Talk:Foreskin restoration/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DanP, I notice that you want to include a reference to Kimmel and Sorrels. A NOCIRC press release isn't really a reliable source (nor, indeed, is any press release). Although I am rather dubious of any "research" performed by NOCIRC campaigners and presented at anti-circ symposia, that was the case with Taylor's preliminary "research", and I've been willing to accept that so far, so I guess it's fair to be consistent. Could you find either a) the conference abstract, or b) a full write-up in a journal? If so, I've no objection to its inclusion. - Jakew 12:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jakew, thank you for responding on this. If you haven't noticed, many dubious sources of pro-circumcision and related propaganda are in this and many other articles. According to NPOV, we may certainly include facts -- "including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves". I am not asserting here that the Kimmel and Sorrels study (or their opinions) are accurate, only that it was reported and presented at symposia on circumcision. The vile mutilation propaganda (aka Szabo and Short) you've included doesn't even mention restoration, yet I have not added warning labels to announcing the context and slant of the author. Please be consistent here. DanP 19:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's address one issue at a time, Dan. The fact remains that press releases are not reliable sources of information. Now, are you able to provide a conference abstract? It really isn't much to ask, and I think you'll find that abstracts (as a minimum) are provided for any other study mentioned. It's true that Szabo and Short do not mention restoration, but what's the relevance? They do disprove the hypothesis that glans coverage affects keratinisation, which is relevant to discussion of restoration. - Jakew 11:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That connection is your extrapolation and is only one POV. The Szabo and Short article is on HIV, not restoration. It only makes a remote reference to glans keritinization, and perhaps I should be asking you to make your references more direct. There is no standard in Wikipedia forbidding press releases, and the sensitivity testing of restoring men is noteworthy. DanP 18:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jakew, concerning the link you and Robert are promoting "Self-mutilation: Attempted Foreskin Reconstruction", what are you doing here? Do you want isolated cases to be identified as the norm or are you prompting restoration diaries of successful restoration to be included here? Where is your scientific method? Do you approve of articles about boys dying from circumcision to be posted in the

• Dan, there is clearly a mental pathology attached to the motives of a significant proportion of foreskin restorers (Hammond) which should not be allowed to be swept under the carpet. Your efforts (and those of the other activists around here) have stimulated some research into the available literature out there and you need to know that there is more to come along the same trend. I hope you cease threatening to introduce tit for tat responses in order to suppress the truth, as it will not work. The truth will out. - Robert the Bruce 23:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Obvious is the fact that the majority of foreskin restoration diaries and available accounts result in successful restoration and improvement in function to some degree as determined by the man himself. Yes, I can expand enormously on risks and potential harms, and I'm OK with including them if you wish. But you fail to understand that you have skewed this to a non-representative sampling, even by your standards. This is a condition you would never accept in the circumcision article, as factual accounts of boys being hunted down during the circumcision season, sometimes being killed by circumcision wounds, factual as it is, would never survive your mass-deletion efforts. I see a milder tit-for-tat far less destructive than your mass-deletion of factual information about circumcision-related topics. If you disagree, then do I have your approval to delete your link addition? DanP 19:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting Robert's anti-consensus edits and the complication link. And I'm adding a counterpoint to the glans study. I will also leave out many of the various paragraphs on supporters/critic to hopefully find consensus. I hope this is acceptable. DanP 23:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I wonder if you have the vaguest idea of what the word consensus means? I suggest that it is time for you and your new tag-team partner to come clean and fess up to your POV intentions on Wikipedia. Cute little comments on the talk page serve no purpose other than perhaps to hightlight an attempt to deceive. - Robert the Bruce 17:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, your latest edit, while not a straight revert, was effectively the same thing. I've reverted it because your version, which insists on placing a rather doubtful claim about mental pathology at the top of the article, is non-neutral. Exploding Boy 18:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Note: I thought I should just place on record that I have absolutely no regard for how you may interpret my edit. I would refer you (and it is a shocking disgrace to have to do so for a sysop) to the Wikipedia definition of what constitutes a revert. It is time renegade sysops start to follow the policies of Wikipedia instead of attempting to introduce a reign of terror through the implementation of their imaginative and POV interpretations of what other peoples intentions are. The arrogance of this self ordained omnipotence is breathtaking. - Robert the Bruce 07:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You are of course entitled to your own opinion. Perhaps it would be wise for you to accept that your opinion is only that, an opinion. Quite honestly as you have recently dispelled any doubt as to your POV position on this issue I really am not interested in your attempt to stand aloof and in judgement of me and my actions. You keep pushing your POV while pretending to be a neutral sysop. Not many people are still fooled by your act EB. - Robert the Bruce 19:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How exactly? As it happens, I completely disagree with some of the claims made in this article; I haven't removed them: that would be non-neutral. On the other hand, your insistence on placing a comment about pathology in the opening paragraph of the article is non-neutral because it implies that all or a majority of foreskin restorers attempt restoration due to mental illness. While I don't doubt some restorers do suffer mental illnesses, I have extreme doubts that all restorers can be characterised the same way. Whatever you may think my personal beliefs on the subject, all I'm trying to do here is create a well-balanced, well-written and neutral article. Unfortunately, I can't see you doing the same. Exploding Boy 23:24, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Hammond's poll established that there is a significant proportion of those who restore are in poor mental shape and abuse substances. Of course this is something you would wish to sweep under the carpet given your angle on this issue. Remember that Hammond himself is a radical anti-circumcision activist so he could hardly be accused of exaggerating now could he? So sadly for you this sad truth about foreskin restorers must be given prominence so that people know what the truth is about these people. So revert away, and if you don't get your way threaten dire consequences etc etc ... it is all rather predictable. - Robert the Bruce 18:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the section on mental pathology from both sides of this. Jakew and Robert have objected repeatedly to any POV against their viewpoint, but insist on their POV staying put. I have asked repeatedly for both viewpoints (of both supporters and critics) to be left in place, but Robert and Jakew did not permit this. Therefore, I am reverting to Walabio's last version (which has no blatant criticism either way) until some explanation can be given for censoring one side. I also received no response (expect reverts on his part) from Robert as to whether biased stories and case-studies are permitted from our side, or whether he'd like to eliminate the ones he has linked to and written commentary about. DanP 19:40, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Nice try Dan, but sadly your opinion is somewhat extreme to demand equal exposure and as such does not deserve to deserve the space you demand. Further as one of the anti-circumcision activists who sent out an appeal on your foreskin list for your fellow members to force your POV into Wikipedia I honestly believe that you and your growing number of drive-by supporters and the rather obvious sock -puppets should be banned from wikipedia. Those who missed it this what DanP wanted to happen on Wikipedia.

