Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision/Archive 1

Congradulations Jake on a very sensible article. Didn't know you had it in you.  ;} Sirkumsize 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding sensitivity of the foreskin

I noticed that many of these studies say there is "no difference" in sensitivity between intact and circumcised males, but they are measuring sensitivity in the glans or the shaft and not the frenulum or foreskin itsel. There are studies that say that these organs have distinct sensitivity. Here is the wikipedia article on the frenulum:

"The frenulum and the associated tissue delta on the underside of the penis below the corona has been described in sexuality textbooks as "very reactive," and "particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure.”[1] Crooks and Baur observe that "Although the entire glans area is extremely sensitive, there are two specific locations that many men find particularly responsive to stimulation."[2] One is the corona, and the other is the frenulum.[2] The frenulum, sometimes together with the glans, can be stimulated to produce orgasm and peri-ejaculatory response.[3][4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

[1] Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100 [2] Crooks R., Baur K. Our Sexuality, Fifth Edition, Redwood City: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1993: 129 [3] Saulino, Michael F. (2006). Rehabilitation of Persons With Spinal Cord Injuries [4] Pryor, JL; LeRoy SC, Nagel TC, Hensleigh HC (1995). "Vibratory stimulation for treatment of anejaculation in quadriplegic men". Arch Phys Med Rehabil 76 (1): 59-64

Should this be included in the article when mentioning these studies, especially since circumcision may remove the frenulum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glans_Penis_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

-J

While I'm at it I think that this is kind of a weird sentence and I'm going to go ahead and remove it. "There is a belief that the foreskin is sexually sensitive [13][14] [15] and this has been documented, in the main, by studies opposed to circumcision.[citation needed]"

Does it matter if a belief of this kind exists and who believes it? Surely it is trivially true that someone who believes that foreskins are sexually sensitive would be opposed to removing them.

-J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk • contribs)

I think you're right to remove it. Beliefs are important in some contexts, but in a scientific article they potentially devalue the more meaningful studies. Jakew (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any studies about female visual arousal in regions where the majority of men are uncircumcised? It is important to remember that prototypicality and enculturation have a profound effect on what we find appealing. -J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question brings up interesting dichotomy from other cultures. Feel free to research this matter and add source applicable data from peer reviewed publications. If you can find this it will add a balanced perspective. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the part in the article about the visual arousal of women in a majority-circumcised area are quite irrelevant and useless unless a similar study in areas with no circumcision is done and presented. The way it stands now it makes little sense at all as it shows absolutely nothing but how our upbringing affects what we find attractive. This is something very well documented other places and something which is quite obvious to most people (I do feel this should be noted in the article though). If we had two studies, one from a non-circumcised area it might be somewhat interesting. 129.177.45.18 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like it, because it serves as a disgusting parallel to identical arguments in support of female circumcision (that men in areas where it is done find the result more visually appealing). (Of course, in our society that fact is seen as horribly sexist and dehumanizing, while in the U.S. women's apparent preference for amputated foreskins is seen as sophisticated.) Blackworm (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article in conjunction with the original research

First of all, Jake, congratulations for the work that you have done. You will notice that I have added a caution to suggest that people follow the links to the reports of the original research. I hope you'll agree that this is an appropriate and sensible thing to add to the article. Michael Glass 12:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll adjust the wording, Michael, since it's not up to us to dictate what use people make of material. Jakew 13:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed your changes to the wording, Jake. However, I would class my wording as advice rather than an order. Michael Glass 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerned Cynic, 22.10.05: I submit that if the title of this entry is taken as a question, it has no answer. There is no scientific instrument that records sexual sensations in numerical form. The random assignment of several hundred men to the categories "circumcised" and "intact", who would then be followed up for the rest of their lives, would be at once unethical and very expensive. Most or the respondents to the questionnaire circulated by the O'Haras were women recruited through ads in anti-circ newsletters and the like. This is not the way to do careful objective social science.

I do not know what to make of claims by some women that the foreskin makes a big difference either way in their enjoyment of intercourse. I think that the length and quality of foreplay, the woman's admiration of her partner, and many subtleties of mood and hormones (even her menstrual cycle) all play major roles in how a woman responds to a particular sexual episode. If I am correct, the foreskin slides into insignificance, especially given that most American women cannot distinguish circ from intact when both are fully erect.

When comparing the sensitivity of both kinds of men, one can only carry out measurements on tissues and erogenous zones retained by both. This evades the crux of the matter: intact men have extra nerve endings located on the underside and tip of the foreskin (about which the neuroanatomical work of Taylor and coauthors is convincing). Hence a comparison of the penile sensitivity of the two sorts of men cannot be carried out.

I predict that American parents are slowly coming to the opinion that circ makes intercourse less enjoyable. Any year now, that will become the conventional wisdom pushed by Cosmopolitan and the sex columnists in other women's magazines. I do not wish to assert that it is necessarioly true. But if I am correct, the rate of routine infant circumcision in the USA is about to go into free fall.

As they should. Sirkumsize 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Stubbing

This is regarding the current quality offensive on circumcision, of which this is a sub-article.

I'm making this article a stub to further encourage addition of material. I have already voiced concerns that studies alone on the topic of circumcision unfortunately have little meaning, as for example it is not possible to make truly double-blind tests for obvious reasons. Also, several psychological factors are also notable, like cognitive dissonance. The impression that I am having from reviewing a few studies is that circumcised men tend to "brag" more about their sexual exploits than those that did not undergo the procedure, and as most studies inherently rely on males reporting things, are only of dubious reliability.

I would like more real material added to this article, rather than just a table. What are the sexual effects of circumcision? Dabljuh 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As should be apparent, the effects (if any) are controversial and the evidence conflicting. The table summarises the results clearly. Jakew 11:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As few experiments are totally objective, it would be interesting if the table, (and a jolly good one it is too!) included a column stating where these studies were performed. I have a hunch that the results may be skewed according to what the normal practise is in the study country. (i.e. studies done in countries where circumcision is the norm will tend to be pro-circumcision and vice versa.) This may not be the case but it would be good to see that info. These studies, (as stated above) can never be objective. Almost everyone knows whether they are circumcised or not, so the study can't even be "blind" yet alone "double blind". --Dumbo1 17:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Practical experiment to demonstrate a possible effect of circumcision

Unfortunately this can only be done by uncircumcised men, but give it a go, and report back here if you like. Firstly retract the foreskin. Secondly keep it like that for a couple of days. Do you report any changes? I have tried this and in my case the glans became dry, (it is normally kept moist and lubricated as it is covered by the foreskin.) Secondly, after an hour or so, the glans became less sensitive. Unlike circumcision this is easily reversable, by rolling the foreskin back over the glans. Normal sensation returns soon, depending on the amount of time the glans is exposed. If any men who have recently been circumcised are reading this, did they experience the same loss in sensitivity? And with time did this sensitivity return? I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I couldn't find anywhere else. If there is somewhere more suitable, please let me know. Thanks! --Dumbo1 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

USENET, perhaps? Jakew 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course these are all "do it yourself" experiments. Here's another. Pull your foreskin back and then try to jerk off by just rubbing your glans. Comfortable, eyh? Dabljuh 17:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

They don't have to be "do it yourself". You could try it on someone elses penis and ask what it feels like. Joking aside, I remember as a teenager (some time back) discussing such things with circumcised and uncircumcised friends, and the difference in masturbatory techniques, and for one circumcised friend, lubrication (I think handcream) was used, as he did find the sensation uncomfortable. Anyway I did have a question that I will repeat otherwise it will get lost: "do men who have been circumcised as adults experience a decrease in sensitivity, either in the short or long term, similar to the decrease in sensitivity they experienced when rolling back the foreskin for a number of hours?!--Dumbo1 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me on my talk page, Dumbo1. This page is really for discussion about the article. Jakew 18:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but the decrease in feeling in the glans due to the removal of the foreskin is a Sexual Effect of Circumcision and masturbation is a sexual act. JakeW, would you still rather me ask you this on your User page? If this is a common sexual effect of circumcision, then we should reflect it somewhere in this article eventually, if there are references.--Dumbo1 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Where you want to know about my personal experience, rather than source-based research, I would think it would be appropriate to ask on my user talk page, yes. Sorry to be picky, but I would like to see one on-topic article discussion page. :) Jakew 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, JakeW, you are correct. I shall take this to User pages. But joking aside, and on a slightly different point, which I have requested above, it would be good if the info in the article showed which countries each study took place, and if possible whether circumcision is the norm in these countries. It would be good for the article if it was included, as the source of information helps us to understand the information itself. I would feel bad if this request got lost because we went off the point a bit because it was Friday night! I think I'll go back in time and repeat myself in the next posting: --Dumbo1 23:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, rather than answer anything to do with my practical experiment, I'd rather have some more info according to my posting in the section above: i.e. it would be good to see the locations and information about the populations which produced the results on the page"Sexual effects of circumcision". --Dumbo1 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You probably want do some own "research" on the subject ;), because the topic is somewhat underrepresented in english medical literature. You might want to check [1] and [2].

Provenance of the Studies

It would fundamentally improve the article if it was stated, for each study, the "circumcision behaviour" of the study population, i.e. for each study was the population usually circumcised or uncircumcised? At the moment we don't know whether these are all the studies or just a sample of samples and if so, how was it determined that the results were or weren't included in the article. If they are just a sample of studies, then potentially this article could fall foul of many Wikipedia guidelines, depending on how those studies were chosen for inclusion. It may also be neccessary to enquire into what the purpose of each study was and the funding behind each. This may sound extreme but for many years I have been following the study of studies into the efficacy of Homeopathy, which is full of potentially similar pitfalls. In any case as the article stands it is just a list of studies and results, rather than an encyclopedia article on the sexual effects on circumcision and therefore contributes little, although it was a good idea. I understand that this is a very "hot" topic and as ever I aim to contribute through discussion on the talk pages to get consensus before changing the article. --Dumbo1 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have at various occasions tried to point out the flaws of using systematically not double-blind studies and sometimes even freaking internet surveys in determining the sexual effects of circumcision. There are too many psychological aspects involved with circumcision, infant and adult, and the genitalia in general to trust them, even when not taking the cultural norm into account. I have marked this article as a stub, as it is my own conviction it requires expansion. A much more trustworthy and informative approach, in my own assessment, to determine the sexual effects of circumcision is a priori research, meaning, determining the biology of the foreskin and, in addition, researching the history of circumcision. Dabljuh 06:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

At most, such an approach could only postulate sexual effects. Jakew 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just like studies can also only postulate anything. Dabljuh 13:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It depends on the design, but often, studies actually measure effects rather than predicting them. Jakew 13:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rationale and Empirics must always be consistent. Rationale must suggest models, empirism is there to eliminate models. But empirism without rationale is nothing, and rationale without the failed attempt to verify it, is nothing either. Models (theories, hypothesises, whatever you call them) can only be judged by one factor, that is how well they work - how well they explain or predict things.

A hypothesis like "Circumcision has effect X on sexual pleasure" is, unfortunately, inherently hard to verify/falsify, for psychological reasons. Circumcision is a procedure that is mostly irreversible, and effects like buyer's remorse can play into or dominate when assessing an empirical study purely questioning satisfaction.

Example: Several studies have shown that there is a slight increase in average time to ejaculation. This could be viewed as a strong argument that circumcision reduces penile sensation. But alternatively, penile sensation may be increased but the specific ejaculatory trigger may be reduced.

Lets make it a different way, instead of measuring time or reported pleasure, measure something relevant: Chemical energy per climax.

I would suggest the following study: Have a large group of circumcised people and intact people do some sort of wanking contest. Now what you check is the average chemical energy expended by either - Circ'd wanking in my own experience is a lot more violent, louder, and energy consuming. If now a carefully designed study would figure out that circ'd people do indeed expend more energy per climax than intact, I would say this is a definite hint that sexual sensation is greatly reduced, because the amount of energy expended to get 1 orgasm is much higher. Dabljuh 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal testimony moved from article

• This Wikipedia contributor was circumcised as an adult, at the age of 22. As I approach the decade anniversary of my circumcision, I remain grateful for my circumcision, due to its (admittedly subjectively) greater pleasure during fellatio, and the complete alleviation of frequent phimosis and balanitis problems which I had experienced prior to my circumcision. Purely in the sexual arena, I no longer have a foreskin to roll over the head and mute all sensation during the "out" stroke. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any glans desensitization, though my foreskin was naturally short and generally left my glans at least partially exposed. More detailed personal testimony is available at Circlist.

