1822:...twenty-four years after the first AAP task force report on circumcision and a decade after the 1989 report, the AAP still could not authoritatively cite a complication rate for circumcision. The task force once again provided an estimated complication rate of 0.2% to 0.6%, citing the figures obtained by Harkavy and Gee & Ansell.171 First, the AAP again avoided or missed the fact that the Gee and Ansell study had already discounted the occurrence of what were considered minor (but signficant beyond the normal tissue trauma to warrant intervention and recording) complications.172 Second, following the AAP report's lead, the 1999 AAP report ignored the 4% immediate complication rate and the 13% late complication rate, published in the 1993 Metcalf article.173 the task force failed to take seriously the phenomena of surgical corrections of circumcision such as that which led to Dustin Evan's Jr.'s death in October of 1998, terming them "isolated case reports" and failing to list death as a possible outcome.174 Finally, the 1999 task force completely ignored a comprehensive 1993 review of estimates for circumcision's complication rates authored by British researcher's N. Williams and L. Kapila.175 If the AAP task force had found the study's conclusion that "realistic figure is 2-10 percent"176 was flawed, it should have at least cited the study and provided reasons for not crediting it.
915:
tag), obviously we don't have enough "easily" offended readers for that fate to be happening. There can be legitimate reasons for offense rather then oneās personal beliefs: would you casually browse pornography on an educational facilities computer? What if you had no prior knowledge that a said link would take you to an image that could get you in trouble with the schools authorities?, I guess you could claim ignorance "hey I was just looking it up cause I didn't know what it meant" but now you look stupid and to those that don't beleive you, you look like a pervert. But hey maybe your right, its not our problem: there is already a disclaimer about how wiki articles can be factually inaccurate or bias, why do we need NPOV tags? --
1807:
but this was before provincial medical associations began lobbying urgently in anglophone Canada for the practice to be abandoned: by 1980, when this began to be of minor interest to me because I was myself reproducing, the urgency to desist from circumcision was fairly considerable on the part of medical personnel. Obviously my personal observation has no relevance in terms of documented statistics, but I would seriously challenge accuracy of the 48% of 1970 ā whether it means the rate of circumcision of newborns or the incidence in the general population ā as persisting into the 80s and beyond.
132:. A citation is a link to something that someone else has said. It turns out that when we at Knowledge provide a link to something that someone else has said, our readers can sometimes use something called the "internet" to "click" on the link and read what we have cited. This is why it's really important that when we cite some third party source, and we describe what they say, we do so accurately, so that our readers don't get the impression that Knowledge is full of things I like to call "lies" or "things we just made up because we felt like it."
1662:"Circumcision since 1950," "The infant circumcision rate in Canada has fallen from roughly 50% in the 1970s to 13.9% in 2003. However, the figures varied from 29.5% on Prince Edward Island to zero in Newfoundland and Labrador." Would someone more familiar than I with the literature (and the proper weight to be given to various sources) care to deal with this anomaly? Conceivably the contradiction arises from an ambiguity as to the incidence in the population at large versus the rate of circumcisions being performed on infants nowadays.
1920:
Giannetti says in his conclusion that "he AAP has failed to classify circumcision as experimental or cosmetic and to inform parents of the full and true nature of this procedure." Which is true--most doctors do not spend much time to the parents of what circumcision is, how it is performed, what are the risks/benefits, etc. So the retoric question must be ask: if doctors are supposed to have the "well-being for all infants" then why are the doctors permiting that infants be circumcised?
31:
2992:
attempt to alter esthetics or sexuality. Circumcision and frenectomy remain the most common surgical procedures performed on young males, predominately members of the Muslim and Jewish faiths, but also the majority of
Americans, South Koreans and Filipinos. The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs finds "parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns."
2254:...and I am NOT talking about the content or point of view. The article is a confused, unreadable mess. In large part, that's due to TipPt's recent misbehavior, but certainly not entirely. Here are some of the things I suggest be done to clean the article up. I am very carefully making "value neutral" suggestions that have nothing to do with the underlying content but everything to do with the structure and organization.
2453:. In general, "many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived," āthe presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions," and in one study, "nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son."
3003:. In general, "many parents' decisions about circumcision are preconceived," the presentation of medical information on the potential advantages and disadvantages of circumcision had little influence on parents' decisions," and in one study, "nearly half of those physicians performing circumcisions did not discuss the potential medical risks and benefits of elective circumcision prior to delivery of the infant son."
849:
788:
2197:] The British Medical Association states "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.ā They also state that "parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
2195:] The results have mostly shown neither cost savings nor improved longevity to the practice of neonatal circumcision, and have formed the basis of public health policies. The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) said the medical benefits of circumcision are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, but that it should be the decision of informed parents.
874:
that while someone might conceivably be offended by radishes, that (assuming that it occurs at all) is an individual matter, or perhaps of an individual culture. Like genitals, there is nothing inherently objectionable about them, and if we add warnings to everything that someone might conceivably be offended by, we will have little but warnings in this encyclopaedia.
3208:
conversion, if we aren't going to remove the pictures to avoid offending people, why would we reduce their quality? Why not replace them with animated GIF sketches done in paint that switch between all of the colors? Where do we stop? We don't do these things because we don't compromise the quality of the article to avoid offending those who are easily offended.
1605:"This article" is about complications. We have valid cites finding meatal stenosis, and valid cited finding meatodomy as curative. Meatodomy is a complication of circs (until doctors, possibly reading Wiki, learn new techniques) and the topic is complications. You are free (encouraged!) to add benefits that directly flow from a specific benefit of circ's.
951:. I don't think any reader has a legitimate reason to complain about being offended by any particular image, assuming the image meets standards of notability and copyright. This is an encyclopedia for grown-ups. If a child reads it, and its parents complain, then that child should be better supervised. It's not our problem.
3313:
In a word, preposterous. This article is already huge. It's longer than is considered preferable by article size. Merging it with
Circumcision advocacy is unneccessary. I'd say both issues are notable enough to deserve seperate articles. I don't see how making this article any larger will help.
3100:
Hmm. While I don't really care one way or the other, I don't necessarily think it's safe to assume the picture was added for the reasons you suspect. The article on toplessness, for instance, has multiple pictures of both men and women with bare chests. As a matter of fact, I'm very surprised that
2456:
In two studies, strong parental cultural expectations clash with deliberate informed consent, and āa significant number of parents in the studies mentioned expressed animosity toward the care provider.ā Discord arises from the implication that parental desire to circumcise involves āundue risksā and
783:
I was wondering if a warning can be place on top of the page, something not to blatant but that describes that gratuities images are present on this page. Iām not asking for censorship (god forbid anyone censors anything on wikipedia) rather all I ask for is just a small, fair and specific warning on
752:
The idea of "prophylactic circumcisions" indicates a pro-circumcision POV. There is a very broad consensus in the international medical community that there is no NET medical benefit from circumcising healthy boys. Only a few pro-circumcision activists still discuss circumcision of healthy children
156:
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the
3468:
Almost
Nothing can be concluded without doubt, the information is worthy of remaining on the article, though again the protection it provides (if any) is minimal, the risk of infection are bad even if you are circumcised, if you want well verified protection, cut or not, your going to have to were a
3006:
In two studies, strong parental cultural expectations clash with deliberate informed consent, and āa significant number of parents in the studies mentioned expressed animosity toward the care provider.ā Discord arises from the implication that parental desire to circumcise involves āundue risksā and
1806:
Well indeed, that was what I was getting at. The statement is curious. In the context of the paragraph it suggests that as of 1970 48% of newborns were being circumcised nation-wide, yes. It seems consistent with the general perception that francophone and maritime Canada never took up circumcision;
1494:
Your "third" sentence doesn't make sense. We writing about risks of circs, which includes meatal stenosis. If a boy gets that complication, the result is the standard treatment ... meatodomy. We actually should describe common treatments, since they give the reader objective measures of the costs
1405:
Second, your right about "common" versus "definitive" IF you assume the medical community takes note of the new research. Meatodomy is still taught in medical school as the curative for meatal stenosis ... just like circumcisions are still performed for phimosis, and just like (for 10 - 15 years!!)