Need some help on Wikipedia Subject: Need some help on Wikipedia Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:27:55 -0700 (PDT)

Dear group,

I have been battling the pro-circumcision folks on Wikipedia again, hoping to list "circumciser" as
a valid article entry. I have tried to keep the article as factual as possible and related to world cultures.

If you are active on Wikipedia, please go to that article and give me a hand. So far, the pro-MGM
side has been voting to delete, and I could use some assistance.

Thanks,

Dan

Thanks for the public service announcement, Robert. You've posted that in many discussions. Once again, I never said I was neutral - we've plainly discussed this many times. That doesn't make me knee-jerk-delete your POV. I have said many times that I respect your POV despite my total disagreement with it. DanP 22:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the recent change to "a man who has undergone

• Of course you couldn't bring yourself to delete that little gem of vandalism. Don't worry Dan I'll do it for you. - Robert the Bruce 17:29, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fiction that circumcision is not an injury just won't stand the light of day. Taylor described and quantified the injury in his 1996 BJU paper, and a man who tried to circumcise his son has been convicted of child assault. Robert Blair 23:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Once again sadly we see evidence of the disingenuous nature of the anti-circumcision contribution to Wikipedia. The assault in question (and an assault indeed it was) was the result of some idiot attempting to take a hunting knife to his son after having a religious moment of sorts. Lucky for the kid his father was not reading the part about Abraham being told to sacrifice his son before the religious fervour overtook him. This is such a shocking misrepresentation of the facts that IMO it constitutes a wiki-crime. - Robert the Bruce 06:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point of view that circumcision constitutes injury is non-neutral, and thus does not belong in this or any other Wikipedia article. Exploding Boy 00:33, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Non-neutral is not the issue here. It seems to be the genuine opinion of a fringe group of dedicated admirers of the foreskin. It should be expressed in that context in the article. - Robert the Bruce 06:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, a request: could you please leave a space between your post and the post above it? It makes it much easier to edit. Second, in the context of this article, the phrase "circumcision or some other injury to the genitals" is non-neutral becuase it is not generally agreed that circumcision constitutes an injury to the male genitalia. The opinions of a "fringe group of dedicated admirers of the foreskin," while they may have a place in articles regarding the foreskin, cannot be presented as right or true, and therefore the opinions of other groups as false, in a Wikipedia article.

Do you see what I'm saying? Can I make it clearer? The fact that some people, regardless of who they are, believe that circumcision is an injury does not make it acceptable to represent that point of view as correct in an article. In the article on Male circumcision, for example, we do not say anything that suggests that we (the writers and editors of the article) believe that circumcision of males causes injury. We do say that some people believe that, but we are also careful to say that others do not. In this article, which doesn't concern circumcision per se, it's not necessary to qualify; an interested user can look for herself if she wants more information on circumcision. In other words, circumcision stands by itself, "some injury" by itself, and it's up to the user to decide.

On the other hand, if we're talking about a specific incident, it's pretty safe, in my opinion, to characterize a sudden attempted forced circumcision by a (possibly mentally ill?) medically unqualified father of his unsuspecting son as an attack and possibly as a mutilation. But we aren't (or shouldn't be, unless the son, as a result, then undertook foreskin restoration). Exploding Boy 17:55, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that EB has a point here. How about we accomodate everyone with the (hopefully) neutral alternative:

a man who has undergone

circumcision

or has sustained an injury to the genitals (those opposed to circumcision believe that circumcision is itself an injury)

- Jakew 18:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about:

Foreskin restoration is the process of restoring the foreskin (prepuce), or creating the appearance of a foreskin, usually in men who have undergone circumcision, either as children or adults. Foreskin restoration techniques are also attempted by some men who have sustained injury to the foreskin (note that some people view circumcision as such an injury), or by uncircumcised men who desire a longer foreskin or more coverage of the glans.