Thank you for giving us the benefit of your experience, but this really is just a case of WP:OR, and so not suitable for an article. Benami 11:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it OR. It just isn't exactly encyclopedic material. As long as there's a link to circlist in the external sources, I guess its ok Dabljuh 11:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If it's not verifiable in reliable sources, it's original research. Jakew 11:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that circlist is a legitimate source (as opposed to a notable external site). And I don't see how unverifiable personal testimony about one's own penis could be anything but OR.But Dabluh's right that it's not encyclopedic (whoa - you aren't changing your mind about WP being an encyclopedia, are you?). I can't remember ever seeing a contributer's personal testimony in an encyclopedia before. Benami 11:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The articles on Wikipedia should be encyclopedia-like, not encyclopedic - because due to the freely editable nature of Wikipedia, the latter is simply impossible. I do not find personal testimonials not to satisfy even "encyclopedia-like" quality standards. On a side note, a personal testimonial cannot be Original Research, it simply is just a personal testimonial. And for a personal testimonial - if they were anyhow encyclopedia-like - A personal webpage would suffice as an RS. It simply isn't material that's worthy to be included. What I could agree to was to dumb it down to some weasel phrase like "Some circumcised men however refuse the notion that circumcision would reduce the sensual sensitivity of the penis during intercourse". But: If we can find arguments why the sensuality of the penis would not be reduced as a whole, proposed if possible by scientists in WP:RS! That would be even better! Although, as long as we would have absence of such material, I would argue that the weasel phrase should be left in the article. I prefer more information and valid opinions over less. Here's a reliable source on why the sensuality of the circumcised penis would not necessarily be decreased in intercourse. And interestingly, that article is from D.O.C. members. Dabljuh 12:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good source/article, thank you. More is usually better, and readers (maybe especially with ED) should be informed that circ can be a potential treatment for ED.TipPt 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a section on sexuality for context?

This article is an excellent effort, but I feel that it is predicated on an extremely limited conception of human sexuality, ie one in which the physiological aspects are dominant to the exclusion of other factors. Circumcision and sexual experience involve more than just physical factors; they both include social, cultural, and psychological factors as well, and social scientists widely agree that these factors can override apparent physical constraints in a variety of contexts. As such, I intend to work up a section on sexuality to set the stage for the discussion of circumcision's effects.Zandrous 08:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that this might be original research. Please make sure that you summarise published work by others on the subject of the sexual effects of circumcision, rather than forming novel ideas. Jakew 16:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My thought was to add something about the relationship between physiology and sexuality because I think that's appropriate introductory/background information for an article treating the sexual effects of a procedure that modifies a physiological feature. My goal is to add some context to help clarify why the sexual effects of circumcision are so poorly understood. Do you think that's not appropriate for this entry? Because I thought it would help to make the lack of concensus on the sexual effects of circumcision easier to understand. And I'm not sure I understand your concern about original research; if you think general information about the relationship between physical factors and sexuality doesn't fit in this entry that's one thing; but is there something else about it that I'm missing? If you think such ideas are too novel, maybe have a look at human sexuality, which presents some of the various non-physical factors that affect sexual experience. Anyway, thanks for the tip, I'm still quite new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help. Zandrous 15:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Zan, if the material is relevant, well-cited and relatively brief, then it should be fine. Alienus 16:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Note also that the studies are primarily relevant to outcomes from elective or therapeutic ADULT circ's, and therefore mislead the reader with respect to neonatal circ's.TipPt 00:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I won't get around to adding this, although I urge anyone to take into consideration the relevance of non-physiological factors on sexual experience, check human sexuality the basic points made there I think would add a helpful dimension to this entry. I'm simply too busy with work to justify time spent editing here in wiki right now, Ciao Zandrous 11:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinion, and a false citation; thus removed

Not all agree, however. Genital integrity activist and author Kristen O'Hara argues that the glans is the "male clitoris", with the foreskin maintaining at best a supporting role during sexual intercourse [3].TipPt 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed the 'Not all agree, however.' because it was uncited. It could be that Kristen O'Hara made the statement attributed to her in some other place. If so, an appropriate comment could be inserted. Michael Glass 00:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Stats

Maybe I can explain my Table reservations more clearly. The results are frequently "not statistically significant," but you insist on saying "no difference."

At a min., you need to say "not statistically significant" when you say "no difference." Right now, the table is a violation of neutrality.

But, the point I wanted to make is ... when you have small samples (especially with poor participation rates) and LOW VARIABILITY within those samples you frequently get insignificant results. For example, a study where guys generally say "I'm went from a 1 to a 2", or "5 to 3" or "7 to 6," will provide weak correlations relative to studies where guys range "1 to 4," and "2 to 9," and "3 to 7," and "7 to 1."

There simply isn't enough information in several of those Tabled small study samples to say anything including "no difference." The proper thing to say is simply "insignificant results," or "not statistically significant." Most readers don't understand the limitations of regression analysis, and saying "no difference" without lengthly qualification is introduces bias.TipPt 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed inserted POV

I've removed the inserted claim that "Furthermore, research results from studies involving adults and adult circumcisions are less applicable to understanding potential sexual effects of circumcision on neonates and boys." This is obvious uncited POV; original research at best. Please ensure that claims are all neutral and cited from reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph added ...

Circumcisions that reduce the frenulum, or that involve a frenectomy remove tissue that is "particularly responsive to stimulation," "very reactive," and "seems particularly responsive to touch that is light and soft." The frenulum is a primary site for eliciting ejaculatory response.[4][5][6]TipPt 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Inherent flaws in several of the studies

Several of the studies have inherent flaws in the selection of their polling group - that is they selected men who were circumcised as adults because it was (thought to be) medically neccesary. This will certainly skew those results Lordkazan 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Either a) you're making this remark because you intend to add it to the article (which would violate WP:NOR, or b) you're abusing this talk page, the purpose of which is to discuss improving the article. May I ask which? Jakew 16:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jake: I assume you have read the literature and so are well placed to answer this question, if I had the time I would read the papers myself. Do all the papers that study adult circumcision patients use people who needed the procedure for medical reasons? One might have thought that there would be a large enough number of people electing to undergo the surgery for perceived cosmetic or religious reasons to allow a study that perhaps might be more less skewed. If there is such a difference in the sample groups I would suggest it might be beneficial to include such details in your table.

I'd also like to congratulate you on a good article, it seems pretty balanced as a whole, especially given much of the literature arguing both ways is so suspect. |→ Spaully°τ 13:07, 12 December 2006 (GMT)

Spaully, thanks for your comments. The problem is that this information is sometimes available, but often it is not (or at least, not in English). It would be very difficult to add it to the table without making it a complete mess, which I'd prefer to avoid.

It would certainly be interesting to statistically analyse studies to see whether there is any evidence that such differences might skew the results. Jakew 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems I got my words a bit muddled there, but it doesn't effect your reply I would think. It's a shame that isn't available for these papers as I think it would help lend credibility (or not) to them for the readers; as it stands I feel many of them are likely to be inherently flawed from their sample groups and survey techniques. Such is science in these areas. Thanks for the reply. |→ Spaully°τ 00:13, 14 December 2006 (GMT)

Sexual effects of foreskin amputation

I believe this article may need to be renamed. Since a foreskin can be amputated in more ways than only that of the medical procedure called circumcision (in an accident, for example), this article should be renamed to "Sexual effects of foreskin amputation", with eventual subsections on eventual differences on sexual pleasure in the ways a man can lose his foreskin (circumcision or accident). 87.78.177.164 15:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Every source cited refers to circumcision, not "foreskin amputation". Furthermore, as far as I know, there are absolutely no sources upon which we could draw to produce your proposed section on differences between situations. Jakew 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Every source" sounds like you know "every source", is that so? Nevermind. I just made the proposal of those sections in case someone came up with suitable sources. I think you'll agree that getting circumcised is basically not the same thing as losing the foreskin in an accident. Otherwise this article would be in need of either a suitable title reflecting all possible ways of losing the foreskin ("foreskin amputation" is one option I see) or else someone has to come up with at least one proper source about the difference between circumcision and accidental foreskin amputation in regard of sexual effects. That is to say: This article either needs subsections as I proposed OR it needs proper naming, because there are sources that explicitly tell of accidents resulting in the loss of foreskin - and those men suffer or benefit from maybe very similar effects as circumcised men although (and please relate to this fact) they never have been circumcised in the proper medical meaning of the word. So, if nobody comes up with a valid counterpoint, I propose renaming the article, because the sources refering to "circumcision" do not need to be reflected in the article name and only inappropriately narrow the scope of the article. 87.78.177.164 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have read every source, as it happens.

As far as broadening the scope goes, which sources did you have in mind that refer to loss of the foreskin without circumcision? Unless any scientific evidence actually covers that, and documents sexual effects of such, I can see no reason to rename. Jakew 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing things up. Scientific evidence is not needed for the renaming, just one modest example from literature that such an accident has actually occured (and which I can provide) is enough for that. You are the one in need of scientific evidence if you wanted to maintain the article in its current state instead of widening the scope. See what I mean? It's two entirely different things. I opt for renaming instead of waiting until someone comes up with said scientific evidence that would make a seperate article on "Sexual effects of accidental foreskin amputation" necessary. Those two articles would probably be merged anyway and they could not be merged under the title of "circumcision" as I pointed out earlier. So far, you haven't been reasoning against the reasons for renaming I already gave. So, I will come up with that source speaking of something like "an accident involving the loss of a foreskin" (tomorrow, though, it's been long working hours today) and then the scientific evidence thing is on you if you want to keep the name. Agreed? 87.78.177.164 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This should be merged with Circumcision

This should be merged with Circumcision to reduce the current pro-circ pov of that article that has been created the the huge ammount of text dedicated to supposed benefits of circumcision, why the detriments have been largely neglected and down played in that article. Lordkazan 04:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It would really be a lot better to break the pro-circ POV sections into their own articles. Circumcision is already far too large, It needs to get smaller not the reverse.Christopher 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That would work too - especially if we can get non-biased information into the medical section Lordkazan 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

An evolutionary angle?

I'm no biologist (at all) and I have no familiarity with any literature on this topic, but could there be an evolutionary perspective here? If circumsized males are more sexually responsive and/or more attractive to female partners wouldn't humans have been naturally selected with shorter foreskins? It would seem that way to a layman like me. Is there any literature on this topic that's worth including? Dkostic 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There's very little in the literature. Only one paper springs to mind: Cox G. De virginibus puerisque: the function of the human foreskin considered from an evolutionary perspective. Med Hypotheses. 1995 Dec;45(6):617-21.