1364:
Note that meatotomy (since that's what almost all doctors will currently do to treat meatal stenosis) becomes a complication of circumcision. Consider what you do Jakew ... a young man suffers from (generally painful) meatal stenosis and goes to the doctor ... having looked at Wiki to see what's up
762:
The
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia says, "Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer
426:
Note, jakew, that if you insist on saying "benefits and risks" instead of just "risks" in the risk article, I should include the full BMA statement (including the sentence "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven") āThe preceding unsigned comment was added
3496:
I studied male suicide bombers and found out that almost 99% of them were circumcised. I can't explain how this happen, but I can make up an hypothesis. The same happens with the HIV infection risk reduction rate, therefore my statement that circumcision increases the likelyhood of the "patient" to
3226:
What makes you think that the photos are "caucasian"? The one that was recently replaced by the current photo number 2 (and which I for my part considered demonstrated more clearly the structure of an uncircumcised penis) was that of a
Chinese man. Curiously, it appears to have been replaced on the
3158:
How do you envision crossing that bridge when we come to it? Someone complains that there are only images of caucasian penises, so the solution is. . . change them to greyscale! The original objector might rightly object that we then just have images of greyscale caucasian penises. If we convert
3042:
One might look at the talk between Jakew and I regarding listing medical beneifits (in great detail) TWICE ... at Jakew's insistance. Broken promises. Double representation of US assoc statements. Improper deletion of BMA statments (relating to the double US). Now this slash, leaving the reader
3025:
The
American Academy of Pediatrics states "In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. ... It is legitimate for parents to take
3021:
The
British Medical Association states "The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks.ā They also state that "parental preference alone is not
2824:
lists a large number of problems and proposed action items. You might want to read it before you comment further. Incidentally, as long as we're asking for specifics, can you please identify which text you believe fails to conform to NPOV? Please remember that is an abuse of the {{POV}} template
2775:
It may well be that your incivility was unintentional, but it is still incivility. Likewise, saying "you endorse garbage" is not a huge improvement over "you wrote garbage". The solution is to focus on what you dislike, without using dismissive terminology. Words like "garbage" have little place
1875:
It is well written, accurate, and well cited. The AAP statement is not. The panel was composed of doctors (long out of medical school)not researchers. The panel was under pressure from pro and anti circ factions, as well as influenced by financial, political (re: angry parents if told that circs
1661:
There appears to be a radical inconsistency in the article. Under the heading, "Aesthetics," "In Canada, the infant circumcision rate is about 50%." It appears to have been reverted several times from previous editor's statement that it is much lower than this. On the other hand, under the heading
1069:
Because they make a recommendation that both are discussed. They are inseparable. Quoting one but not the other changes the meaning, like changing "recommend that you extinguish naked flames and turn off electricity if you smell gas" to "recommend that you turn off electricity if you smell gas". In
904:
What that results in is a
Knowledge that spends all its time bending over backwards for the most thin-skinned and easily offended amongst its readers. It's not really a reasonable standard to try to attain, because no matter how much we do, there can always be someone who comes along and claims to
1773:
And moreover, the wording is ambiguous. "~48% of males are circumcised" could mean that in 1970 48% of infants were being circumcised, or it could mean that 48% of the male population at large were circumcised. Doesn't really matter how authoritative the source if the statement itself is open to a
1124:
gives a 95% confidence interval of 9.0% to 15.2% for 16-19 year olds. Taking the low end of that range, there's roughly a 2:1 (5.9:3.1) ratio of medical to religious circumcisions. At the high end, it's roughly 4:1 (12.1:3.1). I was incorrect when I said 'almost all', but this is a clear majority.
914:
I think we can put a threshold on how low the offense goes to warrant action, say for one it would take multiple editors to agree on such action. Your argument is again a slippery slope, if we bended backwards as such we would have a NPOV tag above every article (not to mention every other kind of
873:
article ("This article contains pictures of root vegetables; discuss any edits to the images before editing"). How would you, as a reader, take that? Would it not imply that
Knowledge, somewhat bizarrely, feels that there is something troubling - even offensive - about root vegetables? My point is
687:
There is a difference between circumcisions that are done because there is a valid medical indication, i.e. there is a medical condition present that requires surgery for treatment, and circumcisions that are done because the parents believe there are "health reasons". The number of circumcisions
3449:
He doesn't think that we should mention the studies which suggest that circumcised men have a reduced risk of being infected with HIV. As long as these studies are mentioned in a NPOV manner, it's fine to mention them in this article. The way scientists demonstrate causation is through controlled
3289:
Masalai, I don't think that's inflammation you're seeing. That reddish ring around the penis, well below the glans, is simply a circumcision scar. Some circumcision scars are broader than others, depending on how neat a job was done. The orange aspect is simply poor color balance in the image,
3236:
lol. i don't like the look of the circ'd penis either (no offence to the own of that penis), but its a fair example of a circ'd penis. Likewise the uncirced is a fair example of an uncirced. Anyway, to the point, i don't think its racist or unreasonable to leave both pictures as they are and save
3119:
The counter-argument is, why black and white? Why not
Hispanic and white? We don't want Knowledge to get into the situation where we judge something's inclusion based on the percentage of that ethnicity in the populace. And then even if we do pander to the race issue, we're never going to make
2863:
Why don't you read the full version intro, and try to find more than one (there's one left in your slashed version) of the textbook citations? How about trying to find this study quote: Discord arises from the implication that parental desire to circumcise involves āundue risksā and and provides
2835:
TipTp already answered this, but I'll clarify. The biggest problem isn't with the phrasing of what's in the article, but with the absence of information that might put circumcision in a more negative light. For example, in removing the quote-heaviness from the intro, you removed a lot of quotes
1089:
Jake wrote, "In the UK and much of Europe, almost all circumcisions are performed for medical reasons." That is not accurate. In the Europe almost all circumcisions of children are done because the parents are Muslim or Jewish. In Europe circumcisions that are done to treat an existing medical
946:
I'm sorry, Ben. I should have been more clear. My failure to respond to you was impolite. I've been rather busy, I've also had a computer crash recently which I'm still recovering from. I didn't mean to imply by my silence that I had conceded my position. I still believe we should not have a
817:
handles all need for such warnings, and there is no requirement or onus upon editors to include any warnings whatsoever. On the other hand, such warnings could be interpreted as implicit support of the concept that such images are objectionable. Having considered this, I side with those who are
3089:
What purpose does the 3rd picture serve? We already have one of a clipped, unclipped, erect, not erect penis! What new information does the 3rd picture provide? Honestly I wonder if some people out of drooling perverted exhibitionism post nude pictures of them selves here, great way to chat with
2433:
The practice of circumcision predates recorded human history, with depictions found in stone-age cave drawings and Egyptian tombs. The origins of the practice include ritual sacrifice, offering, or sign of submission to a deity, a rite of passage to adulthood, a mark of defeat or slavery, or an
1998:
You are wrong about what most US doctors think about circs. They think it's a low risk low benefit surgery, that probably shouldn't be done given that chance of sexual or serious complications. But they take a neutral stance because of the animosity generated if they delve into the risks. Let
1919:
I do understand you saying that "a law student is not a reliable source", but I believe what Matthew R. Giannetti is trying to say is that the AAP did not uphold their philosophy in the past by caring for the "well-being for all infants" due to the fact that there was infant circumcision, and as
1916:"The mission of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to attain optimal physical, mental and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents and young adults." That is the mission of the AAP. Jakew, I have read over your writing and the research done by the cited website.
1893:
As for typos and quality of writing, I can only assume you're joking. Look at the article you cite. "1993 Metcalf article.173 ***t***he task force" ('T' should be upper case) "Dustin Evan***'***s Jr.'s death" (Misplaced apostrophe - correct name is Evans, not Evan) "British researcher***'***s N.
1377:
Ok, I've updated the article with part of that text. I've left out the last sentence, though, because a) it's POV, and b) the scope of the article is circumcision, not treatment of meatal stenosis. Using the word 'common' rather than 'definitive' would fix the first problem, but the latter would
191:
Here's what it becomes: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that parents should be informed about the potential benefits and risks of the procedure. The British Medical Association states āThe medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now
3569:
I wouldn't know about that, LW. I haven't studied the case in point, so it would be a mistake for me to speak on something I'm ignorant about. I wasn't aware anon 201.etc was making a comparison to an existing claim in the article. In that case, his insistence on including nonsense is merely
2991:
The practice of circumcision predates recorded human history, with depictions found in stone-age cave drawings and Egyptian tombs. The origins of the practice include ritual sacrifice, offering, or sign of submission to a deity, a rite of passage to adulthood, a mark of defeat or slavery, or an
2341:
in the way the above-named sections are. The "See also" section is a bit muddied -- surely we have a style guide on making that a bit more useful. My instinct says its silly to say "see also" if you've linked to the "also" in the text -- use "See also" for relevant bits that for one reason or
516:
Regardless, it does not belong in the introduction, because a) it is specific information about one of the 192+ countries in the world, b) the evidence is conflicting and introductions should be straightforward, and c) it is better discussed elsewhere in the article, such as in the 'since 1950'
1945:
The obvious answer is that, having reviewed the evidence, they find that parents are best suited to determine what is in the best interests of the child (in other words, to maximise his well-being). It is quite apparent that Giannetti's opinion is that the best interests of the child is not to
1219:
Tip, while I do see some bias here, I'm not sure that filing an RfC makes sense while an RfM is still floating around. On a purely procedural basis, they may require one to finish before the other starts. As for personal attacks, Jake, he called you clever, which is usually a compliment, and
3632:
What is wrong with random trials? You are aware of observational bias, right? My understanding is that randomization in studies is necessary to prevent observational and other kinds of bias in the judging of results. In general, if you have a point to make, how about you make it instead of
3207:
I completely disagree with converting the images to grayscale. Yet again, we are back to worrying about offending people. If you want the article to have more than just caucasian penises, go ahead and get some CC licensed pictures and we can increase our ethnic diversity. As to the grayscale
1586:
That would be generally true, but in this case, meatodomy is the standard treatment. Basically, circs can result in meatodomy treatments. It the only reason boys are given the surgery. There is no question about the nature of the cure (versus UTI's where the treatment and results are more
1992:
Here's an example of AAFP quality ... "while another(11) states there are no well-controlled cohortrelated studies to document their relationship." The actual cite is different (relation is said oddly twice), cohortrelated is cohort related, and "relationship" is actually "relation" in the
1109:
Jakew, out of curiosity: what is the margin of error for those surveys? I'm assuming that the margins of error are included in the published texts, as is customary. I'd say if it's 5% or greater, the difference between the percentages becomes to slim to support the phrase "almost all".