Exploding Boy 18:52, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, but I think we should remove "either as children or adults". It's redundant. I'd also suggest that "usually in men" is a new sentence, as in "It is usually performed by men...". - Jakew 18:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Note that we know who the people are who consider circumcision to be injury. It is not "some people" but rather anti-circumcision activists and foreskin admirers. This qualification is necessary. - Robert the Bruce 20:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that "as children or adults" is necessary because without it the sentence seems to suggest that those who have been circumcised as men (ie: not as children) undertake restoration. Robert, I disagree with your claim. There is no evidence that only anti-circumcision activists and foreskin admirers see circumcision as injury/mutilation. Including such a claim in the article is both unnecessary and non-neutral, as well as completely untrue. Exploding Boy 22:24, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Jake "as children or adults" is redundant. It would only be necessary to include if people (readers) were unaware that circumcision was carried out at all ages. Is this the case? I doubt it. As to the second point. We do know that the group "anti-circumcision activists and foreskin admirers" believe circumcision to bean injury is a given (according to their belief system) if you believe there are others who do not fall into this grouping believe the same then perhaps the wording should be "anti-circumcision activists, foreskin admirers and some others ... ". It is important, certainly in the context of this article that readers are aware that this activism is driven by "anti-circumcision activists and foreskin admirers" as the active proponents with passive (quite) support from an unknown number of "others". - Robert the Bruce 10:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is simply no evidence that all, or only, anti-circumcision activists and foreskin admirers see circumcision as injury.

Also, I've reverted your last edit as totally non-neutral. There's no way you don't know what you're doing here, Robert. Please don't make me seek further action against you for knowingly and maliciously inserting a non-neutral point of view into articles.

Exploding Boy 16:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

• That is your opinion. Would you be so kind as to define "non-neutral"? In any event you would need to explain your revert in detail here and not just carry out a summary revert. As to the first point I notice that you misrepresent what I said. I will correct it accordingly in the article. Please do not misrepresent what i say so as to attempt to score a cheap point. - Robert the Bruce 16:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following quotes (truncated where necessary for brevity; check edit history for confirmation of their accuracy) are taken directly from Robert's edit, reverted by me with explanation here (see above). They clearly constitute a non-neutral point of view. In my opinion, they also constitute vandalism, since Robert is clearly a long-time and experienced user who is well aware of what is and is not neutral. Robert's changes within larger blocks of text are bolded here. Totally unbolded blocks of text are Robert's words or reworkings of paragraphs which have compromised their neutrality.

1. While the aim of foreskin restoration is to create "the look" of being uncircumcised a number of reasons are put forward by those who have embarked on restoring some of which are due to the promise of improved sensitivity by foreskin restoration groups . . . or inherent sexual dysfunction

2. Predictably however, Boyle, a leading anti-circumcision campaigner, suggests circumcision as the source of many emotional disorders

3. Boyle's position supports the findings of Hammond's poll that a significant proportion of those undergoing foreskin restoration have serious emotional, psychological, and psychiatric problems from whatsoever cause

4. Promotion and support groups are now active in several nations while others believe foreskin restoration should be delayed until physical development is completed at around 18 years of age and from the additional concern that encouraging minors to commence this process may constitute corruption of a minor or worse child abuse.

5. Line 33: According to Taylor, a leading anti-circumcision activist [-- the article in question has three authors, not one, as is falsely stated by Robert. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that Taylor (which one of the two Taylors who authored the article, by the way?) is a "leading anti-circumcision activist," and no evidence for the potentially libelous implication that he has knowingly falsified information. There is also no mention of the fact that the study was conducted by a reputable agency, namely the University of Manitoba's Department of Pathology.]

6. Robert changed "reported" to "perceived or sometimes real" in the following: In some men, foreskin restoration may alleviate perceived or sometimes real problems

7. In the following, Robert changed "reported suffering" to "reported to suffer": "Respondents reported suffering from emotional distress," adding a further suggestion of pathology and making the statement non-neutral.

Since Robert is becoming increasingly bold in his vandalism I will be seeking further measures to stop him. In the meantime, the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article as it stands are disputed.

Exploding Boy 17:43, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

on #1: The bold sections here seem perfectly ok to me. However, a citation for the appearance aim would improve things.

on #2. We should probably remove "predictably".

on #3. Unquestionably true.

on #4. Why is this non-neutral?

on #5. John Taylor is an anti-circumcision activist (whether he is "leading" or not I don't know). He has presented at anti-circumcision activist symposia, and runs a site on the anti-circ activist site NOCIRC. He has written in personal communication of his desire to stop circumcision. I think this counts. If you think he has falsified information, that's fair enough, but the article doesn't say that. Also, as far as I can tell, the Dept of Pathology didn't conduct the study. It just happens to be "home" for one or more authors.

on #6. Seems fair. If he had changed it to "perceived" only, that would be non-NPOV. But both possibilities are allowed for.

on #7. Lost me there.