It occurs to me that the process of evolution is ongoing rather than complete, and it is possible that such selection is occurring, albeit very slowly. On the other hand, it may be that, through circumcision, we are interfering with such a selection process. Except for the above paper, however, I'm not aware of any significant discussion of these issues. Jakew 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Dkostic. In all forms of humanity, the foreskin exists. The body does not randomly give itself things not important to function. In areas of sexuality, the human body maximizes procreation. Pleasure is a key ingredient in procreation. The nerves in the foreskin give increased pleasure to the male while the glan remaining non-abrasive is important to pleasure and comfort to the female. Jtpaladin 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually animals often randomly acquire nuetral traits that predominate a species when an event attacks the population in a non-selective manner, i.e., a natural disater outside the normal environment the species evolved in. Plus the foreskin does serve a function in our ancestors, protecting the glands from foreign substances. As we wear clothing, this function is of little use, but that doesn't negate the use it had for ancestors, much like our appendix. Foreskin may have a sexual function but you cannot conclude it does just because we have it. Furthermore, female preference for circumcized men is probably cultural, occuring in culturs where it is the norm. If the is a biological basis for it, then the act of circumcising males prevents any evolution of foreskinless men as circumcision does not change the mans DNA, while giving them the same procreative advantage and any man that may naturally have no foreskin. Evolution is a complicated and not planed process, there are remains from previous environmental needs and unrealized potential benefits all the time. However, if the foreskin were useless for the modern, clothed man, you would think you would start to see a great variation in foreskin length such that some individuals might have foreskin that did not cover the glands but still hade the ridge and a small amount of excess skin. I am not familiar with foreskin variation so I can't comment on that. 75.187.39.176 (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edits

One edit and two reverts have now changed this:

• An analysis of a national U.S. survey by Laumann found that uncircumcised males had a higher overall rate of all seven types of sexual dysfunctions considered, especially after the age of 45 years, at a cumulative 93% statistical confidence level. He also found that circumcised men tend to engage in "more elaborated set of sexual practices" and that circumcision is associated with an increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, though this only reached statistical significance in the case of chlamydia. Concerning the differences in sexual practices, Laumann speculated "..differences in the association between circumcision status and sexual practice across ethnic groups suggest that cultural, rather than physiological forces may be responsible." [7]

To this:

• An analysis of a national U.S. survey by Laumann concludes that "circumcision provides no discernible prophylactic benefit and may in fact increase the likelihood of STD contraction; that circumcised men have a slightly lessened risk of experiencing sexual dysfunction, especially among older men; and that circumcised men displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices," including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation. For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for uncircumcised men." Dr. Laumann provides two explanations for the difference in sexual practices. "One is that uncircumcised men, a minority in this country, may feel a stigma that inhibits them. Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, leading circumcised men to try a range of sexual activities."[8]

Could these editors please explain why the primary focus of a paragraph in an article about sexual effects of circumcision has been changed from sexual function to STDs? Why is masturbation so important that it should be singled out, and why is masturbation only important when performed by white men? Also, what possible reason is there for replacing a quote from a peer-reviewed article with one from the lay press? Jakew 17:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point about the unnecessary focus on STDs, so I've changed that. For the masturbation by white men, it's just a number to make the conclusion more concrete. It's in there for the same reasons that every sentence beginning "For example" is included anywhere. The popular press quote is preferred because it's a better quote. ^L_Wizard @ 08:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Source for Sorrells funding?

The linked abstract makes no mention of the Sorrells study being funded by NOCIRC (or anyone else, for that matter). Do we have a source for that info? I'm not sure what the relevance of the funding source is, especially given that the funding sources aren't mentioned for any other studies cited. If sources of funding are relevant then they should be mentioned for other studies as well shouldn't they?Zandrous 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's from the full text. Specifically, the section entitled 'conflict of interest' on page 869. Jakew 17:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this note is that it singles out the Sorrells study for special treatment. In no other case in articles about circumcision has the funding of studies been mentioned. Therefore this is giving undue weight to this information. This is especially so when the very first thing that one reads about the Sorrells study is its source of funding! I have therefore changed the text to tone down this obvious POV pushing. Michael Glass 12:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, can you think of other studies in which the funding source is a) interesting and/or b) noted in the 'conflict of interest' section? If so, perhaps this is special treatment. If not, as I believe to be the case, then this is merely a special 'feature' of the study. Jakew 12:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone through other studies in this detail. Have you? Whatever the situation is with other studies, the Sorrells study has been treated differently from every other study that is referred to. I think we should be particularly careful with such statements, especially if they appear to be one-sided.Michael Glass 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at a fair number of other studies, yes, and couldn't find anything of interest. The funding source is an interesting fact about Sorrells' study that is noteworthy. Jakew 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions to Female arousal section

While the paper you have cited certainly appears to be flawed this section does not currently adhere to WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. Assertions such as this need to be justified:

Thus bias arising from the seriously flawed study design causes this particular study to lack credibility and it should be ignored.

Furthermore, while it appears http://www.circinfo.net/ has many citations, in itself it does not adhere to WP:RS. If you wish to use its information to back up your point I would recommend going to the literature they cite. Finally, the paragraph is now written such that Kristen O'Hara wrote the disputed paper, which is not true. Thanks. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:26, 8 May 2007 (GMT)

The paragraph added by 71.106.159.130 appears to be quoted verbatim from circinfo.net, although it is not identified as a quote. I would have to double check, but as I recall Prof Morris (the author of circinfo.net) included very similar criticism in his book. Jakew 12:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. It seems the whole paragraph was lifted in fact, including the rogue '[29]'. I will revert the additions and remove the tag, as clearly directly copying this source is not on. If it is rewritten then it might make a good addition though. |→ Spaully^₪† 13:29, 8 May 2007 (GMT)

I agree. We must be careful to attribute such criticism. The paragraph was presumably added because it criticises Kristen O'Hara's hypothesis. She presented data in both her book and a BJU article; since the latter is a more reliable source than the former, we should perhaps alter the text to refer to it instead. We should certainly delete the link to sexasnatureintendedit.com, which is not a reliable source. Jakew 13:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Just kind of curious, but how do you infer this comment "Bailey et al. report that there is a preference by women for the circumcised man, mentioning that circumcised men enter the woman more easily and cause fewer traumas." from a study (32) that isn't even really concerned with the issue? I.e. # ^ AIDS Care. 2002 Feb;14(1):27-40. The acceptability of male circumcision to reduce HIV infections in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Bailey RC, Muga R, Poulussen R, Abicht H. [14] In fact, the research provided in the quote just before (31) which specifically looked at female pleasure seems to point overwhelmingly to the opposite? http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.16.62 (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Sorrells et al

A few days ago, BJU Intl published in their June 2007 issue a letter (co-authored by myself) containing criticism of the Sorrells study.

The letter included, among other things, a statistical reanalysis of data presented in Sorrells et al. The conclusion was as follows:

In conclusion, despite a poorly-representative sample and a methodology prone to exaggerating the sensitivity of the prepuce, NOCIRC's claims remain unproven. When the authors' data are analysed properly, no significant differences exist. Thus the claim that circumcision adversely affects penile sensitivity is poorly supported, and this study provides no evidence for the belief that circumcision adversely affects sexual pleasure.

Jakew 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Jake, your quotation raises many questions. I wish to ask just one. When you say that there is 'no significant difference' in sensitivity between circumcised penises, was this a comparison between areas in common between circumcised and uncircumcised penises or was it a comparison between the sensitivity of the foreskin with the sensitivity of the rest of the penis? Michael Glass 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you can read it without having to have a subscription: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf and as you can read it is funded by NoCirc: "Source of funding: The director of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Centers (MFM) was involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection and interpretation of the data; and review, or approval of the manuscript." So this is biased because who pays, rules. --Validside 09:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the short answer is "both". Regarding comparisons between different points, the letter stated:

They claim that several locations on the uncircumcised penis are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis (the ventral scar), yet their Table 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce. However, after we used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, this significance disappeared.

(You may find Bonferroni correction helpful in understanding this.)

Regarding comparisons between the same points, the letter presented their data with the results of t tests in a table, commenting:

...in their Table 2 they fail to compare the same points on the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Using their data we find no significant differences (Table 1), consistent with previous findings [2,3]...

If you email me, I'd be happy to send you a pdf of the full text of the letter. Jakew 10:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to Jake for the offer of the PDF and to Validside for the link to the article. I note that the Sorrells found that the uncircumcised penis was most sensitive at position 3, the orifice rim of the foreskin. As this is cut off with circumcision then circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. Michael Glass 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Michael, that is a good summary of Sorrells' claim. The purpose of statistical significance testing is to determine whether a numerical difference in a sample reflects a real difference (significant) or a random variation due to chance (non-significant). The letter argues that difference between position 3 and a point on the circumcised penis is not statistically significant. Jakew 07:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it is more accurate to refer to Sorrells' findings rather than Sorrells' claim. Even if there is no statistically significant difference between sensitivity between the points in common between circumcised and uncircumcised penises, there is a great difference between the sensitivity of the orifice rim of the foreskin and the rest of the penis. Sorrells found that the point of greatest sensitivity of the circumcised penis was on part of the circumcision scar. In one part of the scar, the point of sensitivity was 0.192. However, the orifice rim of the foreskin was 0.093. In simple terms, the rim of the foreskin was twice as sensitive as most sensitive part of the circumcision scar. Your letter to the BJU (thank you for sending it to me) excluded such a comparison. Michael Glass 00:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the letter did not exclude this comparison. On the contrary, it explicitly referred to it: "They claim that several locations on the uncircumcised penis are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis (the ventral scar), yet their Table 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce. However, after we used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, this significance disappeared."

The mean threshold at point 3 was 0.093, and the standard error of the mean (SEM) 0.027. There were 68 samples in this (uncirc'd) group. At point 19, the respective values were 0.192 and 0.034, and there were 91 samples. Using these figures for an unpaired t test gives a p value of about 0.03, as shown in Sorrells' table 2. Because the p value is less than 0.05, it might be said to be a significant difference. However, there are eight significance tests and corresponding p values, so using Bonferroni's correction we would instead use 0.05/8=0.00625 as the upper limit for significant p values. As stated in the letter, the difference is not significant when this correction is applied.

Incidentally, I tend to use 'findings' to refer to data, and 'claim' to refer to interpretations of that data. "Smith found that the force of gravity on top of k2 was 9.79m/s/s, which he claimed was 0.02m/s/s higher than that predicted by theory." Jakew 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, as you point out, there are 8 points on the foreskin that did not correspond to points on circumcised penis. There are also two points on the circumcision scar that do not correspond to these 8 points on the foreskin. So when it comes to sensitivity, I understand that you are claiming that either two equals eight, or that two is not significantly different from 8 - at least after you apply Mr Bonferroni's correction. Is that what you're saying? Michael Glass 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Michael, I'm afraid you have misunderstood. Bonferroni's correction is a method for interpretation of a series of statistical tests. Jakew 14:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I'm afraid you missed the point that I was making, that there are more sensitive points on the foreskin than there are on the circumcised penis. There is also the question of whether Bonferroni's correction is either appropriate or suitable for applying to this test. I have my doubts. Please read the following comment [9]. I think you should also consider a third point: the number of men in the study was relatively small, 159 in all. This reduces the chance of obtaining a statistically significant result. By using the Bonferroni method to reduce the possibility of a false positive finding you increased the possibility of getting a false negative finding. Michael Glass 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I haven't missed your point at all, but you seem to overlook the fact that significance tests are the means by which the study and critique (and, indeed, several other studies) chose to answer the "more sensitive" question.

Bonferroni's correction is not the only correction for such situations, some dislike it, and alternatives have been proposed. There is of course a tradeoff between type I and type II errors, and perhaps future studies might use a different sample size or methodology. However, now that we both understand the meaning of the terms we must be careful to avoid original research. It occurs to me that a more pressing question is: how should the criticism be covered in the text of the article? Jakew 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following changes (alterations shown in italics):

Sorrells et al. (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity." (The study was funded by NOCIRC.) [8] Waskett and Morris, however, report that "[using] their data we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings."

Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells et al., the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.[23] This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that Sorrells' "[table] 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce. However, after we used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, this significance disappeared."

Do you think this is a fair representation, Michael? Jakew 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, it appears that you have put two proposed alterations up for consideration. Was that your intention? Michael Glass 09:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Michael. Do you think this is a fair representation of the sources? Jakew 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, I have problems with both of your suggested amendments.

1. Both give the letter equal prominence with a peer reviewed article. This strikes me as giving undue weight to one letter.
2. Both set a precedent for giving equal prominence to every letter that may be published in response to this study. Considering the nature of the topic, there could be quite a few of them. Another potential problem of undue weight.
3. A reference to "the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons" gives the reader no clue that this method is controversial. Without this information about the Bonferroni method, the reference is misleading. With this information it raises the question of undue weight being given to the Bonferroni method. If the Bonferroni method is not mentioned, as in your first proposal, then the reader is left in the dark about the controversial nature of the test used to determine statistical significance.

I believe the best solution would be to wait until there are more comments about this study, and then, if necessary, report on the discussion that followed. Would this be acceptable to you? Michael Glass 02:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, thanks for your comments. If it was not clear, the two proposed additions are to different paragraphs.