2184:. Largely these have computed the average net lifetime health and financial results of circumcision. The complications morbidity is compared to the potential gain in expected longevity, and the medical costs of circumcision are compared to the expected reduction in lifetime health costs.
1853:
The fact remains that the AAP are a reliable source, and the fact that some law student disagrees with their assessment of the evidence is neither here nor there. He's not an authority on the matter. It's not even published in a medical journal, in which it could be judged by medical
1904:
Elective non-therapeutic circumcision of children is as much a legal and ethical issue as it is a medical issue. Professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States all say there is no medical indication for circumcision of healthy boys. --
542:
finding "health reasons" 39.6% of the time. Stronger "Reasons Given for Decision" included "Mother's choice" at 59.7% or "Father's choice" at 49,7%. The questions that pick up ritual were "So child looks like father," "So child looks like his brothers, "So child looks like other
1564:... and I respect it's true application. But costs and benefits can, and should, be quantified. An objective measure of the UTI "benefit" is the difficulty of the cure. An objective measure of a complication is it's ramifications (meatodomy). The reader gains from perspective.
512:
This is now self-contradictory. Either "Parental decisions regarding circumcision are dominated by cultural ritual considerations" is true or "The most important reason to circumcise or not circumcise the child was health reasons" is true. It is impossible for them both to be
186:
Here's the deal I may have struck with Jakew ... either we both get to address benefits (he using the AAP and I using the BMA ... which sheds doubt on the benefits) or neither do. The latter is best, so I remove "benefits" from risk article text. Or we do it your way, but
3062:
If you can find an appropriate place in the body of the article to put such material, without duplicating or repeating material that is already there, I encourage you to do so. Making the introduction be clumsy and overweight, however, is not an acceptable alternative.
1119:
The 3.1% figure comes from UK census data, which is (in theory) a 100% sample, and is generally believed to be accurate. As for the other figure, it's my own summary of several studies. Unfortunately, I don't have the full text of all of them to hand, only summaries.
3101:
we haven't had someone in here yet accusing us of racism for only having pictures of white penises. Eventually we will, and they won't be happy until we have seven pairs of pics representing every possible color they come in... sigh. Can't please everyone. :P
1347:]. The AAFP statesĀ : āOne author(10) reports that meatitis, meatal ulcer and consequent stenosis occur in an estimated 8 to 31 percent of circumcised infants, while another(11) states there are no well-controlled cohort related studies to document their relation.ā
1220:
obsessed, which may well be a value-neutral reference to your track record of editing only circumcision-related articles. In short, while his word choice could be improved, it's not clear that he intended any insult. Perhaps this would be a good place for you to
3541:
That's precisely the point. The fact that circumcision is (negatively) correlated with AIDS does not imply that circumcision has any causative influence on contraction of AIDS. The article contains "a well-known logical fallacy." Isn't that a bit concerning?
2889:
I see no reason why these should not be included in the appropriate sections, but the purpose of an introduction is to introduce the subject, for goodness' sake! It's for simple, uncontroversial facts. Going into mind-boggling detail makes it worse, not better.
1512:
For example, I personally discount the UTI benefit because I've had a couple UTI's ... like a few sore throats ... that required antibiotics ... that still work very well ... so I do not consider them a significant health problem. The reader gains from honest
1676:, while the other does not. From the AAP's policy statement (which is a RS), we have "In Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised.". On the other hand, we have an anti-circumcision activist site (courtchallenge.com, which is not a RS) telling us the latter rates.
157:
child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.
2434:
attempt to alter esthetics or sexuality. Circumcision and frenectomy remain the most common surgical procedures performed on young males, predominately members of the Muslim and Jewish faiths, but also the majority of Americans, South Koreans and Filipinos.
2885:
I think a better question is this: why do we need to have information about how US parents reacted twenty years ago to then-current information in the introduction? Why do we need to have conflicting and contradictory views from medical organisations in the
1734:
I'll try to remember to come back to the issue if I find it again. It doesn't really matter, since the quote ... 48% ... sounds about right for all males. "In Canada, the infant circumcision rate is about 50%" ... should be removed until we find the true
1406:
peptic ulcers were "treated" with Tagamet instead of following research finding bacterial causation and treatment with antibiotics. In addition, you'll note that diliation doesn't always work, leaving meatodomy as "definitive." Therefore, you are wrong.
2737:
First of all, it's not any one person's version. TipPt didn't write that introduction all by himself. Its garbage nature is the fault of many editors, and the constant back-and-forth over various issues. I have no doubt that I contributed to the mess
1139:
As in the US, most circs are done as "cultural ritural" in the UK. Just in the UK, it's mostly upper middle class folks. Next come medical (as boys or adults), then come religious. "Health" reasons, are different from "medical" if there is no disease
1435:
Second, meatotomy is commonly performed for meatal stenosis. That's a fact. Arguably, this is unnecessary, since dilation could work just as well. We don't describe circumcision as the definitive treatment for phimosis, we only note that it is commonly
1233:
My goal in filing is to seek a wider audience for additional issues. I have not properly studied the Wiki procedures, and don't know much about RfM's. I do remember reading something about a "2 week" ... long past ... time frame, and assumed it had
3396:
Well there are theories on that (see article), of course itās a moot point because reduced chances of infection is not good protection, lets say circumcision cuts your chances in 1/2 or 1/3, but a condom cuts it to 1/40, I think I would go with the
2720:
only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain
160:
So basically, as near as I can tell, this is a case where an editor, because of his personal beliefs, has decided to link to a source while providing an abjectly dishonest summary of what that source says. This is completely unacceptable, and it
202:
The section is on risks, not benefits. The quote from the BMA can be cut down to remove irrelevant detail without misrepresenting their position. The AAP's recommendation, however, refers to both, and removing one misrepresents their position.
2503:
Idealy, the introduction paragraphs would be shorter, but linked to related articles within the Topic. Unfortunately, much of that stuff is junk. Regardless, the reader benefits from summary of historical context and current practice in the
2076:
Two different quotes from two different organisations. One recommends that physicians discuss benefits and risks. The other mentions the benefits and risks as part of an explanation as to why the academy is leaving the decision to parents.
329:
As with the American statement, risks are taken in context (with benefits). The BMA finds questionable benefits, and risks; The American both benefits and risks. Both perspectives help the reader understand the difficult nature of the
2225:
It's actually developing into a reasonably good partnership; Tippt introduces material that doesn't properly represent its sources, or presents it in a POV way, or is simply unsourced POV, and you pare it down to an NPOV presentation.
603:
The question asked for ONE answer from those choices listed. You present your cited facts, and I should be able (not blocked by you alone for pro-circ reasons) to present properly conducted research. Let the reader decide the better
1028:
I'm very curious as it is a direct quote from the source. This article already gives a great deal of undue weight to American opinions of the procedure. I'd say what it needs is more non-American material for balance, not less.
3339:
The first picture claims (in its Licensing section) to be a Knowledge screenshot, which it clearly is not. I'm not sure of the procedure for further investigation, but I thought I'd let someone over here know about it at least.
2836:
that are now no longer to be found in the article, thus slanting it. This is part of a long-term problem, now being dealt with in an RfM, in which material of this sort has a tendency to be removed. Oh, and need I remind you to
3559:
Two points: firstly, we accurately represent the conclusions in the papers that we cite. Secondly, the most recent study is a randomised controlled trial - a scientific experiment to see whether circumcision worked, and it did.