(Comments in italics by Jakew 18:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Response:

On #1: there is no evidence that people embark on restoration "due to the promise of improved sensitivity by foreskin restoration groups or inherent sexual dysfunction," as Robert claims. I'd like to see it.

On #2: "Predictably," here, is totally non-neutral, a fact that can hardly have been lost on Robert. I'd also like to see the evidence for Boyle being a "leading anti-circumcision campaigner" and what "many emotional disorders" he "suggests" as being caused by circumcision.

On #3: More, and more reputable, evidence is needed before making such a claim.

On #4. This is non-neutral for the term "Promotion" as well as the speculation that there is "concern that encouraging minors to commence this process may constitute corruption of a minor or worse child abuse." Show me the evidence.

On #5. It comes down to prove it, or remove it. If John Taylor is an anti-circumcision activist, particularly a "leading" activist, give some evidence, and explain why that is relevant to the findings of the study. If you're going to make that statement about him, then you need to add something about the other two authors of the study as well, rather than falsly suggesting that he is the only author and further, that his views on circumcision somehow skew the findings. It is significant that the University of Manitoba is listed on at the head of the study. This suggests that the research was conducted there or under its auspices, and adds validity to the findings. You can dispute the findings, but only with real, credible evidence (not just insidious suggestions).

On #6: "reported" suggests that the subjects themselves told the researchers what they felt. "Perceived or sometimes real" suggests that the subjects were unsure or mistaken about what they felt. Subtle, but important difference.

On #7: "Reported suffering" vs "reported to suffer" is similar to the problem with #6. It changes an active (reported) to a passive (reported to), suggesting both a lack of certainty and lack of personal knowledge.

This stuff is basic neutrality and writing. It's simply not conceivable that Robert wasn't aware of what he was doing here. Exploding Boy 18:52, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that, on some items at least, your objection is not with neutrality but with whether you agree with the content.

On #1 - On a poll of members of the Yahoo group "ForeskinRestoration", the single greatest reason given for restoration was "To regain sensation" (32.7%, closely followed by cosmetic reasons at 20.4%). Foreskin restoration groups claim that restoration will increase sensation: "Protection. The foreskin protects the glans from the abrasiveness of clothing. When protected, the glans will regain much of its original sensitivity." NORM - Why Restore?

On #2 - Boyle attends anti-circ symposia. Boyle is Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child - an anti-circumcision activist organisation.

On #3 - Hammond's poll has already shown that foreskin restorers have rates of problems far in excess of the wider population (see article). Boyle argues that these problems are (partially or wholly) resolved through restoration, implying that restorers have a need to resolve them. Logic, see?

On #4 - Promotion is a valid term. I have already given a link to NORM's page, accessible from their front page as "Why Should I Restore?" - promotion it certainly is.

On #5 - I have already given evidence for Taylor's activism. Secondly, the Dept of Pathology is given as a mailing address, as well as the 'home' of at least the principal author. This is absolutely standard practice for any medical paper. As noted, the only suggestion that his activism skewed the findings comes from yourself.

On #6 & #7 - It seems that there is some question on whether some items reported were indeed real. The article should neither assume that they are real, nor that they are not. Perhaps you could suggest better wording?

I have to say, I'm with Robert on almost all of these points. -Jakew 21:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And I have to say I'm not especially surprised; you and Robert frequently seem to share the same point of view on many of these matters. My point, and I'm not sure there's that much point in discussing it with you, since the edits were Robert's, is that even the suggestion of non-neutrality (and some of the above go well beyond mere suggestion) is inappropriate in a Wikipedia article. Robert knows that all too well, especially when it comes to this article, which has been and continues to be plagued by controversy. His edits represent an attempt to insinuate a particular point of view (namely, among other things, that foreskin restorers suffer from some pathology; that men who attempt foreskin restoration are unduly influenced by restoration support organizations; that men who have been circumcised, and those who have attempted restoration, cannot reliably report their own experiences; that those who are anti-circumcision influence men to attempt restoration, and that their scientific findings are inherently unreliable since they maliciously create skewed surveys of the effects of circumcision) into this article, and as such are both non-neutral and against the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia. Exploding Boy 22:54, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Jake, can you please explain how your recent edit constitutes "NPOV" when it reinserted #2 (above)? Exploding Boy 17:00, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right, EB. I missed the "predictably". Now corrected. - Jakew 18:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm also curious to know who it is who is concerned about foreskin restoration in under 18s constituting corrupting the morals of a minor (or whatever it was). Do you have a quote from somewhere? Exploding Boy 20:32, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

There is no basis for the assertion that foreskin restoration corrupts anyone's morals. This is a blatant pro-circumcision POV that should be deleted from the article.

The articles cited clearly show that it is Hammond, Bensley, Boyle, and other colleagues who associate emotional and psychological problems with circumcision. Robert Blair 03:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the glidings action page there has been a demand that all content that is not supported by "original research" and able to be vouched for gets removed from the article. I agree with this. Here we have the problem that much of the claims are nothing more than "some people report". This needs to be addressed. Who are these people? What is the scientific status of what they report? etc etc. I will start to clean up the article little by little so as to avoid any accusations of vandalism. - Robert the Bruce 17:09, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've generally cleaned up the article, and clarified a few things. In several cases, references were being misrepresented. I removed the following as one example:

Though some men have reported a qualitative improvement in sensitivity of the glans, it has been suggested that the perceived increase in glans sensitivity is psychological, the result of the placebo effect, with actual glans sensitivity being unaffected[1][2].

