foreskin promoters should be allowed to fill such articles with anti-circumcision propaganda. As to Van Howe, it is now clear that you are aware of Van Howe himself admitting that his research was fatally flawed. The fact that anti-circumcision websites continue to present it as credible is an absolute disgrace. As far as Wikipedia is concerned any attempt to reinsert this trash should be treated as a wikicrime. (I thought you should know this). Now onto your final point. I can sympathise that the current state of the article is not in agreement of your POV but that of course does not mean that the content is wrong, inaccurate or a lie. What would you like me to add? Would you like me to add the fact as to just how desperate anti-circumcision activists are to discredit the foreskin/HIV link. That we can agree on but to push propaganda, is something I cannot support. Sorry.- Robert the Bruce 12:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert Brookes, thank you for confirming the fact that 'Robert the Bruce' is your sock puppet.

You still have not answered my point about the censoring of the article. No-one could accuse Jake Waskett of being anti-circumcision, and yet we were both able to come to some consensus about the HIV/AIDS section of this article. The reason was that both of us were striving to give a fair and accurate account of the state of medical opinion at the moment. This has been sabotaged by your removal of relevant material.Michael Glass 13:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Michael you really need to understand the meaning of consensus. Any agreement between you and i would not be binding on anyone else. I would have thought that it would have been obvious. Michael as one of (as Walabio calls) the full-time intactivists what real possibility is there that you will accept any version other than that equivalent to what is found on CIRP and other anti-circumcision sites? (other than as a temporary tactical concession). Using words like "censored" and "sabotaged" is counter productive to your image. - Robert the Bruce 18:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert Brookes, I traced your link for this 'full-time inactivist' statement and I note that you attribute it to a group called 'Intact". Unlike you, I have no connection with this group. Walabio is welcome to his/her opinion; it is not mine. I do not retreat from my use of the words 'sabotaged' and 'censored' because you have removed relevant material without good cause.Michael Glass 23:41, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Split

This article's getting big. Perhaps we should spin off sections as "Sexual consequences of circumcision", "Risks of circumcision surgery", and perhaps "Circumcision and HIV" to reduce article length. —Ashley Y 23:58, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

  • Ashley, give yourself three months before making such suggestions. - Robert the Bruce 12:20, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oh I've been on Wikipedia much longer than that...—Ashley Y 08:58, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Just to extend the logic of the mutilationists... I bet you could find medical benefits to having all your nails surgically extracted. You'd never have to deal with that nasty-smelling gunk that collects underneath them ever again. And then you could have your lips surgically removed so there was only just enough to cover your mouth when closed. There's no actual evidence that you need them, right? Or that they are specifically sexually sensitive when it comes to kissing. And it would make your teeth easier to brush. Of course, the anti-lipectomy activists might disagree, but they're probably all paraphiliac lip-fetishists anyway... —Ashley Y 06:17, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

I think this or something like it belongs.

No adult male human was both circumcised as a baby and also NOT circumcised as a baby; therefore no one can talk from personal experience about both conditions; comparing the one to the other. Also, all large groups of males who were circumcised as a baby had the procedure as part of their culture; therefore all studies will necessarily have cultural bias. Further, no one will do this to randomly chosen thousands of babies; so a strictly scientific study can not be done.

Therefore, the medical analysis of circumcision will remain inconclusive (e.g. this article's discussion page). (signed - been reverted twice so I'm putting it here)

  • Well I must admit to understanding fully why such opinion was deleted from the main article. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? - Robert the Bruce 06:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My point is "the medical analysis of circumcision will remain inconclusive" therefore this article is not bad enough to justify the "NOT NPOV" or "needs cleanup" charge (enough to put the warning on anyway). This article AS IT IS is the best on the topic on the web so far as I can find. I'm not saying it can't be better. I'm saying stop scaring off readers. There's a lot of good stuff in this article, and additional good stuff in the discussion pages. Thank you for asking. (signed - been reverted twice so I'm putting it here)

Well you'll probably get further if you try to make a case that articles in the past have been less than totally conclusive. Predictions, at the very least, do not belong in an encyclopaedia. - Jakew 19:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Predictions...do not belong in an encyclopaedia." In this context, I can only say "When you're right, you're right." I hereby modify my statements to read present and/or past tense only. "The medical analysis of circumcision remains, to date, inconclusive" or some such phrasing. Your contribution to my increased accuracy is hereby both noted and thanked. I stand by the gist : can/end/remove/delete/transfer/modify/move the "NOT NPOV" and "needs cleanup" charge as the article's lead element. (signed - been reverted twice so I'm putting it here)

FYI

From Slashdot " I remember back to when I was only 2 years old- I had had surgery on ... well, we'll call it a sensitive part of the body.

Now I don't remember the surgery, and I don't remember the antics I pulled at showing nurses why I was in the hospital... but I *do* remember the first time I had to goto the bathroom after surgery.

That memory is so seared into my brain I can even recall I was high enough to look out a window over the cityscape, and that there was a bricked church in the background and the window had blinds (the black slatted ones) on it.

And I remember so much so terribly much pain I don't know how I survived it.

My parents tell me that after that brief moment of screaming I was OK... and I don't remember anything else of that event save for that moment.

And just for comparison (of a little kid) I've had 18 kidney stones... I have a good memory for pain. But that memory makes me cringe and shiver every time I have it." [8]

labeled " Pain for me (Score:5, Interesting) by purduephotog (218304) <hirschNO@SPAMinorbit.com> on Monday January 24, @08:17PM (#11463523) (Last Journal: Wednesday August 13, @11:49PM)"

in article " Volatility of Human Memory Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 24, @08:13PM from the help-finding-your-keys dept."

OK. Now why is this FYI section in this particular discussion? DanP 21:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medical_analysis_of_circumcision/Archive_4&oldid=457534321"