2681:
The whole point of Wiki is to inform the reader; your intro does a very poor job, and unfortunately critical content is missing from related articles. Please submit proposed articles before you delete valuable content from the
937:) and the little caution sign makes me, personally, think "page under construction". I've also moved the 2nd caution in this section so it appeared next to the cautioning word rather than someone elses comments (nit picking). --
2286:
The whole culture and religions section is out of control. Paring it down to a reasonable size is probably impossible at this point, so split it off into its own article. Then nuke it from this 55k monstrosity of an article.
1574:
I really don't think there's anything to be gained by discussing treatments for each of the conditions discussed. Such detail is better reserved for the articles on those particular subjects, which the reader can easily find.
974:. The overwhelming consensus is that Knowledge is not censored and it would be morally judgmental to place warning tags on certain articles but not others. We are in no position to judge what may be offensive to readers. The
3129:
Maybe I misread, but I thought he meant "black and white" as in "black and white film, the opposite of color film," the idea being that that would make it not-obvious what the background of the penis-owner is. But I dunno.
3591:
come about in this way. Objects on earth's day side are much warmer than objects on earth's night side. It would be a fallacy to use merely this datum to conclude that warmth derives from the sun, even though it's true.
375:
Again, it's you pro-circ guys that insist on citing "benefits" in the "risk" article, odd in itself, but biased when I try ... but fail because you guys delete it ... to include the full sentence from the British Medical
3701:
However, courts have ruled that the right of a parent to give valid, legal consent for a minor is limited to medical treatment. Other courts have also ruled that the removal of normal, healthy tissue does not constitute
2428:
First, here's what seems to be OK, except that "cultural ritual" (NOT "reasons" ... that's not the cite Nandesuka), "health" and "hygiene" must be in quotes because they are drawn directly from the survey questionares:
2789:
Alienus, I can't agree with your assessment. Civility means being civil to others, not towards the content of articles. Anyone who takes offense at criticism of an article that they have edited is missing the point of
253:
Could you please explain to me how the words "it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks" can be construed as pro-circ? I'm genuinely mystified.
3241:
stop someone objecting about racism, but i'm sure they were not put there with racist intent and they sure as hell will find something to object about if they really want to! (perhaps even this discussion?!?)--
886:
Well if editing to the radish image happens because of it's controverisal nature (or any preception there of by editors/viewers) then yes I would want to place such a tag. Rather then add tags to what everyone
3148:
Wouldn't it be better to cross that bridge when you come to it? If someone makes a reasonable objection to there only being a caucasian penis used as an example, then it would make sense to worry about that.
3017:
The American Academy of Family Physicians recommends that "physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn
2359:
The article is inaccurate without a pertinent introduction, which is not too long. You have removed valuable content, again without justification. If you hack still it down, leave all critical cited points.
2609:
Furthermore, it repeats that which is already stated further on in the article. Complex, citation-heavy information (especially that which is US-centric) does not belong in the introduction. Keep it simple.
2536:
The solution to "the related articles are junk" is "fix the related articles" not "stuff up the introductory paragraphs to this article with several thousand sentences on disjoint, barely related factoids."
3324:
I strongly agree. If anything, maybe we should be looking at splitting a few things off?!? Circumcision advocacy is an article in its own right, and there is already a link to it in the "see also" section--
2012:
Secondly, what point are you actually trying to make? It isn't an exact quote. Note the absence of quotation marks. The terms 'relation' and 'relationship' have essentially the same meaning in this context.
868:
I agree with Kasreyn. No warnings are necessary, and would imply that there is something objectionable about the images. To explain why, consider the hypothetical case of a similar warning appearing in the
498:
In two studies, strong parental cultural expectations clashed with deliberate informed consent, and āa significant number of parents in the studies mentioned expressed animosity toward the care provider.ā
1297:
Out of respect for other editors, and to ensure that editors can easily read discussion of articles that they are interested in, I don't discuss other articles except at the relevant article's talk page.
2364:
I doubt anyone can fix this Topic, judging by the behavior we ALL seem to use here ... It is quite unstable, so I have come to see Jakew's point of references (with respect to rewriting the whole thing).
3803:
The hardest problem is to pick just ONE issue. For now, I'll let it sit, while we deal with the RfM. I suspect that the recommendations that come out of that process will impact this article, as well.
3652:
I don't know why I'm trying to "argue". Lwizard already said what I tryed to say before. Ah I understand, it's there because it's "NPOV", it's "science", NPOVness and Scienceness nullifies fallacyness.
1959:
Obvious, but inconsistent. For parents to be best qualified, they would have to be fully informed of the risks and benefits. The complaint here is that doctors are failing to inform. Think about it.
1621:
I have no intention of listing treatment of the conditions against which circumcision is protective, for exactly the same reason that I oppose inclusion of this: it is beyond the scope of this article.
1154:
I've reverted Alienus' revert which, among other things, reintroduced some POV commentary about the BMA's statement, and inappropriately discussed the BMA's assessment of benefits in the risks section.
3733:. Please remember that placing templates like this on an article without identifying why you are doing so is vandalism. Feel free to use the space below to discuss the specific objections you have
1975:
is another criticism of the AAP's policy statement, this time from people who are qualified to evaluate medical evidence. They argue in the opposite direction: that the AAP's policy is too anti-circ.
1260:
I gather that the Wiki community is sick and tired of the endless circ topic problems. It's an example of Wiki gone wrong. I hope that if interesting issues are prominent, editors will take a look!
827:
Ya who ever sees that disclaimer at the BOTTOM of the page in very small text? Apparently not enough considering how often those images in the past got edited. Ok ok the warning can be more neutral:
2864:ālimited medical benefitā to their child. How about the AMA Council statements? How about the concept and application of cultural ritual? How about the BMA saying (note that was written in 2003)?
236:
The full BMA statement is one sentence. It is in context, pertinent, and balances the AAP statement. Cutting out half of that sentence, and leaving only the part you want (pro circ) misrepresents.
3506:
Find a reliable source that reaches the conclusion that circumcision causes, or might cause, suicide bombing, and you can include it in the article. In the meantime, please review our policies on
2668:
Actually, the material I removed was without reference to its point of view. Can you please specify what, exactly, in the article fails to conform with the NPOV policy? That would be a big help.
763:
supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."
3440:
Then how about saying it outright without trying to be so cute about it? Which "are more likely" statements in the article, in particular, do you feel are invalid, and why? Cut to the chase.
3178:
Agreed. It's a waste of time to try to prepare for future complaints. We have no way of knowing what sort of person will come here, or in what way they might be offended, until they say so.
3747:
Your repeated edit-warring to remove the POV tag is a sign of bad faith. You know that all of the circumcision articles are controversial, with some content considered POV by some people.
3587:, it would certainly be notable. Note that the fallacy only refers to when correlation is assumed, without any other evidence, to equal causation. Obviously, sometimes correlation really
2369:
It's best to leave it alone, making incremental changes. That is especially true given Nandesuka's recent actions. Who can be trusted to accurately condense and organize? So, far nobody.
1647:
Antiviral treatment for HIV is not immediately and perminantly damaging to the patient. Meatal stenosis is commonly treated with a meatodomy, which is immediately and perminantly damaging.
3646:. I don't understand how randomness can make anything "unbiased". I belive it makes the result random as well. If circumcision prevents HIV, why there are a lot of people with HIV in USA?
2486:
I will say this as bluntly as I can: no matter what the topic ā circumcision, knitting, flying kites, cute fluffy little kittens ā putting a paragraph that long, and that detailed, in the
2191:
1341:
1321:
2717:
2066:
Jakew ... In the third paragraph on the introduction, you keep stating American assoc statements twice ... that say basically the same thing. "However" is also improper. Please stop.
349:
on the subject don't really agree with your position, and sometimes actually contradict it. However, the solution is not to misrepresent the sources, but rather to try to find other
3610:
Science is defined by its willingness to disprove theories. Saying that scientists never admit they are wrong displays a complete lack of understanding of the practice of science.
818:
against any warnings. The general disclaimer should suffice. Knowledge shouldn't make any gesture to imply that it sides with those who find any particular image objectionable.
3252:
Well the cut one does looks smaller I would say thatās a subtle put down. What bothers me though is how someone managed to censor it! It like someone purposely mocking my tag! --
933:
I'm just gonna throw my two peneth in here; I'm pretty divided on whether there should be a waning or not, i can see both sides. But, other pages do not have such a warning (e.g.
2658:
So, I put back the POV tag after Nandesuka removed so much material in a non-neutral manner. You know, it's not a horrible thing for the article to reflect all relevant POV's.