In fact, while Waskett's review (the second) states that Kirby suggested the above, in Kirby's review (the first) there is no such claim.

I'm still not happy with certain of the "facts" and I must say, several of the sources are HIGHLY suspect, but I'll deal with those soon. In the meantime, I think this is a much more neutral, much less biased, much more accurate edit. Exploding Boy 21:33, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed the following as outdated and non-neutral:

"Prepuce Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects," a 1982 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, examines four gay men "all four of [whom] reported a lifelong concern about circumcision," seeking surgical foreskin restoration. and provides examples of the psychiatric motivational forces behind the desire for foreskin restoration among some men (see full text at (Mohl et al)). Mohl reported that foreskin restoration may have value in treating people with such psychosexual psychiatric problems:

"Our curiosity led to empathy for the discomfort felt by these patients, discomfort largely relieved by the foreskin restoration in the four we accepted for surgery."[3]

Exploding Boy 21:47, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

And I've restored it. Would you care to explain how factual research can be non-neutral? - Jakew 21:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

certainly. Have you read it? The research is outdated and clearly biased. If it was published in '81 or 82, it was probably conducted at least a year before, possibly longer. Certain of the details are clearly out of date by modern standards (read it; you'll see what I mean right away). Also, the report really adds nothing to the article. It's a study of four gay men who have issues with having been circumcisec. There are plenty of reasons not to include it, and at least one more of them is the fact that we've got plenty of that type of information in the article already. I'm removing it again; it's not appropriate for this article and, once again, it's non-neutral. Also, I've reverted your last edit as non-neutral. Work with me here. Exploding Boy 00:15, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course I have read it. I'm not in the habit of debating articles that I haven't read. It is a study of psychiatric issues in individuals requesting foreskin restoration. As such, it's extremely relevant. It may be 20 years old, but we've included many an article of that age or older elsewhere. All of them happen to be gay (or possibly bisexual), which may reflect general tendencies among restorers or may not - it seems likely, given other research. It hardly seems relevant. Once again, why is it non-neutral? - Jakew 23:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted to remove non-neutral edits made without discussion. Please discuss here before editing. Exploding Boy 22:39, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

You've actually reverted edits that make the article more neutral. Perhaps you'd like to explain your reverts. - Jakew 23:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exploding boy, your edits are not helpful. You have even reverted the typographical errors. Robert Blair 02:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wonder how long 3RR breaches will continue until someone acts? - Robert the Bruce 05:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that "Robert Blair" (this is almost too much, but what the hell, I'll play along) has violated the 3RR then, as you well know, instead of making a big show here you can report him to an admin who will review the edit history and take appropriate action. While you're at it, why don't you report yourself and accept a short ban from editing for your own violation? Exploding Boy 18:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am coming to the conclusion that this article will never, ever be neutral or factually accurate or even well written. At least not without a major overhaul and the cooperation of all editors.

There are several problems. The article "Prepuce Restoration Seekers: Psychiatric Aspects" is clearly biased -- read the section on "common features of homosexuality" for one. The article is also basically overkill: we've established that some men have issues surrounding the fact they've been circumcised.

Certain people are trying, via a twist in logic, to make the point here that that this necessarily means that a majority of foreskin restorers have psychiatric problems; it's clear, however, that much of the evidence presented here relates to circumcision, not to restoration.

Someone is now trying to say that male circumcision is a form of body modification. Well, it might be if done at the request of an adult male, but infant circumcisions don't fall under that category, not as the term is generally understood.

Someone keeps removing the term "American" from the discussion of T. Hammond's poll. I can't imagine why. By the way, that poll is clearly biased: the majority of the respondents are middle-aged, white, Americans, half of whom are attempting foreskin restoration.

Someone keeps screwing with certain quotes. Anyone who's ever written an academic paper knows that block quotes do not require quotation marks.

Someone has restored a quote attributed to Kimmel in which it is stated that he said that perceived increase in glans sensitivity is psychological. In the source given there is no such quote (it is claimed by another reviewer of a book Kimmel reviewed that Kimmel said so in his review. According to the sources, he didn't).

In the emotional and psychiatric section, someone has quoted extensively from the Hammond poll without attributing the quotes or putting them in context. This is not neutral or strictly factual, given the bias inherent in that poll, and represents yet another example of the tendency, in this article, for people to take information from sources which are anyway suspect and misrepresent it by incorporating it without context (again, many of the problems people are here attributing to restorers are claimed to be suffered by those who are circumcised.)

The Goodwin article, which I removed and somone else restored, is another example.

What is needed here is the removal of all questionable material. I suggest that we eliminate everything except what is known without doubt or bias to be fact: some men attempt restoration; they do it in particular ways, for various reasons, with varying results. Until some credible, reliable evidence can be found to support the other various claims in the article, they have no place in it.