Undue weight states that "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Since journals typically publish criticism of articles as Letters to the Editor, excluding letters as a general rule would have the effect of excluding criticism or dispute. This would be incompatible with "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source". (As I recall you were pleased to include de Witte's Langerin article [which was published as a Letter] in discussion of Langerhans cells...)

In some cases, it is relatively easy to determine which is a 'prominent' (or, indeed, majority) view. However, this does not appear to be such a case: there are only two published sources on the issue of Sorrells' claims.

In any case, I disagree that the proposed changes give equal prominence to each, since the proposed wording gives approximately three times as much text to Sorrells than to the critique. Do you have an alternative wording in mind?

It is impossible to predict what may or may not be published in the future. This has not been a concern so far: as new sources have become available (such as Sorrells article itself), we have amended the article accordingly. I see no reason why this cannot continue.

At the present time, there are no published sources to indicate that the use of the Bonferroni correction is controversial in this instance. If that should change in future, we could of course amend the article accordingly. (As noted above, the two proposed additions are to different paragraphs; one criticism referred to the Bonferroni correction but the other did not.)

Given that Wikipedia can be altered at any time, I do not see any particular reason to wait until some unspecified future time for some possible discussion to take place. We did not adopt such an approach when Sorrells' study was first included, and there seems no reason to do so now. Jakew 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV would pretty much demand that the criticism of the study be included, if the study itself is to be included. Alternatively, neither should be included, since the study itself is already tainted by its source of funding, and appears to have garnered little attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, thank you for your detailed comments. You make some very good points about the NPOV policy. My problem with your proposed additions is that they are based on the Bonferroni correction, which, as i have pointed out, is not universally accepted. In all fairness, I think this should be touched on. I am, of course, opposed to the idea of excluding the Sorrells study from consideration. If that study was good enough for the British Journal of Urology to publish, it is good enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Michael Glass 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the proposed additions are direct quotes from a published source. As I understand it, your objection is that you question the argument made in that source. If/when such an objection is made in another reliable source, I see no reason why it could not be included. However, as you know, OR is not allowed. I suppose we could Wikilink bonferroni correction in the text, which would allow readers to read more about the correction in that article. Does this seem reasonable? Jakew 16:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with a wikilink that you propose is that the article just gives the bare bones about the test in language that only a mathematician could love. The reference in the British Medical Journal [10] includes the following:

When more than one statistical test is performed in analysing the data from a clinical study, some statisticians and journal editors demand that a more stringent criterion be used for "statistical significance" than the conventional P<0.05.1 Many well meaning researchers, eager for methodological rigour, comply without fully grasping what is at stake. Recently, adjustments for multiple tests (or Bonferroni adjustments) have found their way into introductory texts on medical statistics, which has increased their apparent legitimacy. This paper advances the view, widely held by epidemiologists, that Bonferroni adjustments are, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, deleterious to sound statistical inference.

The summary sheet emphasis added says:

Adjusting statistical significance for the number of tests that have been performed on study data the Bonferroni methodcreates more problems than it solves.

The Bonferroni method is concerned with the general null hypothesis (that all null hypotheses are true simultaneously), which is rarely of interest or use to researchers.

The main weakness is that the interpretation of a finding depends on the number of other tests performed.

The likelihood of type II errors is also increased, so that truly important differences are deemed non-significant.

Simply describing what tests of significance have been performed, and why, is generally the best way of dealing with multiple comparisons.

As you have used the Bonferroni method to criticise the Sorrells findings, a direct link to this article would be appropriate. Michael Glass 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, Perneger's article makes no reference to the critique of Sorrells' paper (having been published 9 years beforehand), nor does it mention circumcision. Linking to it from this article would therefore be original synthesis.

However, there is no reason why the Bonferroni correction could not be expanded to include NPOV treatment of Perneger's views (and those of others) in an accessible form.

As an aside, I'm puzzled that you highlighted the sentence referring to the general null hypothesis. You may wish to think for a moment about how the hypothesis would be stated in this case. Jakew 09:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, Perneger warned about the limitations of the Bonferroni correction almost 10 years ago. His paper is mentioned in the article in Wolfram mathworld <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BonferroniCorrection.html> and in a web page from the University of Manitoba <http://www.umanitoba.ca/centres/mchp/concept/dict/Statistics/bonferroni.html>. The general problem is also mentioned in a paper from the University of New England, in Northern NSW <http://www.une.edu.au/WebStat/unit_materials/c5_inferential_statistics/bonferroni.html>. The problem appears to be inherent in the use of this particular method. Michael Glass 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia to debate the merits of this application of Bonferroni's correction. However, if you would like to discuss further by email, you're welcome to do so.

If you can find any articles discussing the critique in particular, please cite them. If not, please stop performing original synthesis. Jakew 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a brief reminder, it is forbidden for an editor in wikipedia to take item a) and say that this implies result b) without have a source that exactly makes that point. Even if both item a) and b) are sourced, and there is no pure research being perfomed by the editor, saying that one data point implies a relationship, decision, or result about another, ex nihilo, is an example of original synthesis, which is also not allowed, no matter how obvious it may seem to some. Sorry. -- Avi 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that when Bonferroni's correction is mentioned it should be linked to an authoritative article that gives information about this method. One source is <http://home.clara.net/sisa/bonhlp.htm>. This gives an overview of this method. Does anyone have any comments? Michael Glass 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks like a suitable external link which could be added to the Bonferroni correction article. However, it should not be added to this article. Per WP:EL, we should avoid linking to "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." (emph added).

In general, an unusual term used in an article should be linked to the relevant Wikipedia article, if a link is required. As a general rule, it's best to avoid Wikilinking text that is part of a direct quote. However, I would agree to making an exception in this case, making the relevant text appear as: This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that Sorrells' "[table] 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce. However, after we used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, this significance disappeared." Jakew 10:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added extra references to the Bonferroni correction article. My point all along was not to argue that the Bonferroni method was wrong, but that there was some dispute about its use. To characterise this as an original synthesis is bizarre. I, too, have reservations about a Wikilink in a direct quote, but in the absence of another link I am prepared to consider it. I also have reservations about the wording you propose because it is not clear enough that Sorrells was working on figures that were controlled for age and other factors, whereas Waskett & Morris were not. Michael Glass 14:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I'm glad that you added the extra refs to that article.

The problem is that there is no published dispute about the use of Bonferroni's correction in this case. Hence this synthesis of two arguments is original to Wikipedia.

I suggest that you propose alternative wordings for both paragraphs, which we can (hopefully) then agree upon. Jakew 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, have a look at this wording:

Sorrells et al. (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers in a study funded by NOCIRC, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity." [8] Waskett and Morris, however, on the basis of the raw data, said "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings."

Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." They said that the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin [23]. However, Waskett and Morris, on the basis of Sorrells' raw data said it "shows this applies only to …the orifice rim of the prepuce.” However, they stated that after they used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, “this significance disappeared."

Would this draft wording suit you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael Glass (talk • contribs).

Mostly ok, but some minor changes are needed. Firstly - and I'm sorry to be pedantic - we should avoid "said" for written arguments. "Stated" is better. Secondly, it is inaccurate to refer to use of "raw data". Instead, we should use the phrases "on the basis of data presented by Sorrells et al." or "using Sorrells' data". Jakew 10:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with stated rather than said. However, using Sorrells' data is misleading because it could be taken as applying to the data that had been controlled for age and the other factors. I believe that raw data makes a clear distinction between the initial data and the data that had been controlled for other factors. It's a small but important point to make. If you don't like raw data how would you express the difference between the initial data and the data that had been controlled for age and other factors? Michael Glass 13:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I believe that the term you are looking for is "unadjusted" or "crude" figures. The term "raw data" tends to refer to the entire, unprocessed data set from which any statistics may be calculated. Such data are rarely published in full: usually only summary data such as means and standard deviations (or related statistics) are provided.

In relation to the claim "They said that the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin", it would be misleading to state that unadjusted figures were used. The letter refers to "their Table 2", which includes both unadjusted and age-adjusted figures.

Regarding to the claim re the same points, I suggest using the language in the letter "Using their data". Jakew 14:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, your phrase "using their data" is not a problem in the context of your letter. However, when writing for Wikipedia, where most readers won't have access to your letter or the Sorrells study, we must make it clear that it was Sorrells' unadjusted data that you used. I like unadjusted. Here is what I suggest:

Sorrells et al. (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers in a study funded by NOCIRC, They reported "[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity." [8] Waskett and Morris, however, on the basis of the unadjusted data, stated "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings."

Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." They stated that the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin [23]. However, Waskett and Morris, on the basis of Sorrells' unadjusted data stated that it "shows this applies only to …the orifice rim of the prepuce.” However, after they used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, “this significance disappeared."

How do you feel about this wording? Michael Glass 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I've already remarked that it would be misleading to use the term 'unadjusted' in the second paragraph, yet you have done so anyway. Is this an error? Jakew 10:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I used the term unadjusted because this was the term that you used in place of raw data. I note your comment, but it was Sorrells' unadjusted data that you referred to in your letter and not the data that had been controlled for age etc. As I read it, Sorrells et al. used the data that was controlled for age etc while you used the unadjusted data and came to different conclusions. If this is not the case, please explain what is the case, and why you consider the word undajusted misleading. Michael Glass 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael, there are two relevant sets of comparisons. The first paragraph relates to comparisons between the same points, which were presented in the table in the letter. The second paragraph, however, refers to comparisons between different points, which were presented in Sorrells' Table 2. As you can see, this table included both unadjusted and adjusted statistics for these points. It is misleading to state otherwise.

Both sources explicitly state that Table 2 is the source for their claims.

To quote from Sorrells et al: "When compared with the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis, which are missing from the circumcised penis, were significantly more sensitive (Table 2)."

To quote from W&M: "They claim that several locations on the uncircumcised penis are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis (the ventral scar), yet their Table 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce. However, after we used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, this significance disappeared." Jakew 10:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jake, you're right about Table 2. I withdraw my objection. Michael Glass 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I've added the text to the article. Jakew 15:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on location 3 is misleading ... circumcision removes relatively sensitive parts of the penis (locations 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15, and 16).TipPt 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'focus' on position 3. The source simply notes that position 3 is the only statistically significant difference before Bonferroni's correction is applied. Jakew 10:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving content here? Summary style proposal for Circumcision article

The Circumcision page is getting too long, and there is a proposal to shorten it. This proposal involves moving some content from that page to this one (or verifying that certain content there is already represented here). Please discuss at Talk:Circumcision#Article too long?. --Coppertwig 13:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Details of moving content here

(Making sure all info from Circumcision#Sexual effects section is also here.) I'm not copying this sentence here because it contains essentially the same information as the reference to Laumann et al. (authors of the survey report) that's already here: "The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated "a survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men." Actually, I think I can improve the Laumann citation. --Coppertwig 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Laumann citation as given in AAP statement: "Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW Circumcision in the United States. JAMA. 1997; 277:1052-1057". with url of [11] --Coppertwig 23:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC) I was confused; the Laumann citation is already completely cited here. --Coppertwig 23:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't move this sentence here because this article already contains a longer version of the same information: "Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men."" --Coppertwig 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The Circumcision page cites the American Academy of Pediatrics position statement in the Sexual Effects section, but it seems unimportant to copy that particular reference here since here, the Masters and Johnson reference is given for essentially the same information; and the AAP is cited several other times on the Circumcision page so the reference is unlikely to get lost. --Coppertwig 22:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't hurt to summarise their summary, as well as those of other medical organisations, perhaps in a special section. Jakew 16:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Some of the references were just url's. I copied the titles, authors etc. from the web pages and put them here. They need to be formatted, i.e. perhaps use "cite journal" or similar templates, change uppercase letters to lowercase, put author's name first etc. Some of the url's may not be reliable sources; a link to a collection of quotes on a website may not be an appropriate reference. --Coppertwig 15:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some cleanup is needed. I'll do this within the next few days, assuming nobody gets there first. Jakew 15:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two different Bleustein et al. references. Possibly these are two similar reports, perhaps one peer-reviewed and one not; possibly only one of the two is needed. --Coppertwig 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The 2003 abstract was presented at a conference of the American Urological Association, and the proceedings were printed somewhere in Urology, I believe. I think the findings were similar but represented different datasets; I'll dig out my copy of Bleustein 2005 and double-check. Jakew 16:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

References 25 and 39 seem to refer to the same article: "Boyle, Gregory J; Svoboda, J Steven; Goldman, Ronald; Fernandez, Ephrem (2002). Male circumcision: pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae. Bond University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.".