3760:
I daresay there is not a single article on Knowledge whose content is not "considered POV by some people." That's not what the {{pov}} template is for. If there are specific
3014:
circumcision has become controversial in recent decades. National medical associations in the United States, Canada, and Australia do not recommend routine infant circumcision.
1432:
First, yes it is POV. Evidently the doctors who did the dilation study didn't consider meatotomy to be definitive, otherwise they wouldn't have conducted it in the first place.
3411:
Also, circumcised people are more likely to drive SUVs, eat mac donald's, invade other circumcised people's countries et cetera, I conclude that circumcision causes violence
905:
be even more easily offended, and then we have the same problem all over again. Offendedness is the product of a self-important mind, in my opinion. It's not our problem.
107:
I aggressively archived this page, including the most recent discussions, because it was simply unreadable (and because Berserker Ben askedĀ :-). The most recent stuff is in
3619:
See, that's what I'm talking about. If you are a scientist and know you are wrong, don't admit it; invent some kind of riddle or word play! The fact is that "random trials"
2850:
What specifically do you believe was removed from the introduction that isn't available elsewhere in the article? I, frankly, don't see anything. You're being too vague.
2922:
It's funny Jakew, I went searching for diverse ASSOC quotes because YOU were insisting on two US ASSOC quotes in the third paragraph ... saying essentially the SAME THING!!
3110:
The race problem can be fixed with black and white images. I would like to move the pictures to a section that describes the physical aesthetic aspects of circumcision.--
2442:
The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs finds "parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns."
3583:
On reading of the relevant section, LW, I really don't get why you're worried. The article takes great pains to point out how controversial this research is. However,
2910:
Conflicting and contradictory ASSOC statements inform the reader. The US ASSOC take a relatively pro-circ stance, thus it is proper to include global ASSOC statements.
1788:, by religious affiliation, and, to some extent, by socioeconomic classification. Circumcision is uncommon in Asia, South America, Central America, and most of Europe.
436:
I assumed that the bad text should be removed until the fix was found. Then you jumped in "angry" at my removal of the word "benefit" from the risk of circ article.
2689:
We inform our readers by providing well-written articles. Well-written articles do not barrage the reader with a slew of barely-connected factoids and footnotes in
3381:
2038:
I know the doctor "speculation" can't be used, but that's what they tell me. Their time is valuable and talking to parents doesn't change the outcome anyway, so...
3159:
them into greyscale now, and that really does help obscure skin color, then we might avoid complaints that couldn't be dealt with by just converting to greyscale.
3478:
What do you mean by "inconclusive"? The study seems to contain a conclusion. And how would an "inconclusive" study be equivalent to your suicide bomber example?
1857:
You could just about say that, since he has some legal training (though he's not yet qualified), he able to comment on legal matters, but this is self-evidently
3633:
accusing Rhobite of lying? If you have a case to make against a particular study cited in this article, stop pussyfooting around and make your case clearly.
2580:
I disagree in the most strenuous terms possible. It flows poorly. It is hard to read. It is hard to understand. It fails our readers on all possible axes.
3946:
Herrera AJ, Cochran B, Herrera A, Wallace B, Parental information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher education. Pediatrics 1983; 71: 234
3883:
Herrera AJ, Cochran B, Herrera A, Wallace B, Parental information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher education. Pediatrics 1983; 71: 234
3838:
Herrera AJ, Cochran B, Herrera A, Wallace B, Parental information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher education. Pediatrics 1983; 71: 234
2745:. As an introduction, it has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It is a nightmare. It is unreadable. By any reasonably objective standard, it
3120:
everyone happy, and we'll upset people who will claim "my god, look at that! the article has ten different pictures of penises! you guys are NUTS!" :P
2268:. The intro should be no more than four sentences. Anything else can go in the body of the article. If you think you have a Really Important Point that
366:
And you don't think the BMA is a reliable source? Very odd and biased. Note that their statement is more recent than the American association findings.
1287:
I just finished reading the text Jakew deletes, and found it interesting, well written, and pertinent. What problems do you have with that text Jakew?
3370:
Someone should point out as a disadvantage of circumcision that circumcised men are more likely to turn into suicide bombers than "un"circumcised men.
2391:
I think most of what you say makes sense, Nandesuka. I particularly agree about the introduction, which is far too long-winded. We have already got a
2162:
There's a single 'American view'? How odd. I always thought that different people could have different views, even if they have the same nationality.
813:
I've proposed such things in the past myself, out of a desire to cut down on self-righteous blanking vandalism. I was informed that, in general, the
2728:
Calling someone's work "garbage" is hardly civil. All you needed to say is that you didn't find his version to be as clear as the one you endorse.
2633:
It does not repeat specific relevant content, cites, and quotes. It USED to be highly US-centric ... then I added the BMA, (and soon the Canadian.)
2152:
You know I don't mind double representation of the American view ... and it's kind of funny but it makes the intro lousy. Just plain poor writing.
1460:
No, it's not POV when it's cited in current research and texts (which is evidently is). They did the study to see if another procedure would work.
644:
PS the Adler study is so poor, that it's evidence of your lack of good faith. Using that one study to refute several (reviewed) studies is biased.
2395:
article, and I'd suggest moving that to something like "cultural and religious aspects of circumcision", and merging what we have here into that.
731:
Well, as you note, the most recent study - Adler's - would disagree with your assessment. Regardless, I'm not aware of any study that states that
1638:
It is highly relevant. The nature of the treatment is a measure of the degree of the complication or benefit. The goal is to inform the reader.
1100:
In the UK, Dan, Jews and Muslims together represent about 3.1% of the population, but surveys indicate that 10-15% of young men are circumcised.
1070:
contrast, the BMA quote is not a recommendation but commentary, and the sentence structure is such that no meaning is lost by partially quoting.
552:
That is why when you quote Adler, you should include the other listed potential answers to the question, so the reader knows the limited context.
3261:
I've just reverted it, i'll put a comment on that images discussion in a sec. (oo, look at me all wikified - assuming its the right thing to do)
1841:
You cannot deny the quality and substantiation of his arguments. Basically, cited objective facts are considered facts unless properly refuted.
1692:
Circs were commonly performed in Canada until the mid-70's, so many men are circumcised. But the current RATE of neonatal circ's is much lower.
1415:
Meatodomy is the common treatment for meatal stenosis, so meatodomy becomes a complication of circumcision. Therefore, it belongs in the Topic.
3039:
The only hope is for others to view the issues and bring new consensus. Otherwise the Topic will continue (forever) to be unstable and lousy.
2755:
Your points about civility, howver, I am sure are well-intentioned. I will make sure to emphasize, when we discuss this issue, that it is the
2113:
You didn't fix it at all. You reduced two different quotes to that which they have in common. Unfortunately, in doing so, information was lost.
1876:
aren't warrented relative to the risks), and cultural forces. "Reliable" does not publish poorly cited, misquoted, negotiated text with typos!
1353:
is the definitive curative treatment to resolve meatal stenosis, though recently home-dilation has been shown to be successful for most boys.
711:
Again, we have many good cited finding prophylactic (neonatal) circs as cultural ritual, not health, save the (lousy methodology) Adler study.
3393:
Then that "reduces HIV infection risk" is a logical fallacy too? Because they don't know how could circumcision reduce HIV infection either.
2931:
When I first started working on this topic, someone (not in this discussion) listed the pro-circ participants ... that list has proven true.
1936:
1477:
It does work for most, but not all boys with meatal stenosis ... so dilation is not definitive. It certainly does not work "just as well."
3982:
Rand C, Emmons C, Johnson J: The effect of an educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:64-67
3919:
Rand C, Emmons C, Johnson J: The effect of an educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:64-67
3874:
Rand C, Emmons C, Johnson J: The effect of an educational intervention on the rate of neonatal circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:64-67
2305:
feel the need to have this thing dominating the entire middle section of the article? Turn this entire section into a single paragraph.
2741:
Second, I think it is important not to understate the seriousness of the problem. I use the word "garbage" because that introduction is
1978:
Neither example is evidence that the AAP are an unreliable source. Both are merely evidence that people disagree with their assessment.
1946:
circumcise, but the AAP are not required to share his view. They are required to be consistent with their own assessment. And they are.
895:
been objected to, if not then we would have NPOV on every article, heck we would have just about every tag there is on every article! --
3290:
which may be due to poor original lighting. If it really bothers you, some photoshopping could provide it a more natural appearance.
1774:
range of interpretation. In any case, a statement as to the situation in 1970 is quite meaningless as to the current state of affairs.