Exploding Boy 18:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

EB, I tend to agree. However, I am disturbed by the heavy circumcision-debate-slant in the article. There is no merit for such debate here. The circumcision was already done, that is almost certain, and we should remove everything related except mentioning that fact and linking to the

male circumcision article. We do not debate mastectomy in the breast reconstruction article -- it is clearly a separate process. Indeed there is a minority who restore their foreskin who have very little opinion on circumcision-ethics and some who have even chosen circumcision as adults for one reason or another (making them pro-circumcision in some respects). It is time to pull the plug on Robert, and his British pal Jakew, with their warped misunderstanding of what circumcision really is. They simply have no interest in sharing Wikipedia with others, and I recommend reverting to a mid-December version and going from there. If research is added, it should refer specifically to restoration, not idle speculation about politics. DanP

19:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to some information on circumcision being included in the article, since they are related in the sense that most restorers are circumcised, but I object to the loading of the article with what is fast becoming irrelevant information (on circumcision) and the deliberate misrepresentation of that information as something that is directly linked to restoration. I also object to the sources that are being used. Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia that can be edited by anyone; as such, it's ripe for plaigiarism and factual incorrectness. Random information culled from the internet does not make good sources for an encyclopaaedia article. Frankly, if this were an academic paper (and that's what it should resemble) and I was marking it, it would receive a failing grade for research and reliability of sources, not to mention the interpretation of the information it does include. Exploding Boy 18:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Failing grade, absolutely. Some related information is fine. But now politics and everything under the sun is in here. I have personally heard of only one intact man who was restoring due to short foreskin, so it seems comparatively rare. I propose that we include the fact you mentioned: that restoration generally is usually limited to circumcised men. Other than that, we can relocate the circumcision information to its respective articles. Foreskin restoration should be presented as a process just as

male circumcision article is not littered with "the kooky pro-circumcision people believe" disclaimers. If we have to put this up for a vote, let's do it. Otherwise, if circumcision damage and its reversal is fair game, we can include very specific academic sources of circumcision damage that meets your criteria. But it would be immediately deleted by Robert and Jakew. So either they have to go, or heavy circumcision debate has to be mitigated. DanP

18:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm noticing quite a few reverts going on here, and it seems to me like there's a few sections being changed. Maybe the people involved (mainly User:DanP and User:Jakew) should discuss each problem individually. Revert wars don't usually accomplish much, and far too often ends up with both parties irate. -Frazzydee|✍ 21:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article,

-Jakew 13:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is generally reasonable. The ridged band link was to what cannot be restored, and it is there in case a reader did not know about the ridged band. It is not very important. The real problem with the heading on psych effects is the inclusion of the word "psychiatric". The effects are emotional and psychological, except for one freak case from Australia. "Psychiatric" is POV, generally inaccurate, and needs to be deleted. Robert Blair 14:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Psychiatric is actually the correct term to describe diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of such problems as depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and substance abuse. See here. Please note also the title of Mohl et al.s study. I recognise that not all emotional or psychological problems are psychiatric, as they may be sub-clinical, but the heading is quite a valid description in some cases. Since the heading also lists emotional and psychological aspects, I don't see the problem here. - Jakew 14:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are correct as far as you go, but the word is a slur on all of the tens of thousands of healthy males who have undertaken foreskin restoration. It is offensive. It needs to go. Actually, there is only one case reported in the literature. Is that a reason to insult everyone else?

Jewish psychiatricst Mohl approached the subject with the world view that everyone wanted to be circumcised, and that circumcision was the norm. He was incorrect on both counts. He realized that and concluded in a different place than where he started.

The point is adequately made in the text.

Robert Blair 17:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that Hammond's survey alone tells us that more than a small minority suffer from these problems. And I take issue with your description of it as a slur. Psychiatric problems are nothing to be ashamed of, any more than a discussion of cardiac problems (if relevant) would be a slur. They're common health problems. And there is certainly more than one case in the literature. 59% of Hammond's respondents suffered from depression - a well-known psychiatric condition. 59% of 546 men is 322 men! - Jakew 18:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Hammond's highly suspect poll tells us is that men who have been circumcised suffer from these problems. Actually, white, Christian, American men over 40 who have been circumcised would be more accurate. Going purely on Hammond's poll, of course. As published on the website of an organization you claim to be highly unreliable. Exploding Boy 18:51, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Robert, you miss their point and definitely need to aim first before firing. Attacking Mohl is only making collateral damage. But, Jakew's creative rewrite of the Hammond poll is pretty typical and is fair game. You see, in the pro-mutilation mindset, cases of problems in any quantity are adequate for generalization. In terms of Mohl, "few becomes many". In terms of Hammand, any circumcision harm becomes severe "mental psychosis". (EB -- probably what you say is true -- but technically, we cannot add what the Hammond poll never says) Strangely they use these damage reports to support circumcision instead of oppose it -- they relish in this stuff. But if a circumcisionist admits obsessing over circumcision, maybe even enjoys jacking off to videos of kids getting cut, only then do specifics not merit article-generalization in their minds. I had discouraged the discussion of circumcision from taking place here only because it is in the past tense relative to foreskin restoration. Indeed, many who their restore their foreskins are not activists against circumcision until we hear of the sheer lunacy of their side attacking us simply for restoration. So go ahead, and let them trash this article -- they are only acting out their frustrations and probably need to vent. We can point to it as an example of their handywork. You're better off adding psychosexual accusations in the circumcision article and allow this to escalate. That at least is defensible now that the've trashed this article. DanP 19:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Hammond's paper, you'll see that half of the respondents were restorers (the other half were anti-circ activists who are probably not representative of the wider population). That gives us a pretty good picture of restorers. As for whether it's reliable, my personal suspicion is that activists are going to be likely to try to paint a worse picture than reality (since it helps their cause). But this is what they report - that cannot be denied. - Jakew 19:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, half are restorers. But what irritates me about some of the contributors to this and similar articles is that they are willing to take what they interpret as negative findings from sources they otherwise decry as inherently biased and unreliable and attempt to use them to push a particular viewpoint.