I've labelled reference 22 "broken link". --Coppertwig 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

References 26 and 29 seem to be duplicates: "DaiSik Kim, Myung-Geol Pang (2006) The effect of male circumcision on sexuality BJU International (OnlineEarly Articles). doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646" --Coppertwig 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I checked the whole reference list and those were the only duplicates I found. (They still need to be fixed, though.) --Coppertwig 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Jakew fixed the duplicates and removed the broken link. --Coppertwig 01:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What about gay sex?

The opinion of women is mentioned, but what about men who sleep wtih men? Siúnrá (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New study

Add data of the new study in the appropriate places? [12][13][14] --Shamir1 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I dislike citing news sources in material about scientific work, but cited the study directly in these edits. Jakew (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

Please source that opponents oppose medically necessary circumcision. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article makes such a claim, it should certainly be sourced. However, I can't find this claim anywhere. Please could you quote the relevant paragraph(s)? Jakew (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that the term 'non-medical' is unclear. With an extreme pro-circumcision viewpoint, all circumcisions could be considered medical because of the medical benefits of the procedure. On the other side, an anti-circumcision view would say that it is not medically necessary unless everything other than full circumcision has been tried to solve the problem.

Since anti-circumcision advocates are known to distort and deny the truth, I am confident that they would do everything possible to minimize the number of 'medical' circumcisions done.

Also, if it's so obvious that no one would oppose 'medical' circumcision, then why state it explicitly? It can only be to make an anti-circumcision point by subtly implying that circumcision proponents are extreme for trying to promote a 'non-medical' procedure. The standard rhetoric is pro- and anti-'circumcision', not pro- and anti-'non-medical circumcision', so it is the use of the latter term that must be justified. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Since anti-circumcision advocates are known to distort and deny the truth" Please assume good faith. Broad disparaging comments do not help these controversial issues. I do agree with you that any pre descriptor of circumcision seems inadequate and unnecessarily one sided. If anything has to be used why not non-therapeudic like we have agreed upon in Circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like Australia's definition of "non-medical circumcision."[15] It applies to the overwhelming majority of male circumcisions performed. Blackworm (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The table should be removed

The Senkul study is likewise misrepresented.TipPt 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Alienus 04:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On what grounds? Jakew 09:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The findings were "differences in the mean BMSFI scores were not statistically significant in any of the five sections." Saying "no difference" in the table is inaccurate and misleading. The text cite is OK.TipPt 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok then, we can say "no significant difference". Happy? Jakew 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The proper thing to say is "no finding." It generally is ignored, for obvious reasons.TipPt 15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

No, there was a finding, and it was that there were no significant differences. Jakew 16:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The table should not be removed as it gives us a brief overview of research findings. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, though I'm happy to improve it. Jakew 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The table makes false study conclusion statements. It is contains grossly inaccurate or irrelevant information, and must be removed.TipPt 15:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's tabulating findings, as the heading states, not conclusions. Anyway, could you be more specific? If you identify specific problems, they can be fixed, but if you're vague, we can't move forward. Jakew 16:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, words like "no difference" "favors..." are opinion, and inaccurate for tabulating scientific findings.TipPt 16:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can negotiate over the choice of words. I've suggested above changing 'no difference' to 'no significant difference'. Jakew 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So far I have detailed Mastood, Senkul, and here's Denniston (2004) (in the Wiki citation for its use in the table and text) "...carried out a survey of 38 adult males who were circumcised at least 2 years after they commenced sexual intercourse. Thirteen men felt that sexual intercourse was better after circumcision, but 22 felt that intercourse was worse and would not have the circumcision again, because of loss of sexual pleasure."

The table misleads when Denniston is missing from the Overall satisfaction section.TipPt 16:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't mentioned Masood here. If you want to discuss it, you'd better comment here. Otherwise you'll just confuse editors with this page but not other pages on their watchlist.

As for Denniston, I'm hesitant to include it without having the text of the original paper to hand. I guess we could, but since it's not peer-reviewed anyway, it might be more sensible to remove Denniston altogether. Jakew 16:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is in the universal mischaracterization of the study results ... ALL OF THEM.TipPt 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Mastood (2005) study is correctly cited in the text, but wrongly in the table.

In the Summary of Research Findings table, this study is listed three times stating that the "Finding" was "no difference," or "favors circumcision." In fact the "finding" in all three should be the study conclusion "CONCLUSIONS: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."

Basically, the 61% "overall satisfaction" was considered low, given the disease state prior to circumcision.

Nowhere in the study do the authors state "no difference," or "favors circumcision." At best, someone is trying to interpret results.TipPt 16:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You can quibble about the wording, but Masood's study is represented fairly, I think. The table clearly discusses findings, not conclusions. Let's examine these.

Under 'erectile function', the table states "No difference No; p=0.40"

To quote Masood: "The mean total IIEF-5 score of the 84 patients at baseline was 22.41 ± 0.94 compared to 21.13 ± 3.17 after circumcision. The difference between pre- and post-circumcision patients was not statistically significant (p = 0.4)."

If you like, we can change it to 'no significant difference'.

Under 'penile sensation': "Favours circumcision in 38%, non-circumcision in 18% Yes; p=0.01"

Masood: "Only 18% of the patients complained about loss of/or altered penile sensation, whereas 38% found better sensation (p = 0.01)."

Under 'overall satisfaction': "Favours circumcision (61% satisfaction) Not stated"

Masood: "Sixty-one percent were satisfied with the circumcision (p = 0.04). ... Fourteen patients (17%) were not satisfied with the circumcision, but only 1 patient in this group had any obvious post-operative complications (bleeding)"

Jakew 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

You play a good game Jakew. But totally lost is the truth. Your table representation more than distracts from the intended study focus.

The Masood study is titled "Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?"

The authors choose that title.

They conclude "The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process."

The MAIN POINT in the study results is totally lost in the table.TipPt 02:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a conclusion, not a finding. Jakew 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you appreciate the limitations of statistical methods, and the value of the authors concluding statements (which take into account all the statistics and study variables.TipPt 02:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means discuss it in the text. The table tabulates findings, not interpretations. Jakew 09:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The table should be removed until it's fixed

The Table should be removed because:

• It generally interperts and misrepresents study results.
• It is labeled a "summary" but excludes partner studies, studies showing neurological changes, and studies on infants and boys.
• It is not a summary of the above text.
• It gives the false impression that there is fairly extensive research in the area of sexual effects, and that the research is generally relevant to circumcision as it is primarily practiced.
• It "finds" "no difference" or "favors...," when all you can say is "no finding" because the results were not statistically significant. If there is no finding, it should not be listed.
• The word "peer reviewed" is misused. Peer review can (did) occur after publication for at least one of the studies listed as "no."

• Your complaints so far seem to be trivial at best, only requiring minor changes to language.
• It is fair to call it a summary, since it summarises studies that have directly investigated sexual effects. It is speculative at best to link neurological changes to sexual effects, and obviously studies on infants and boys have not investigated sexual effects. As for partner studies, which would you propose including?
• No, it is a summary of the studies.
• I disagree. It identifies the relevant studies, leaving the reader to decide for themselves whether this is extensive. If you wish to speculate that it is irrelevant to circumcision as practiced, you'd better be prepared to find sources.
• "No finding" means that no result was reported. A result of no statistically significant is not the same, and often gives a lot of information.
• Which study was peer reviewed after publication?

The Masters.TipPt 02:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

None of these constitute worthwhile reasons for removing the table. Jakew 16:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If any other editors are looking in ... I can demonstrate a double standard here.

Sounds like you will at least fix the Masood problems. Or, should I do it?

When they say they didn't find a stastically significant result, that is all you can repeat. "No finding," or "Failed to identify," or ... simply leave it out if it's not in the study conclusions.

I recommend a list of known studies and a short quote summarizing their conclusion(s) statements. It's all there, it's the most relevant condensed information from the authors, and it's not subject to bias. The reader gets the full benefit of their judgement.TipPt 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, a finding of no significant difference is a finding, and it should be reported. Feel free to add a list of studies and their conclusions, too, if you like, but the table gives a valuable summary to the reader and should remain.

The "finding" of "no difference" was not statistically significant. That's how you say it. Seems silly to list it.TipPt 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Masters and Johnson, what was the nature of this post-publication peer-review? Jakew 09:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of the study problems, other than all they studied was the glans. I'll try to find it again.

You should know, I don't care much about the table. I just wanted to demonstrate to observers what you do in here.TipPt 17:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I made the mistake of assuming good faith, and took you at face value. If, at some point in the future, you actually mean what you say, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll assume that you're just indulging in theatrics to waste my time. Jakew 20:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to work in good faith with you Jakew. The Masood study is clearly misrepresented.TipPt 00:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching, and you've certainly succeeded. Alienus 17:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I especially like the part where he removed a whole section of this Talk page, to hide his dishonesty. Too bad there's a whole history. Alienus 03:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

One problem with failing to assume good faith is that you look really foolish when you accuse someone of hiding things whereas in fact he just moved text to a more appropriate location, and then adjusted a link so that it correctly points to it. Jakew 10:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)]

Thank you for adjusting the link. That was nice.

I hadn't said it before, but the fundamental problem with the table is that the stats are presented out of context. The end result is a reader that is mislead.

The pervasive bias in the topic seems purposeful and unconscionable; so I say you act with bad faith. You control this topic.TipPt 16:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

2 and a half years on and I think tip is right - this article is biased and the table should be removed. It is not the right format to represent the views of the studies and it seems most of the studies are cherry- picked. Tremello22 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and removed. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, that was a bit hasty! Why not put a little effort into adding new studies to the table? AlphaEta 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, no logical rationale was given for removal. Other than "I don't like it, so it can't be right." AlphaEta 20:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly won't edit war over this Alpha. "I don't like it, so it can't be right." is not my rational per se. I did agree with Tremello's above statement. The table doesn't really bring anything to the article and is slightly misleading in a number of statements from sources. It seems biased and skewed to show circumcision in a favorable light. We can take it apart if you like however I really don't believe its necessary for the article (never been a big table fan). Garycompugeek (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary, if someone wants to take the table apart and turn it into prose, I see no reason why that would be a problem. However, we should do it carefully. AlphaEta 22:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The table includes studies of men who were circumcised for medical problems involving the penis, and who were then asked if the circumcision made sex better than before (i.e., presumably when they had the medical condition). Thus, the logic goes, circumcision increases sexual pleasure. It's misleading and biased. Those parts of the table are not at all related to "sexual effects of male circumcision" but rather "male circumcision used to treat sexual ailments," which is not the topic of this article. I support the table's removal until those studies are excluded. Blackworm (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this article is the sexual effects of circumcision, which logically includes circumcision performed for any reason, including medical problems. You argue that the results are irrelevant to circumcisions performed for other reasons; another point of view is that if circumcision were truly devastating to sexual satisfaction in general, one might expect it to be apparent in this subset. Unfortunately, given any study, someone somewhere will argue that the results are inapplicable and/or invalid. Consequently, if we exclude studies on the basis of such arguments, the eventual conclusion will be that this article is a blank page. A possible solution may be to include the nature of the sample in (say) the 'Design' column. Alternatively AlphaEta's suggestion of converting the material to prose is good. Simply deleting the material seems difficult to justify. Jakew (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to the material being there - I object to the way the material is presented. Presenting the material in prose would be a better way of representing the true findings rather than having to summarise the findings (of often unrelated studies) under the tight constraints a set table heading. Tremello22 (talk) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we all agree. Let's start slowly and methodically pulling the table apart. AlphaEta 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) The table currently has five sections. What I propose to do is to break the table into 5 smaller tables, and move those up to appropriate section headings (creating the headings if necessary). That should facilitate converting each mini-table into prose. Does this seem reasonable? Jakew (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If others agree with Jakew's logic, I am going to start importing statements such as the following, from labiaplasty, into the female circumcision article: "Several years later, more surgeons introduced lasers into their armamentarium and began using more refined surgical procedures, such as inferior wedge resection and superior pedicle flap reconstruction. In one outcome study, surgeons studied the results of 20 patients undergoing labiaplasty via the procedure. 95.2 percent of patients at 46 months reported being very satisfied." Blackworm (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems simpler to remove the table. Anyone may go through the table sources and add relevant data to appropriate sections. This way we let consensus rule and hopefully weed out misleading or non neutral POV. Garycompugeek (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jake, breaking up the table as a step towards converting it into prose sounds reasonable to me. Blackworm, I think I partially understand what point you're trying to make, but I'm not sure. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Organization of sections

I think this edit by Jakew is probably good, making a "penile sensitivity and sexual sensation" section with subsections for glans and foreskin. Looks logical to me.