3955:
Ciesielski-Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinant of decision making for circumcision. Camb Q Heathcare Ethics 1996; 5: 228-36
3892:
Ciesielski-Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinant of decision making for circumcision. Camb Q Heathcare Ethics 1996; 5: 228-36
3847:
Ciesielski-Carlucci C, Milliken N, Cohen NH. Determinant of decision making for circumcision. Camb Q Heathcare Ethics 1996; 5: 228-36
3725:
I have removed the POV template again because no one has identified any specific problems with the text in the page (claiming that
422:
You missed the compromise Jakew offered (to find another AAP quote ... that didn't cite "benefits" ... to go in the risks article:
2913:
What I saw going on was a shift toward neutrality in the intro, which is most easily thwarted by Nend's slash. The reader looses.
1614:
The section of this article is indeed about complications. Meatal stenosis is (perhaps) a complication. Meatotomy is not. It is a
2310:
2181:
1039:
I don't see a problem with including it somewhere, but the risks section is not an appropriate place for discussion of benefits.
168:
TipPt, if you have an explanation for this egregiously inappropriate behavior, I suggest you provide it now. And make it good.
2995:
Surveys of American parents indicate that parental decisions regarding circumcision are made on the basis of "cultural ritual,"
2445:
Surveys of American parents indicate that parental decisions regarding circumcision are made on the basis of "cultural ritual,"
2309:
Each alleged benefit or risk of circumcision gets a sentence, with one cite, and if people care to learn more they can read the
714:"Cultural ritural" is (has been for thousands of years) intergral to the topic, and must be fully addressed in the introduction.
3450:
tests, and it sounds like the latest study was randomized and controlled well enough to eliminate social factors as variables.
495:, though a 2001 study reported that "The most important reason to circumcise or not circumcise the child was health reasons."
275:
Cutting out the first half of the sentence misrepresents the BMA postion, which works toward the pro-circ bias in this topic.
3052:
Good luck trying to incorporate all the intro (slashed) material properly. Until that is done, removing material is biased.
2811:
As I said, if you have specific complaints, let's focus on that. It would be an improvement over negative generalizations.
582:
As for having several cites, it doesn't matter. You still cannot present it as fact when there is evidence to the contrary.
530:
We have several cites finding cultural ritural, including an AAP cite. Remember, this is a historically common human trait.
393:
Hi, I'm not pro-circ. I'm anti-POV pushing. Thanks for remembering that the next time you decide to start slinging around
1439:
Third, your argument is ridiculous. We don't describe treatments for conditions that circumcision protects against, do we?
1273:
Jakew, I'm sorry you took offense at the word obsessed. My meaning could have been adequately expressed with "persistent."
1008:. I don't think it's appropriate to continue adding warnings to articles even after your own warning template was deleted.
466:
That promise to find an AM ASSOC quote without "benefits" was not made in that discussion. Regardless, it was not honored.
3529:
2713:
146:
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that parents should be informed about the potential risks of the procedure.
3227:
grounds that it was somehow less attractive than the photo of the rather inflamed and orange-coloured circumcised penis.
1969:
Not quite. The complaint is that they are informing parents of their assessment of the evidence, rather than Giannetti's.
3026:
into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
2643:"Summarize briefly first, then go into depth later" is not targeted at any specific grade level. It's just good style.
2264:
The intro to the article is approximately 63,000,141 times larger than it should be. Cut it down. Chop it off. Edit
975:
814:
796:
108:
94:
89:
84:
72:
67:
3023:
2090:
is the correct place for it. This article's talk page is for general discussion of the article, not personal comments.
764:
3072:
Indeed. It would help if TipPt would try to think of the reader, rather than the message he feels impelled to impart.
345:
TipPt, I understand your dilemma here. You have a very important message you feel you need to get out. However, the
59:
2015:
Finally, I don't intend to debate what doctors think about circs, because it's a matter that is pure speculation and
2465:
American surveys indicate that parental decisions regarding circumcision are made on the basis of cultural reasons,
3937:
Gollaher DL. Circumcision: a history of the world's most controversial surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000: 53-72.
3829:
Gollaher DL. Circumcision: a history of the world's most controversial surgery. New York: Basic Books, 2000: 53-72.
38:
2392:
1618:. It is no more a complication of circumcision than antiretroviral therapy is a complication of non-circumcision.
1313:
Here's the sentence Jakew insists on ... "Meatal stenosis has been reported in 0.9% to 20% of circumcised boys."
569:
The questions were not mutually exclusive, Tip. The reason for the choice is independent of who makes the choice.
3056:
3047:
2558:
It's somewhat long, and I'd love to see good editing. But is flows fairly well, is easy to read and understand.
1247:
I can't find that RfM (to add issues), so I may file an RfC. If someone can link me to that page ... please do.
3776:
meant to simply indicate "this article disagrees with my point of view," and using it in such a way is abuse.
3027:
1932:
406:
I'm not "pro-circ" either. I'm pro-Knowledge policy. Feel free to describe me as the latter, not the former.
1348:
735:
parents choose circumcision for health reasons. 41% did in Tiemstra's study, for example. That's quite a few.
1340:
may be the most common longer-term complication from circumcision, and is variously reported to occur in .9%,
1320:
may be the most common longer-term complication from circumcision, and is variously reported to occur in .9%,
1052:
I agree, so why do you insist on "benefits and risks" from the American Assoc? Looks like a double standard!
1002:
140:
3459:
But they are inconclusive studies. This is an encyclopedia, this must contain conclusions only ( I think ).
2380:
Nandesuka ... you should try to edit other's work, not revert to yours again. I have learned that lesson...
1354:
483:
Through the ages, circumcision has been a cultural ritual. Medical applications may have changed things...
2876:
Good luck next week trying to write all the new articles, reorganize the topic outline, and have it STABLE.
2086:
Incidentally, I have reworded the title of this section. If you wish to say something to me personally, my
3551:
3168:
2981:
2693:
If you are unhappy with the related articles, the solution is to fix them. The solution is categorically
1752:
The reference supporting the AAP's statement on the number of Canadian males circumcised is 36 years old!
1185:
I'm about to file another Rfc regarding the bias in the Topic ... you will find Jakew clever and obsessed.
1928:
1679:
I've temporarily commented out the latter claim, in the hope that a reliable source can be found for it.
182:
We are talking about the risks of complications article. Why do you insist on citing "benefit" again?
2047:
It's actually a republication of the original, Tip. I suspect that some typos may have been introduced.
1850:
Actually, I can easily deny the quality of his arguments, but this is not an appropriate forum to do so.
1170:
394:
192:
widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks
2988:. Except where specified, "circumcision" in this article should be understood as "male circumcision".
2712:
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits.
3654:
3647:
3498:
3460:
2996:
2697:
to turn the introduction to this article into a pile of dense, unreadable, heavily-footnoted garbage.
2466:
2446:
490:
223:
It does misrepresent, however, making them appear to have a different position than they actually do.
3325:
3262:
3242:
3150:
2009:
First of all, Tip, are you complaining about the AAP or the AAFP? The two are distinct organisations.
1924:
938:
2904:
The AMA Council statement was made in 1999, with a review of the lit at that time. It's not dated.
1330:
Jakew ... please read the citation, and you will find that 20% is for meatitis not meatal stenosis.
982:
3973:
Brown M, Brown C: Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics 1987; 80:215-219
3910:
Brown M, Brown C: Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics 1987; 80:215-219
3865:
Brown M, Brown C: Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics 1987; 80:215-219
1972:
3355:
I have fixed the licensing problem (It was a copy of a GFDL license and so retains that license)--
669:
These studies are already mentioned in the article, Tip. Your proposed inclusion is POV, however.
2907:
We are seeking neutrality in the Topic, which currently (assuming Nend's slash is in right now).
2722:
992:
856:
This article contains pictures of human genitals; discuss any edits to the images before editing.
795:
This article contains pictures of human nudity, do not edit the article to censor images, see
3543:
3470:
3398:
3345:
3271:
3253:
3209:
3160:
3140:
3111:
3091:
2821:
2409:
1391:
Not OK. First, it's not POV ... You must not have read those citations for meatal stenosis.
925:
916:
896:
859:
804:
439:
I don't know your stance, and did your refer to you directly. The current version shows bias.
47:
17:
3707:
Both claims are vague and dubious, and the wording POV. Could someone please provide actual
3349:
2244:
2207:
2985:
1906:
1765:
1091:
767:
689:
3423:
What I'm trying to say is that all those "are more likely" statements are kind of invalid.
830:
It shocked me when I first looked at the page! I'd like a little warning before a pair of
489:"Parental decisions regarding circumcision are dominated by cultural ritual considerations
3571:
2087:
1337:
1317:
688:
that are done to treat a medical condition that requires surgery for treatment is low. --
1596:"Standard treatment" is much less POV, but it's still beyond the scope of this article.