In the case of the Hammond poll, the poll found that a large number of white, Christian, American, circumcised men suffered negative reactions/consequences from their cirucumcision/circumcised status. The poll suggests that the roughly 50% of that group who attempted restoration did so to alleviate the suffering caused by their circumcisions/circumcised status. In other words, circumcision was the problem to which restoration was the solution. It's not fair or strictly accurate to consider this a problem of restorers per se; going purely from the poll, the problems are presented as a direct result of being circumcised.

Quite honestly, I think this particular poll is inherently unreliable in any case. I don't think we should be using it to make any claims, negative or positive, about circumcision or restoration.

Exploding Boy 19:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is quite apparent that these problems are not caused by circumcision. This can be easily seen by comparing such problems with their occurrence in the wider population, as reported in the DSM-IV (note: the DSM-IV takes statistics from the US in general; since approximately 80% of American men are circumcised, one can calculate maximum values). Causality also seems rather irrelevant to the discussion - does it matter what caused these problems? If restorers are generally over 40, then should we speculate about causality, or should we document the fact? I think we should document it - it's what providing information is all about.

I agree that it is highly suspect, but others have argued elsewhere that we shouldn't exclude a published paper just because we doubt it's credibility. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but we ought to be consistent. - Jakew 19:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correct, we ought to be. DSM-IV says nothing about circumcision as a cause one way or the other. How is it relevant here? Actually I agree with you that speculation is pointless -- but that's exactly what you're doing. Causality was in the Hammond article and you took it out. That is facual and verifiable bias on your part. Now, it's up to you. Where is your source for "these problems are not caused by circumcision"? Not only is that the opposite of the Hammond paper, but you have not quoted a source! We require factual things here. DanP 19:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Causation was Hammond's speculation, not mine. If Hammond had a control group, he might have been able to make an attempt at establishing causality. Without, it's just unscientific rubbish and, as you say, we require factual things here (note that it is factual to say that the men ascribed the problems to their circumcisions, and the article does report that). - Jakew 20:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that in Wikipedia's guidelines. The notion of causality (actually consequence) was in the study, and it was your choice to separate it from other portions. If you believe it to be unscientific rubbish, or believe that causality is uncertain, then you have the duty to find a credibible source saying that causality is the weaker claim in the paper (see

Wikipedia:cite_sources). Wikipedia is not here for you to post your own personal speculation as fact. DanP

20:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This isn't speculation, Dan, this is basic epidemiology. We can say that they authors claimed causation - that's factual. We can say that respondents claimed it. But we can't assert it ourselves. - Jakew 20:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"It is quite apparent that these problems are not caused by circumcision." -- not according to the poll quoted in the article. Exploding Boy 22:35, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

You can look at the article as consisting of two things: 1) reporting on what the men said. 2) an opinion piece based in part on what they said. Because there is no scientific basis for causation, you can say that the author of the article believed them to be caused by circumcision, or alternatively you can say that the participants believed that. - Jakew 22:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is absurd in many ways. What they reported in your #1 was in response to a circumcision survey, not as a response to being bullied in the schoolyard as a child, not as a response to failing to get a raise at work -- but circumcision specifically. The survey did not leave broad ambiguity there. Your choice was to separate that cause and blame some unspecified boogeyman. In addition to that, scientific basis or not, Wikipedia is not a place for your original research or speculation as to what constitutes causation. Wikipedia only reports on research, but your perspective hypothesis or alternate cause lacks citations entirely. I will go farther and say your #2 is also unproven. While opinions are present, that does not mean you can pigeonhole things you don't like as "opinion". The study says what it says -- we report facts, right? You have the flimsiest house of cards I can imagine. I will take your tact and say the article consists of two things: 1) reporting on what men found as consequences of circumcision, 2) an opinion piece on how the information relates to other fields. I don't know how that is anything more than tangentially related to foreskin restoration, but it is neutral. In any case, your defense of the psychosis-spin is entirely a thinly-veiled personal attack. I'm not going to play your games Jake. DanP 23:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For crying out loud, would you look at the article as it stands. It merely says that the men ascribe the problems to circumcision. It doesn't claim that they aren't! It is factual but cautious. Why are you getting so upset? - Jakew 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The psychological (or should I say psychotic) section states respondents suffered from , not men ascribe the following problems to circumcision. I have no reason to get upset. You've long ago made up your mind to trash the article. Otherwise RtB will do it whenever opportunity arises. DanP 23:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, it originally said something like that in the article. Somebody (I forget who) changed it to read something like "respondents suffered from the following problems, caused by their circumcision". I changed that to the more neutral "which they ascribed to...", because whoever it was seemed so determined to keep it in the article. I don't mind if we change it to simply suffered and forget all discussion of cause. - Jakew 23:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some old trick (your quote was a bit of a misquote). But it's another boogeyman of connotation. Why not say "hypothetically they seem to think it's theoretically the circumcision hack-job, but it could be something else having nothing to do with what the survey really asked"? Hammond says what he says about the survey. We do not need to assert it's true. But if we must report it with half of the respondents never having done any restoration, then do so without introducing your belief that: the restoring respondents are mentally unstable, first and foremost, and hence they are too dumb to know what prominent scars and feelings of resentment are. If the things Hammond reports are relevant, then we must say it's a fact that it's reported that way. Otherwise, you are being selective quite deliberately. There is not one survey referenced in Wikipedia where you could get away with such nonsense. But I do not expect you to change. DanP 00:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All in all I think we'd be better off leaving it out. Exploding Boy 18:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Would you care to explain exactly why this should be left out? I believe those involved in this article are entitled to some explanation and not just a one-liner, no? - Robert the Bruce 01:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When you can be bothered to read the discussion--it's clear you haven't--then maybe you can get involved. Exploding Boy 23:27, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