I suggest that it doesn't make sense to have a section called "sexual effects", since that's what the whole article is supposed to be about. I suggest renaming that section "Effects on sexual function". I also think the section title "Comparative studies" isn't specific enough. I suggest combining the sections "Erectile dysfunction", "Sexual effects" and "Comparative studies" into one section entitled "Effects on sexual function". It might have subsections, perhaps "Erectile function", "Ejaculatory function", and possibly "masturbatory pleasure" and "variety of sexual activities". ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the "sexual effects" and "comparative studies" sections are less than ideal. It is far from clear what they're actually about. A section entitled "sexual function" might not be a bad idea, but I thought we might have a main heading each for "erectile function", "sexual drive", etc. Jakew (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine too. "sexual function" is rather vague and similar to the title of the article, too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Letters

The article says "Waskett and Morris wrote a letter to BJU International disagreeing with these findings.[11] Young wrote a rebuttal to Waskett and Morris's letter in a later issue". I think we should state something about what these letters say, instead of reporting the fact that they were published and disagree with each other. The reader doesn't just want to read the fact that some things were published, but wants the actual information. In that way, the earlier version was better, I think (assuming it correctly refects the source, which I'm not sure I can access), saying "Waskett and Morris, however, on the basis of the unadjusted data, stated "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings.", except that I don't understand how "consistent with previous findings" means: does it mean that what Waskett and Morris said is consistent with previous findings, or does it mean that they said that something (what?) is consistent with previous findings? (What previous findings?) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that might be giving undue weight to a letter as opposed to a peer-reviewed study coppertwig. Waskett and Morris (who runs a pro-circ website circinfo.net are both known circumcision advocates. Hugh Young I have heard of before, if i am not mistaken I think I read he runs circumstitions.com and is anti-circ. So I have reservations about including either to be honest. Usually when a study is published they also note competing interests. Tremello22 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Letters are the usual way errors in studies are uncovered, and considering that the study was funded by an anti-circumcision organization, claims of bias are oddly inappropriate. Please don't replace meaningful sentences with nonsensical meaningless prose again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For a second time, Tremello, please don't replace meaningful sentences with nonsensical meaningless prose, it damages the encyclopedia. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this revert; I think it's better to give actual information about the subject than just state whether researchers disagreed with each other; this article isn't about the researchers. In these subarticles there's more room to go into detail. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we cite any other letters criticizing studies? I believe that while User:Jakew's letter to the journal is interesting, it seems disputed and thus citing it here seems inappropriate. Why is this non peer-reviewed dispute of the peer-reviewed material notable? Blackworm (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to cite other letters criticizing studies. The fact that the letter was printed by the journal is, in and of itself, notable. The journal felt the criticism was notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For a second time, Tremello, please don't replace meaningful sentences with nonsensical meaningless prose, it damages the encyclopedia. Thanks. In what way? You have replaced it with: In a letter to BJU International, however, on the basis of the unadjusted data, Waskett and Morris stated "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings." If that isn't non-sensical meaningless prose, I don't know what is? The exact nature of Morris and Waskett's criticisms are quoted in both the glans sensitivity section and the Foreskin sensitivity section. Whereas the detail of Young's rebuttal of Waskett and Morriss is only quoted in the foreskin sensitivity section. Given the fact that Waskett and Morriss's criticisms only relate to data from the areas of the penis common to both circed and uncirced penis's - their findings are irrelevant. As Young points out "Sorrells et al. compared 12 points that the two have in common, as well as five the circumcised penis does not have, and two (of scar tissue) that only the circumcised penis has. By disregarding those seven points (which they miscount) in their table, Waskett and Morris have removed the major source of difference and restored the major fault of the undocumented, unreviewed and vaguely described (but widely quoted) study by Masters and Johnson[3], that of ignoring the foreskin." So, I support removing both letters. Tremello22 (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may clear up a little misunderstanding, the Waskett & Morris letter (which, as Blackworm has noted, was co-authored by myself) addresses two issues of particular relevance here.

The first issue is comparison between the same points. Specifically, whether there is a difference in the sensitivity of the glans, which is of course present among both circumcised and uncircumcised men. According to Sorrells, there was a difference ("[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men..."). In order to address this assertion, we (W&M) presented a table in which we compared each of these points, and reported that we did not find any statistically significant differences. Young essentially states that our comparisons did not include the foreskin, which brings us to the second issue.

The second issue is comparison between different points. Specifically, whether the foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive point on the circumcised penis. According to Sorrells, it was ("Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis"). We (W&M) addressed this issue by examining the results of comparisons presented in Sorrells' table 2. We reported that their statement was only true of a single location and that, after performing a Bonferroni correction, there were no significant differences. Jakew (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The authors conclude that 'circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis', although they only tested the ability of subjects to detect the lightest touch. Meissner's corpuscles, being light-touch receptors, would be expected to cause such a measurement to exaggerate the sensitivity of the prepuce. However, sensitivity, particularly when discussing erogenous sensation, depends on several different modes of stimulation and their interaction. In addition, sexual sensation depends upon the types of mechanical stimulation generated during intercourse, which might in turn be influenced by circumcision status. Thus circumcision has the potential to either increase or decrease sexual sensation.

Surprisingly, the study omitted to address sexual pleasure. The existence of a market for lidocaine-based products to reduce penile sensitivity attests to the desire by some men for a penis with reduced, not heightened, sensitivity. Moreover, undesirable preputial sensations such as pain, discomfort and irritation must be considered. While results are somewhat mixed, one study found reduced pain in 69% of men after circumcision [8]. Thus it would seem that a more important question is whether sexual pleasure is affected. In two very much larger surveys, no association was found between circumcision status and failure to enjoy sex

Thankyou for that Jake. Just one thing, in this bit of your letter , you appear to be saying that the penis is more sensitive in terms of light touch, and are therefore agreeing with the findings. Then the second paragraph it is like you are saying that if it did reduce sensation, then that would be a good thing. You then turn the discussion towards sexual pleasure as opposed to just sensation. So your letter is kind of contradictory if you don't mind me saying. Tremello22 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing contradictory in Waskett & Morris. They don't seem to me to be saying that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive to light touch, but to be disagreeing with that finding. However, in scientific debates of this kind, it's common to discuss each link of someone's argument, even if one of the links has already been disagreed with. This can be useful if some people are not convinced by that part of the argument or if later data change the results. Therefore, even though they disagreed with the findings on sensitivity, they also argue that even if there were such findings, it wouldn't necessarily translate into being an improvement in terms of pleasure. They are not saying that if it did reduce sensation that would be a good thing; they seem to me to be pointing out that reducing sensitivity can be good or bad in various contexts and that the situation is complex. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Young, on the other hand, appears to me to contradict himself when he ends one paragraph with "...because only one hypothesis is being tested" and begins the next one with "Sorrells et al. found not only that ..."

I oppose this edit by Blackworm for reasons which I explain in my above message of 15:11, 14 October 2008. In reply to Blackworm's message re why to cite it if it has been disagreed with: for similar reasons that we cite Sorrells et al. although it's been disagreed with: because we can't assume that everyone would agree with the disagreements. It seems to me that in general, if we cite a study or letter and there exists a letter to the editor in the same journal criticizing it, that we probably ought to mention the letter too, because as Jayjg points out, that's how errors get corrected. It seems to me that citing such letters is very much in the spirit of NPOV: describing the debate. The reader can decide for themself whether to discount an opinion presented in a mere letter. Note that sources cited in Wikipedia do not themselves have to be notable: rather, it is the topics of Wikipedia articles which are considered notable because they are mentioned in published sources. Although letters may not be peer-reviewed, I believe they are vetted by the editors of the journal. If you know of other such letters criticizing other studies cited in Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to cite them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Female arousal disorder"

Regarding the following paragraph:

Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder. The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an uncircumcised partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication. They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.[Boyle, G.J. & G.A. Bensley. 2001. Adverse Sexual and Psychological Effects of Male Infant Circumcision. Psychological reports. 88(3, pt.2):1105-1106.]

Is this the correct citation for the first and second sentences? I can't seem to find these claims in the linked paper/abstract? Thanks, AlphaEta 14:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't checked carefully, but I think the correct citation would be this (currently ref 34). Jakew (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bailey et al study

I removed bailey et al study having looked at the abstract , there is no mention of "there is a preference by women for the circumcised man, mentioning that circumcised men enter the woman more easily and cause fewer traumas." Tremello22 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Has this section been heavily edited recently? It appears that the citations are off.... AlphaEta 21:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If the statement isn't in the abstract, it may well be in the full text. In this case, a simple Google search reveals that the sentence fragment "...woman more easily, cause less trauma, are easier to clean after sex and..." can be found in the full text. However, the source needs to be checked. I think I have a copy of this paper somewhere in my files, and I'll look for it, but it may take me a few days to do so. Jakew (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

Per WP:SEEALSO, 'Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"'. Consequently, circumcision, which is linked from the lead, and is in fact the very first link in the article, should not be included. I've already corrected this once [16], as have a couple of IPs[17][18]. Now I see it has, once again, been added.[19] Jakew (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Seealso guideline section continues, "...however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." As a guideline, it also says at the top something about common sense and the occasional exception. The same guideline also says "A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section." I think an argument could be made for including the link to Circumcision in the See also section as well as in the lead; the Circumcision article is very highly relevant to this article, so two links doesn't seem excessive to me. I'm fine with it either way; I suppose I have a mild preference for keeping both links. (After all, as I've told you, Jakew, overuse of "See also" sections has been one of my vices.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Bleustein 2003

What is the rationale for removing this source? Jakew (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

part of the same series. Tremello22 (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you mean that it is a subset of the data reported in Bleustein 2005. Please could you quote the relevant passage(s) that led you to this conclusion? I've just looked briefly at a paper copy of Bleistein 2005, and didn't find any discussion of that, but perhaps you spotted something that I missed. Jakew (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is or not maybe you can enlighten me. Do you have the full papers as opposed to just the abstracts - they seem very similar to me. If it is a subset then I hope you are not going to be selective over only including the later studies like you did with van Howe inflammation study. Tremello22 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have the full text of Bleustein 2005. I will carefully read it later this afternoon to see if I can find any reference to the earlier sample. Jakew (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the full paper had been reviewed prior to the initial removal. I guess I misunderstood the rationale. AlphaEta 13:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've just finished reading the 2005 paper (my apologies for the unusually long "afternoon"). In brief, I can find no reference whatsoever to the 2003 study, which is unfortunate as I was hoping for a definitive answer one way or the other.

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. The 2003 sample included 79 patients, while the 2005 paper included 125. It might be the case that 46 patients were simply added to the earlier sample.
2. On the other hand, the samples for the two studies might be entirely different. For example, it may be that preliminary data were gathered for the initial study (which was presented at a conference), but before institutional review board approval was obtained for the full (2005) study, and consequently the authors had to start again from scratch. (Absurd as this may seem, this is not uncommon.)

Which is it? I don't know. It might be the former, but I feel a little uncomfortable about excluding the study on the sole basis of that assumption. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I favour restoring the reference, (reverting this edit), unless more information turns up as to why to delete it. From the above discussion it appears that there's no particular reason to think the data duplicates another study. Note that arguments for deletion of information in the main article Circumcision don't necessarily apply to subarticles such as this where there's more room for detail. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and implemented. Jakew (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining some edits; recording some information I deleted.