3777:
3738:
3730:
3708:
3511:
3131:
3064:
2851:
2826:
2764:
2698:
2669:
2644:
2581:
2538:
2491:
2350:
2138:
Please stop mangling and mashing different quotes by different organizations. Thanks.
1561:
1539:
398:
169:
112:
3928:
Wrana, P. (1939). Historical review: Circumcision. Archives of Pediatrics, 6, 385-392.
3820:
Wrana, P. (1939). Historical review: Circumcision. Archives of Pediatrics, 6, 385-392.
3015:
3004:
2993:
2454:
2443:
1024:"the medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven,"
3624:
3602:
3507:
3424:
3412:
3371:
2837:
2791:
2314:
2032:
There are typos in both organizations statements. I just pulled one you like to use.
1221:
971:
2870:"medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven."
1894:
Williams and L. Kapila." (Misplaced apostrophe - should be plural, not possessive).
3808:
3805:
3793:
3780:
3751:
3748:
3741:
3715:
3657:
3637:
3634:
3627:
3614:
3611:
3605:
3596:
3593:
3578:
3575:
3564:
3554:
3536:
3533:
3523:
3520:
3514:
3501:
3491:
3488:
3482:
3479:
3473:
3463:
3454:
3451:
3444:
3441:
3427:
3415:
3401:
3388:
3385:
3374:
3359:
3341:
3328:
3318:
3315:
3294:
3291:
3274:
3265:
3256:
3245:
3231:
3228:
3212:
3193:
3190:
3182:
3179:
3171:
3153:
3143:
3134:
3124:
3121:
3114:
3105:
3102:
3094:
3076:
3067:
2935:
2926:
2917:
2894:
2880:
2854:
2844:
2841:
2829:
2815:
2812:
2805:
2783:
2780:
2767:
2732:
2729:
2701:
2672:
2662:
2659:
2647:
2637:
2614:
2584:
2541:
2523:
2508:
2494:
2480:
2412:
2399:
2384:
2373:
2353:
2230:
2220:
2204:
2166:
2156:
2142:
2133:
2120:
2107:
2094:
2081:
2070:
2051:
2042:
2023:
2003:
1982:
1964:
1961:
1950:
1909:
1898:
1887:
1880:
1865:
1845:
1832:
1811:
1808:
1796:
1778:
1775:
1768:
1739:
1717:
1710:
1696:
1683:
1673:
1666:
1663:
1651:
1642:
1626:
1609:
1600:
1591:
1579:
1568:
1546:
1517:
1443:
1419:
1382:
1371:
1359:
1302:
1291:
1277:
1228:
1225:
1206:
1189:
1177:
1174:
1159:
1144:
1129:
1114:
1111:
1104:
1094:
1074:
1056:
1043:
1033:
1030:
1012:
1009:
955:
952:
948:
941:
928:
919:
909:
906:
899:
881:
862:
838:
822:
819:
807:
770:
739:
718:
702:
692:
673:
648:
625:
621:
You must know that the Adler metholology was horrible, and the survey simimplistic.
586:
556:
521:
506:
470:
457:
443:
410:
401:
380:
357:
350:
346:
304:
279:
258:
240:
227:
217:
207:
196:
172:
115:
2999:
2469:
2449:
698:
Both therapeutic and prophylactic circumcisions are done for health reasons, Dan.
493:
453:. Must you insist upon wasting space and other editors' time by repeating things?
139:
by TipPt, which removes the clause "benefits and" from the sentence where we cite
2216:
Not gone, just edited somewhat. Edit summaries give reasons for various changes.
924:
Well if no one is going to counter my argument I'm going to put the warning up.--
3601:
OK I give up, now I see that "scientists" are too proud to admit they are wrong
3356:
835:
831:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3790:
3712:
3561:
3073:
3053:
3044:
2965:
2932:
2923:
2914:
2891:
2877:
2802:
2683:
2634:
2611:
2559:
2520:
2505:
2477:
2396:
2381:
2370:
2241:
2227:
2217:
2163:
2153:
2139:
2130:
2117:
2104:
2091:
2078:
2067:
2048:
2039:
2020:
2000:
1999:
parents decide essentially without consultation ... it's not usually that bad.
1979:
1947:
1895:
1877:
1862:
1842:
1829:
1793:
1736:
1714:
1693:
1680:
1648:
1639:
1623:
1606:
1597:
1588:
1576:
1565:
1543:
1514:
1440:
1416:
1379:
1368:
1356:
1299:
1288:
1274:
1203:
1186:
1156:
1141:
1126:
1101:
1071:
1053:
1040:
878:
848:
787:
736:
715:
699:
670:
645:
622:
583:
553:
518:
503:
467:
454:
440:
407:
377:
354:
301:
276:
255:
237:
224:
214:
204:
193:
2945:
I know it needs condensing, but the content is critical to current practice.
1392:
1121:
3729:
is not the same as identifying what text in the article fails to conform to
3001:
2749:
garbage, and It's important that we as editors recognize it, so that we can
2471:
2451:
2297:
Holy Prostate Cancer, Batman, we have another article on this topic that is
1350:
540:
496:
2759:(which I, as an editor, am equally responsible for), and not any specific
3022:
sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child."
2960:
2952:
1202:
Please refrain from making personal attacks. Next time I will report it.
129:
1365:... and gets a meatodomy instead of asking for dilation instructions.
3964:
Shaw, R. A. and Robertson, W. R.:Ā : Am. J. Dis. Child., 106: 216, 1963.
3901:
Shaw, R. A. and Robertson, W. R.:Ā : Am. J. Dis. Child., 106: 216, 1963.
3856:
Shaw, R. A. and Robertson, W. R.:Ā : Am. J. Dis. Child., 106: 216, 1963.
978:
already covers every article. For precedent, please see the TfD's for
3768:
that you care to identify, then it is appropriate to add the tag and
3270:
Exactly how was it done and who did it? Oh I see never mind my bad.--
3011:
1224:
by giving him the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for understanding.
870:
1786:
percentage of male infants circumcised varies by geographic location
3519:
Clearly you don't understand the purpose of experimental controls.
2941:
Just so everyone knows what Nandesuka deleted from the Introduction
2240:
Please be specific Jayjg, if you want anyone to read your comments.
2035:
It was just poor english, and typos are odd in a final publication.
2970:
2956:
2421:
Parental reasons for neonatal circumcision, and "informed" parents
1886:
Conspiracy theories do not make an source unreliable. Please read
934:
432:
Ok, I'll find an alternative quote. Jakew 15:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC).
3785:
Indeed. It is supposed to be a temporary tag, for the purpose of
3487:
What is "conclusion"? Science is a process, not a destination.
2408:
Maybe the article needs to be split more (rather then merged)? --
3019:
2797:
Frankly, I think it's pointless and unproductive to talk about
1828:
A law student is not an authority on reliable medical sources.
2984:
is a term applied to a variety of procedures performed on the
2327:
See "medical analysis". Same logic. Same proposed solution.
970:
Countless warning tags have been rejected by the community on
25:
1333:
Second, the reader benefits from links to all three studies.
486:
I'd like these sentences at the end of the second paragraph:
2963:
may also be removed at the same time, in a procedure called
2779:
Now, if you have specific complaints, let's focus on those.
2461:
The second is what Nandesuka prefers (but is not accurate):
2337:
The ethics and prevalence sections seem ok, or at least not
2313:
article, presumably after giving up their dreams of reading
2103:
You generally control this Topic, so I address you directly.
847:
786:
3497:
become a suicide bomber should be added to the article too.
2100:
See how I fixed it ... leaving content without repetition.
492:
or religious beliefs, not by potential medical applications
213:
PS, it's not in quotes, so it's not lying to remove a word.
3036:
With great documentation ... that will attract attention.
1861:
a legal matter. It's a matter of evidence-based medicine.
3007:
and provides ālimited medical benefitā to their child.
2425:
Below are two versions of the second (intro) paragraph.
3696:
The following unsourced claims were recently inserted:
3237:
ourselves the effort, i agree that maybe changing them
1336:
Here's the (neutral) full paragraph I would recommend:
136:
3789:. That's impossible if the problems aren't specified.
3090:
people on the internet: āYa my dicks on wikipedia!ā --
2998:
religious beliefs, and "health" and "hygiene" reasons.
2457:
and provides ālimited medical benefitā to their child.
2448:
religious beliefs, and "health" and "hygiene" reasons.
2019:
to verify. So let's not waste any further time on it.
3139:
Yep, black and white as in grayscale, lets try it. --
2825:
to tendentiously apply it to articles without cause.
1169:
Jakew and I seem to be at something of an impasse on
450:
2468:religious beliefs, and health and hygiene reasons.
2438:Here is a proposed second part of that paragraph:
2116:Nobody controls this topic. Please remember that.