This article has been protected by Admin Raul654. Should you feel that the article needs to be unprotected, please visit Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. However, it seems that an intervention has been stepped in, and a temporary rewrite is in progress. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you think the article is not NPOV, please follow TShilo12's example and edited the article instead of reverting it. There is no need to go back to the 16 November 2005 version. Also a reversion should not be marked as a minor edit.

• Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text.
• Reversions of pages are not likely to be considered minor edits under most circumstances.

Please do not mark significant changes, including reversions, as minor edits. -- DanBlackham 01:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The changes were neither NPOV, nor discussed in Talk: first. Reverts are minor edits by default; if you have any concerns about the use of the minor edit flag, please take them up with Rood, who completely POVd the introduction using both the flag and using a misleading edit summary. And if you think any of Rood's unsourced and uncited change belong (e.g. "It must be emphasized, however, that the process is one of growing skin cells, not that of stretching skin" please make a case for it here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous contributor (67.182.41.63) added the following sentence: "Foreskin Restoration is the fastest growing male cosmetic surgery in the united states." Do you have a reference to support this statement? Most people familiar with foreskin restoration recommend non-surgical foreskin restoration, not surgical foreskin restoration. -- DanBlackham 08:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good call, Dan. A foreskin is such a mobile structure that surgical replacement or enhancement seems to be contra-indicated, though people on foreskin restoration discussion groups mention minor tightening surgery as a cosmetic "finisher". The problem with referencing those groups is that they require membership, are often deleted by the discussion group host as allegedly outside their terms of service so are transient, and are also anecdoctal rather than authoritative. Perhaps the main article could be edited to reflect the contra-indication, whle stating that it is a pragmatic, not an autoritative statement? Fiddle Faddle 10:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the fastest growing cosmetic procedure liposuction? Exploding Boy 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The sentence "Foreskin Restoration is the fastest growing male cosmetic surgery in the united states" is back because the page has been reverted to it, and that was the sole item reverted. I think it is not unreasonable to request a citation for that statement since it seems journalistic rather than encyclopaedic. And it looks as though it may become the start of an edit war. Thus I have added the tag requesting a citation. IT seems unlikely that as a surgical procedure FR is the fastest growing procedue, but I like the pun. As a "do it yourself" method of producing a change in the body I can see that it might well qualify, but as a surgical process (which involves a knife, presumably) I suspect the truth to be different. Fiddle Faddle 06:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Could anyone find some statistics for how many men there are who have reconstructed or are reconstructing?

The answer is, of course, "No". When considering such figures you need to take into account at least the following items:

• National incidence of circumcision
• Whether the national incidence is religion based, coming of age ritual based, or for other reasons
• The access in that nation to the internet - the major source of information on foreskin restoration

Then you also need to look at whether this is a thing that men are likely to speak about to a researcher

Some attempts were made on the various Yahoo groups that discuss(ed) foreskin restoration to estimate then numbers, but these estimates were hard to achieve. Yahoo killed one group back in March without explaining its reasons, either in the Press or to its moderator, owner or members, which had over 4,000 members, mostly in the USA but with a global reach. However it is impossible to extrapolate from a group with anonymous email based membership to a global figure.

While I am sure statistics may be compiled from medical records for surgical techniques, foreskin restoration does not usually require surgical intervention, thus the data simply does not exist.

Fiddle Faddle 15:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of an uncircumcision? There's one in that Circumstitions site, is it OK to steal it? BTW it looks horrible. Cuzandor 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not ok to steal it, but you could email the site owner ([email protected] - User:Hugh7 on Wikipedia) and ask permission, assuming of course that he holds the copyright himself. Jakew 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the link as an external link, is that OK? Cuzandor 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be a problem. Jakew 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk to NORM. Wayne will have several Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)