On Oct. 14, I moved some information from the "sexual effects" section into other sections with more specific topics, so that the "sexual effects" section could be eliminated. In the process, I deleted the following information; this information is still represented in the article but in much briefer form, as part of a list of footnotes to studies that found increases or decreases etc. Here I give the diffs where I deleted information, and I quote what I deleted:

"Masood et al reported a slight reduction in erectile function scores, from 22.41 before to 21.13 afterwards (60% confidence). 69% noted less pain during intercourse (95% confidence). "[20]

"Eighteen patients suffered from mild erectile dysfunction before circumcision, but 28 suffered from mild or moderate erectile dysfunction afterwards (P = 0.001)." (Shen et al., 2004)[21]

I also deleted "and/or delayed ejaculation" because I didn't find it in the source: [22]. My edits also included some other slight changes of wording. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Verification needed

Re this edit re Bailey, which changed it to "Bailey et al. report that there is a preference by women for the uncircumcised man, mentioning that uncircumcised men enter the woman more easily and cause fewer traumas." The edit changed "circumcised" to "uncircumcised" in two places in this sentence. Which is correct: the way it was or the way it's been changed to? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The version with "circumcised" is correct. See [23]. Jakew (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That link is not evidence at all. The link just shows that google finds no links to the phrase with 'uncircumcised', and asks if you want to search for the same phrase with 'circumcised'. However, if you do, there are still no links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.247.11 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously something has changed in the nine months that have elapsed since I posted it. Jakew (talk) 10:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Waskett & Morris, and Young

There are a few issues regarding treatment of two sources (Waskett & Morris 2007 [which I co-authored], and Young 2007).

Firstly, in the "Glans sensitivity" section, the fragment "in a letter to BJU International" is largely redundant — as with all properly-cited sources, the fact that it was in BJU Int can be determined without difficulty by simply reading the footnote. Thus, we can simplify: However, on the basis of the unadjusted data, Waskett and Morris stated "we find no significant differences [...], consistent with previous findings."[10] Young later responded to this letter, criticising it on various grounds.[11]

The second issue is that "criticising it on various grounds" is hopelessly vague, giving the reader very little information about what Young actually said. And unfortunately, even the information that is given is framed in terms of another source rather than the subject of the section — that is, it is a statement about the letter rather than about the effect of circumcision on glans sensitivity.

Finally, in the following section ("Foreskin sensitivity"), the following appears:

• This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that Sorrells' "[table] 2 shows this applies only to their position 3, the orifice rim of the prepuce." However, they stated that after they used the Bonferroni method to correct for multiple comparisons, "this significance disappeared." [10] Young responded to Waskett and Morris's criticisms saying "Sorrells et al. compared 12 points that the two have in common, as well as five the circumcised penis does not have, and two (of scar tissue) that only the circumcised penis has. By disregarding those seven points (which they miscount) in their table, Waskett and Morris have removed the major source of difference and restored the major fault of the undocumented, unreviewed and vaguely described (but widely quoted) study by Masters and Johnson, that of ignoring the foreskin."[11]

This is problematic, because Young is actually responding to a different, unrelated point raised by Waskett & Morris (see also my earlier post on the subject). The W&M sentences refer to Sorrells' Table 2 (comparison between different points), whereas the Young sentences refer to W&M's Table (comparison between same points). Jakew (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(Updated due to a recent edit.)

Beejaypii has now altered "criticising it on various grounds", such that it is less vague. It now reads:

• However, in a further letter to BJU International, Young responded to Waskett and Morris's letter, criticising it, for example, for ignoring the foreskin, for a misplaced critique of the study's subject selection process, for misguided reliance on an older study from 1988, and for dismissing the presence of fine-touch receptors in the foreskin.

This is, however, still problematic:

1. It violates WP:NPOV. The words "misplaced" and "misguided" are presented as fact, rather than Young's opinion.
2. There is undue weight. Almost twice as much text is given to Young's criticism of the letter than is given to the letter itself.
3. It is slightly repetitive: if one ignores the foreskin then one would obviously dismiss any structures within it.
4. It doesn't make much sense, either in the context of the previous sentence, or in the context of the section itself. Only one of these claims (Young's) are relevant to the subject of glans sensitivity. The 1988 study had nothing to do with the sensitivity of the glans (it related to women's preferences), and the foreskin (and any receptors that form part of it) is distinct from the glans. The relevant claim relates to the study selection process. Unfortunately, presenting Young's view on this out of context is confusing, because we have not stated that W&M criticised the selection process.

I think it would make a lot more sense to do the following:

• Delete the following sentence from "glans sensitivity": However, in a further letter to BJU International, Young responded to Waskett and Morris's letter, criticising it, for example, for ignoring the foreskin, for a misplaced critique of the study's subject selection process, for misguided reliance on an older study from 1988, and for dismissing the presence of fine-touch receptors in the foreskin.[11]
• Move the following from "foreskin sensitivity" to "glans sensitivity": Young responded to Waskett and Morris's criticisms saying "Sorrells et al. compared 12 points that the two have in common, as well as five the circumcised penis does not have, and two (of scar tissue) that only the circumcised penis has. By disregarding those seven points (which they miscount) in their table, Waskett and Morris have removed the major source of difference and restored the major fault of the undocumented, unreviewed and vaguely described (but widely quoted) study by Masters and Johnson, that of ignoring the foreskin."[11]

The advantage of this, to my mind, is that Young's argument is presented immediately after what he's criticising. Jakew (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(Updated due to an even more recent edit.)

Beejaypii has edited the text in the "glans sensitivity" section. It now reads: "However, in a further letter to BJU International, Young responded to Waskett and Morris, stating that "Sorrells et al. found ... that the exposed corona glandis, at least, of the circumcised penis is slightly less sensitive than that of the intact penis.""

This seems okay to me.

However, there is still a problem in the "Foreskin sensitivity" section. As noted above, the text beginning "Young responded to Waskett and Morris's criticisms saying..." is misleading. The simplest option may be to delete this material, but it may be possible to include something else instead. Jakew (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit: I would like to delete or shorten the last sentence. It gives undue weight to an illogical argument: what is the one hypothesis that is allegedly all that is being tested? "the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin" sounds like at least 5 hypotheses to me. If not deleted, the sentence could be shortened to "...and questioned the use of the Bonferroni correction". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's an illogical argument (obviously :-)), but I think that sometimes it can be useful to include illogical arguments. Maybe including it helps the reader to evaluate the rest of what Young has to say. Jakew (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit, which restores a lengthy quote of Young instead of a short summary of his argument. This is problematic, as it gives an excessive amount of weight to Young's arguments: approximately 292 characters (or 46 words) are used to describe W&M's arguments in this section, and approximately twice that amount of text -- 522 characters or 87 words is used to describe Young's. The "summary" version of the Young text was better balanced, at 363 characters or 57 words, and seemed to capture the important points. According to Beejaypii's edit summary, the edit was intended to "Express Young's argument clearly and faithfully, as has been done with Waskett and Morris, otherwise their are issues of balance." It is unclear how the summary failed to be clear or faithful. Perhaps Beejaypii could explain this, so that we can address it without giving undue weight to Young. Jakew (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Firstly, lets see the two versions of the Young quote. Here's yours:

In response, Young argued that the two most sensitive points on the circumcised penis represented areas (scar tissue) that are small, whereas points on the foreskin, as sensitive or more so, represented "half or more of the average penile skin." Young also stated that the "Bonferroni correction is not applicable because only one hypothesis is being tested.

Now here's mine:

In response, Young stated that "Each of the points at which Sorrells et al. measured stands surrogate for a surrounding area of the penis, of varying size. The areas corresponding to the two points of circumcised scar tissue (which were the most sensitive points on the circumcised penis) are very small; those of the foreskin, as sensitive or more so, amount to half or more of the average penile skin." Young also stated that "The Bonferroni correction is not applicable because only one hypothesis is being tested."

In your version, which "two most sensitive points on the circumcised penis" are being referred to? Where's the immediate context gone? And what effect does this have on clarity? In my version, which is faithful to the original, it's clear that the "two most sensitive points" are two of the "points at which Sorrells et al. measured". Please note that the quotes from the Waskett and Morris letter begin immediately after the quote from Sorrells to which they relate.

In your version of the Young quote you've broken up the relative clause "...which were the most sensitive points on the circumcised penis", a clause which appeared in parentheses directly after, and relative to, the phrase "circumcised scar tissue". Your version has the text "the two most sensitive points on the circumcised penis represented areas (scar tissue)". What kind of "scar tissue"? The context may tell us, but the grammar of your version is ambiguous. Young's version, the version I quoted with "circumcised scar tissue" intact (no pun intended), is grammatically unambiguous in this respect, and not dependent solely on context to convey sense.

It seems apparent that the quotes from the letter you co-authored are faithfully reproduced in the article, whereas Young's letter, in your version, has been interpreted in a way which has introduced contextual and grammatical weakness which was not there in the original. I don't believe that to be neutral.

I've already described how the first part of the Young quote provides context. That portion amounts to 22 words and should be discounted when comparing total word counts. So, the comparative totals, using your figures, are now 65 for Young and 46 for Waskett - just 19 words difference. However, I feel I'm playing your game here, and I have something to say about that: why do you continue to treat "weight" as being synonymous with word or character counts? Some arguments are simply more difficult to express than others; and do all debates involve the same number of arguments on each side? You seem to be treating English like a set of mathematical equations or statements from a programming language, where it may well be possible to produce statements or equations with an equal number of arguments and a similar number of symbols on both sides. I don't think reliance on such an approach with respect to the English language is going to help to ensure that debates are fairly represented on Wikipedia. In my opinion, it's more likely to result in comprehensive representation of weaker sides of debates at the expense of the other side(s), and that wouldn't be neutral would it? Beejaypii (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Beejaypii.

Firstly, if it is not obvious that "points" (or word with similar meaning) means "points at which Sorrells et al. measured", then we need to address this problem elsewhere in the paragraph. There are other references in the paragraph, such as "the five penile areas" and "their position 3". Personally, I think that the meaning is clear in the paragraph, but if this is not the case, then surely it needs to be addressed throughout the paragraph. Wouldn't you agree?

Secondly, I agree that the W&M quotes begin immediately after the Sorrells quote to which they relate. It would be nice if this were true of Young, too, but this isn't the case with either version. To (heavily) paraphrase: Sorrells say "there's a significant difference between the sensitivity of the foreskin and that of tissue elsewhere", W&M say "no there isn't", and then Young says "the surface area of the foreskin is greater". The surface area may or may not be a valid concern, but why it is relevant to the statistical significance of the purported sensitivity difference is less than obvious, to say the least. It would be more logical to include Young's Bonferroni comment instead: Sorrells say "there's a significant difference between the foreskin and elsewhere", W&M say "no there isn't, a Bonferroni correction shows that there is no significant difference whatsoever", and then Young says "a Bonferroni correction is inappropriate."

Thirdly, the choice to avoid the construction "circumcised scar tissue" was intentional, because the term is nonsensical. Terms of the form "circumcised X" usually mean "an X that has now been circumcised", as in "circumcised penis" or, sometimes, "circumcised foreskin". The scar tissue to which Young refers did not exist prior to circumcision, so one cannot refer to it as "circumcised". What Young means is something closer to "scar tissue attributable to circumcision". Reading the paragraph again, we could possibly remove the parenthetical comment altogether; it doesn't seem critical to Young's point.

Finally, yes, the two W&M quotes are indeed reproduced verbatim. These constitute a total of 19 words. In my version (which you've kindly quoted above), there are two Young quotes, also reproduced faithfully, with a total of 20 words. But I don't think that the problem is interpretation, as such. To my mind, the problem is that both versions are trying to incorporate too much detail. It is logical to include Young's Bonferroni comment, since it is directly related to the preceding W&M text. But the problem is inclusion of the surface area comment, which has no obvious relationship to the other material. Jakew (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to address the "points at which Sorrells measured" issue elsewhere in the paragraph exactly? I don't see why this is necessary.

Of course the surface area and circumcision scar information is relevant. This is the subsection about foreskin sensitivity. The paragraph begins with references to Sorrels et al. and their findings that a large area of the foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis. Information from Waskett and Morris is then referenced, challenging the statistical findings. Then, information from Young is provided which opposes Waskett and Morris by both: challenging their methodology, and drawing attention to a feature of the Sorrels data - the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis was found to be circumcision scar tissue (a small area), and the most sensitive part of the intact penis was a significantly larger area of the foreskin. This is significant information in this debate, and we should provide this information to the reader in order for the reader to draw their conclusions. They may conclude, for example, that the circumcision scar tissue represents the remnants of the foreskin and, therefore, if this part of the circumcised penis was found to be the most sensitive, which the data suggests is so, then this implies that the intact penis is generally more sensitive than the circumcised penis. Conversely, the reader may conclude, for example, that the Bonferroni correction is applicable, that the circumcision scar tissue does not represent the remnants of the foreskin, and that Waskett and Morris make a valid point. However, you shouldn't be trying to deny the reader information pertaining to one side of the debate by insisting that the debate is framed only in the restricted terms in which one secondary source, Waskett and Morris, which you co-authored, has framed it.

Which leads me nicely to my final point: why have you ignored the questions I raise about your approach to issues of relative weight? Beejaypii (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Beejaypii, as I explained previously, there are other references to "points" (or similar terms) elsewhere in the paragraph. You appear to be arguing that, in the case of Young, it is insufficiently clear what is meant by "points". The obvious question, then, is whether this is true of the other references to points, and whether this lack of clarity needs to be fixed. Alternatively, perhaps there is something special about the Young reference, making only that one unclear?

The framing of the issue is actually due to Sorrells, not W&M, since Sorrells initially stated: "Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis." This claim was included in the article before publication of W&M; since publication of W&M the article also includes some of W&M's criticism and, later, Young's response. There are, however, at least two relevant arguments raised in W&M that are not discussed in the article. These include Sorrells' selection of participants, which potentially introduced bias, and the fundamental limitation of their methodology in that they measured only light-touch detection. I consider this to be important information, but it's inevitable when summarising a document that information will be excluded, and this has to be accepted. The fact that an argument has been made does not necessarily mean that it must be made in Wikipedia as well. The important question is, what's the most critical information? It would seem difficult to include these points without increasing the effective weight given to W&M. Similarly, it seems difficult to include Young's surface area arguments, particularly if we cannot agree on a way of summarising the argument more concisely. As you acknowledge, we do already begin the paragraph by quoting Sorrells' conclusions.

I've ignored your questions about my approach to relative weight because they seem unconstructive. Yes, word counts, etc., are not perfect as a measure of weight, but as a rough approximation they work fairly well. That is, if we dedicate twice the number of words to X than Y, it seems likely that many or even most readers will perceive that as giving more weight to X. More importantly, though, they are reasonably objective and verifiable, and in a collaborative editing environment purely subjective assessment of weight doesn't work very well. Hence it seems a little pointless to criticise an objective measure without suggesting something better. Jakew (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining my partial revert: I'm not quite sure, but I think the statement was not supported by the source. I think Waskett and Morris were arguing that the data did not establish a certain result for more than one point, not that the data established an opposite result for all but one point. In other words, I think they were arguing that the data didn't give us much information; they were not arguing that the data showed certain definite results about relative sensitivity for all the points measured (or for all points on the foreskin, whether measured specifically in the study or not?) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here Coppertwig. As far as I can see, it was supported by the source, and I've therefore reverted your partial revert. I'll have more to say about my previous edit shortly. Beejaypii (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the revert. I've just re-read the source (Waskett and Morris) and am quite sure it doesn't claim that. Maybe there's more than one way to interpret the words you've added, and you mean something different from what I see it as claiming? In that case, it should be reworded to be clear and unambiguous to all readers.

Waskett and Morris are claiming that when Sorrells' data is analysed properly, no statistically significant differences are found; and that only for one point is there a statistically significant difference before applying the Bonferroni correction. But you're stating "This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that Sorrells' data show that only one position on the foreskin is more sensitive than the most sensitive position on the circumcised penis". You're claiming that Waskett and Morris are saying, for example, that:

• Sorrells' data shows that point A on the foreskin is less sensitive than the most sensitive position on the circumcised penis, and that
• Sorrells' data shows that point B on the foreskin is less sensitive than the most sensitive position on the circumcised penis, and that
• Sorrells' data shows that point C on the foreskin is less sensitive than the most sensitive position on the circumcised penis, etc.

In other words, as I see it, you're stating that Waskett and Morris are claiming that Sorrells' data establishes a number of facts in a statistically significant manner. This is almost the opposite of what Waskett and Morris actually argue; that is, they argue that the data do not establish facts.

I think mentioning what Waskett and Morris said about one point on the foreskin is not a good summary of Waskett and Morris, since they later dismiss that result as invalid anyway (by using the Bonferroni correction). I think a better summary of Waskett and Morris is as follows:

"This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that when Sorrells' data is analysed properly, no significant differences are found; that light touch is only one form of sensitivity, and that sexual pleasure may sometimes require less sensitivity. They also criticized Sorrells' recruitment methods."

The wording of Young can include something like "and criticize Waskett and Morris' use of the Bonferroni correction"; there may be no need to specifically mention the Bonferroni correction before this.

Beejaypii, please re-revert your edit. I see no urgent need for that edit. When someone states (as I did)^{(19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC))} that something in the article is incorrect, please don't re-instate the allegedly incorrect information until after a reasonable amount of discussion. What do you see the words as meaning? Do you think Waskett and Morris are arguing that the data establish some facts about the relative sensitivity? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakew, when I referred to the framing of the debate I was referring to the debate about the validity of Sorrels' data and methodology, not the whole comparative foreskin/circumcised penis debate, though I can understand your interpretation of that my part of my prose.

You refer to aspects of the W & M letter which you argue are relevant to the debate but not represented. The same could be claimed of the Young letter, with its reference to the miscounting of some of the points Sorrels' measured in W & M, and its reference to the removal of the major source of difference between the circumcised and the uncircumcised penis in W & M.

As you've probably seen, I've now created, with this edit, a new version of the W & M vs Young portion of the relevant paragraph. I've deliberately avoided direct quotes from either source in this new version. This seems to be in keeping with the following from WP:UNDUE:

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

I disagree that "many or most readers" will perceive disparities in the amount of text attributed to a source as disparities in weight. You seem to assume that readers, and perhaps even a majority, don't read and evaluate contiguous and oppositional parts of articles intelligently. I, on the other hand, assume a reasonable degree of intelligence and wish to see articles which are primarily, and inclusively, informative; rather than primarily, and superficially, balanced in accordance with character and word counts.

Finally, I think your suggestion of a lack of constructivity is interesting, bearing in mind that you initially provoked this debate by simply removing the whole of the Young quote without making any attempt to re-phrase it; with this edit. Beejaypii (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I'm currently considering your response above. However, let me explain what's happened here. Your edit summary includes the phrase "I think the statement was not supported by the source", suggesting to me that you weren't sure and reverted anyway. Furthermore, you said "see talk" before you'd actually added anything to talk, and without specifying that you planned to add anything, and I happened to check talk before you'd added anything. Unfortunately, upon seeing no addition to talk by yourself, I interpreted "see talk" as meaning "see the related discussion which has already taken place on talk". Beejaypii (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see! That was very understandable, then. I apologize: my statement "as I did" was incorrect at that time, I think, and I've struck it out. And maybe it wasn't a good idea for me to say "see talk" when I meant a comment I hadn't posted yet. Probably I thought I would post it very quickly, but then it took me longer to write it than I thought. Now I've had something to eat too, so I may be able to focus a little better. :-)

Anyway, now that I've re-read the source and I'm saying that I definitely believe that your edit creates a version that says something that is not supported by the source, I would appreciate it if you would revert your edit until there's been a reasonable amount of discussion about it. See WP:BRD. I suggest, for example, waiting 24 hours for Jakew to comment. I assume you're still planning to reply to what I said above about the edit.

You seem to assume that Jakew is making some assumptions that I don't think Jakew is making (about intelligence level of readers, etc.). I agree with Jakew that it's not useful to criticize a method of comparing relative weight unless you suggest an alternative method, and as far as I understand your comments, you don't seem to have suggested any alternative method. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your revert and for saying "very reasonably". I look forward to seeing your response. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Beejaypii in that you cannot treat the english language like a word equation for balance and weight, to do so would effectively be saying all concepts have the same amount of words and letters. You want an alternative method? There is no exact scientific method to measure a concepts weight because "you cannot treat the english language like a word equation for balance and weight". Garycompugeek (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I've not had time since my last contribution to continue this debate; and I don't have much time just now. Very briefly, I will say that I understand your opposition to my summary (I think part of it can be interpreted in a way I didn't intend), and I think your suggested alternative is an improvement. However, I don't think your use of the word properly is neutral in the phrase "who argue that when Sorrells' data is analysed properly, no significant differences are found". I think a better version of that phrase would be something like "who criticize Sorrels' analysis of the data, arguing that their own analysis shows no significant differences." Beejaypii (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I put in basically the wording I suggested above, but edited so as not to use the word "properly". I also edited the wording about Young. See what you think of it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, you've edited the wrong section. We've been discussing the foreskin sensitivity subsection, but you've edited the glans sensitivity subsection. Beejaypii (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And, having had another look, I don't agree with your Young summary. Both you and Jakew seem to be avoiding including, or avoiding clearly including, Young's observation that Sorrells' data suggest the circumcision scar tissue is the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis. Beejaypii (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was the edit intentionally made to the "glans sensitivity" section? I think it would have been a real improvement to the "foreskin sensitivity" section, but some of the material seems misplaced in the "glans" section. For example, the reference to the Bonferroni correction is puzzling. We (W&M) used the Bonferroni correction when evaluating the between-different-points comparison p values in Sorrells' Table, and as such it had an impact upon Sorrells' claim that the foreskin was more sensitive than other points. However, because Sorrells et al. had not published the between-same-points comparison p-values, we presented these data in our own Table, in which no statistically significant differences were apparent. I think it is misleading to suggest that Young's claim re the Bonferroni correction applies to these data, since we had not used it for the result presented in this section. Jakew (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick observation. Young, in my opinion makes two points: that the Bonferroni correction had been misapplied by Waskett and Morris, and that there was a difference in the amount of sensitive tissue in the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. As I read it, Waskett and Morris argue two things that stood out for me: the difference in sensitivity is not significant once Bonferroni's correction is applied. They also argue that the touch test was inappropriate because it could not measure sexual pleasure.I agree that summarising their opinions is a difficult job! Michael Glass (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Beejaypii and Jakew: I had edited the wrong section. I had forgotten that the same sources are discussed in more than one section. I remember while I was editing, something peculiar seemed to be going on. Well, now that that's been pointed out, I or someone else might want to re-edit both sections, since I'm not sure if all the points I included belong in that section or not.

I re-added the information about the scar tissue being the most sensitive, but I'm not sure whether I agree with including it or not. I would have to re-read the sources to decide.

Thanks for your comments, Michael Glass. Of the four points you mention, I think the only one left out of the current version is that there was a difference in the amount of sensitive tissue in the circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Perhaps this could be re-added; although I would worry about making the part about Young too long. I know some editors don't consider length to be a measure of weight, but in my opinion it makes sense not to devote too much space to these sources. On the other hand, the way I've summarised Young seems to me in effect to mention some of Waskett and Morris' arguments, so not all that wording counts towards giving weight to Young in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. In your new Young summary, the reference to "recruitment via an anti-circumcision website newsletter" is out of context. The part of the W & M letter which Young is responding to with "The Waskett and Morris critique of the selection process in misplaced" is their third paragraph, which does criticize Sorrels' own recruitment methods (though, actually, it does not criticize them so much as simply describe them). However, when W & M refer to recruitment via an anti-circumcision website newsletter, they are only criticizing the recruitment methods used by a supporting source referenced by Sorrels et al. - O'Hara and O'Hara, The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Beejaypii (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)