3380:On the off chance that you're being sincere, see
2281:Culture and Religions: When Laundry Lists Attack!
1758:8. Leitch IO. Circumcision: a continuing enigma.
1173:, so it might be helpful if others got involved.
2519:PS ... I'm going fishing, so have fun next week.
2272:to be in the intro, there is a good chance that
784:the top of the page. Something like this maybe:
3382:Correlation implies causation (logical fallacy)
1672:The problem appears to be that one conforms to
1818:The AAP or AAFP as a "reliable source" ... NOT
1784:The preceding sentences help to clarify. "The
2180:Neonatal circumcision has been studied using
8:
3570:unneccessary disruption of the talk page to
1755:"In Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised."
3032:At least there's a good RfC in the works...
2776:in edit summaries and article Discussions.
2630:Nandes ... what grade level do you target?
3031:
1657:Anomaly re: rate of circumcision in Canada
2822:Talk:Circumcision#This_article_is_a_sewer
1790:In Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised.
300:How does it misrepresent their position?
2801:is at fault for the article's problems.
3813:
3528:This is a well-known logical fallacy.
3043:without access to critical information.
2757:hugely long version of the introduction
1165:Need more eyes on Circumcision advocacy
517:section where it is already mentioned.
2349:That's all I have for now. Comments?
479:Address cultural ritual/health reasons
143:. So with this edit, Knowledge says:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2969:. The word "circumcision" comes from
2951:is the removal of some or all of the
2259:An Introduction Is Not A Dissertation
1713:telling us what the current rate is?
1309:Jakew you keep putting in a misquote!
7:
3530:Correlation does not equal causation
753:as a prophylactic medical procedure.
2062:Comment says the same thing twice!!
128:There's this thing. It's called a
121:Do Not Lie About What Citations Say
1560:You love to put in that stuff ...
24:
3772:. The template is categorically
3189:Ohh. Wow, I'm an idiot. -_-;;
2476:Which do you all prefer, and why?
2173:Check it out, before it's Gone...
1345:] and 7.29% of circumcised boys.
1325:] and 7.29% of circumcised boys.
998:, and I see you created your own
3642:They are wrong because they are
2311:Medical analysis of circumcision
29:
3787:getting specific problems fixed
3366:Suicide bombing vs Circumcision
2490:is nothing short of ludicrous.
891:object to, we add tags to what
502:Jakew wanted Adler represented.
451:#Jake, why did you remove this?
1019:Jake, why did you remove this?
353:which present other opinions.
135:My current example of this is
1:
976:Knowledge:Content disclaimer
815:Knowledge Content Disclaimer
427:by TipPt (talk ā¢ contribs) .
3309:Circ Advocacy merge per tag
2725:with your comments. Thanks!
2691:the first three paragraphs.
2488:introduction to the article
449:This issue is discussed in
3999:
3735:to the text of the article
2129:What information was lost?
149:While the paper linked to
2393:circumcision in the Bible
3809:01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
3794:19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
3781:18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
3752:18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
3742:11:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
3727:other editors are biased
3716:17:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3658:19:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3638:16:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
3628:02:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
3615:19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3606:16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3597:12:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3579:12:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3565:08:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3555:07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3537:04:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3524:01:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3515:01:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
3502:23:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3492:22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3483:18:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3474:18:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3464:17:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3455:14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3445:05:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3428:03:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3416:03:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3402:18:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3389:02:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3375:02:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3360:02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3350:01:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3329:12:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3319:00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
3295:23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3275:22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3266:22:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3257:18:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3246:16:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3232:12:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3213:02:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3194:23:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3183:23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3172:00:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
3154:20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3144:18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3135:12:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3125:09:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3115:00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
3106:10:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
3095:05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
3077:20:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
3068:18:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
3057:17:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
3048:17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2936:17:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2927:17:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2918:17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2895:16:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2881:16:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2855:15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2845:15:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2830:15:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2816:15:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2806:13:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2784:12:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2768:11:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2733:04:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2702:04:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2673:04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2663:03:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2648:17:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2638:17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2615:11:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2585:04:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2542:03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2524:03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2509:03:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2495:03:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2481:03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2413:15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2400:11:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2385:03:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2374:03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2354:00:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2250:This article is a sewer.
2245:17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
2231:19:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
2221:17:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
2208:17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
2167:15:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
2157:15:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
2143:17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2134:16:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2121:15:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2108:15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2095:15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2082:15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2071:15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2052:16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2043:15:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2024:15:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
2004:15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1983:13:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1965:12:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1951:08:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1910:22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1899:18:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1881:18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1866:18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1846:17:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1833:15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1812:13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
1797:13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
1779:23:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1769:22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1740:15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1718:14:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1697:14:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1684:11:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1667:09:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1652:16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
1643:18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1627:18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1610:18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1601:17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1592:17:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1580:17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1569:17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1547:15:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1518:15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1444:14:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1420:14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1383:08:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1372:00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1360:00:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1303:17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1292:17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1278:17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1229:11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1207:08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1190:00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1178:20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
1160:10:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
1145:17:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
1130:11:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
1115:10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
1105:07:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
1095:05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
1075:08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1057:00:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
1044:07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
1034:00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
1013:19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
956:22:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
942:20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
929:20:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
920:12:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
910:11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
900:11:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
882:09:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
863:03:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
839:22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
823:00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
808:19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
771:22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
740:18:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
719:18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
703:07:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
693:04:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
674:08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
649:00:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
626:00:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
587:07:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
557:21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
522:15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
507:15:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
471:16:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
458:17:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
444:17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
411:17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
402:00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
381:00:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
358:17:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
305:07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
280:21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
259:20:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
241:20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
228:16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
218:15:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
208:16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
197:15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
173:14:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
116:14:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
3335:First picture's licence
3334:
2976:(meaning "around") and
2686:04:09, 19 May 2006 (UT
2172:
1090:condition are rare. --
3705:
3532:. Sorry, try again.
2339:utterly out of control
1085:European circumcisions
852:
834:pop up on my screen.--
791:
125:OK, I am now annoyed.
3698:
2274:you are utterly wrong
2182:cost-benefit analyses
1171:Circumcision advocacy
851:
797:wikipedia disclaimer
790:
395:argumentum ad hominem
42:of past discussions.
3510:. Have a nice day.
3508:no original research
2980:(meaning "to cut").
2982:Female circumcision
2955:(prepuce) from the
2718:disruptive comments
3711:for these claims?
853:
792:
2763:that is garbage.
1941:
1927:comment added by
1316:Here's my quote:
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:Talk:Circumcision
3990:
3983:
3980:
3974:
3971:
3965:
3962:
3956:
3953:
3947:
3944:
3938:
3935:
3929:
3926:
3920:
3917:
3911:
3908:
3902:
3899:
3893:
3890:
3884:
3881:
3875:
3872:
3866:
3863:
3857:
3854:
3848:
3845:
3839:
3836:
3830:
3827:
3821:
3818:
3549:
3166:
3010:Non-therapeutic
2986:female genitalia
2840:about that tag?
2751:fix the problem.
2714:Personal attacks
2292:Medical Analysis
2270:absolutely needs
2177:MEDICAL ASPECTS
1940:
1921:
1007:
1001:
997:
991:
987:
981:
351:reliable sources
347:reliable sources
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3998:
3997:
3993:
3992:
3991:
3989:
3988:
3987:
3986:
3981:
3977:
3972:
3968:
3963:
3959:
3954:
3950:
3945:
3941:
3936:
3932:
3927:
3923:
3918:
3914:
3909:
3905:
3900:
3896:
3891:
3887:
3882:
3878:
3873:
3869:
3864:
3860:
3855:
3851:
3846:
3842:
3837:
3833:
3828:
3824:
3819:
3815:
3723:
3694:
3547:
3546:
3368:
3337:
3311:
3164:
3163:
3087:
3034:
2943:
2656:
2423:
2332:Everything else
2252:
2175:
2064:
1922:
1820:
1711:reliable source
1709:Can you find a
1659:
1338:Meatal stenosis
1318:Meatal stenosis
1311:
1167:
1152:
1087:
1021:
1005:
999:
995:
989:
985:
979:
947:warning tag on
781:
481:
178:Dear Nandesuka,
158:
147:
123:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3996:
3994:
3985:
3984:
3975:
3966:
3957:
3948:
3939:
3930:
3921:
3912:
3903:
3894:
3885:
3876:
3867:
3858:
3849:
3840:
3831:
3822:
3812:
3801:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3797:
3796:
3755:
3754:
3722:
3719:
3693:
3690:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3677:
3676:
3675:
3674:
3673:
3672:
3671:
3670:
3669:
3668:
3667:
3666:
3665:
3664:
3663:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3650:
3581:
3567:
3544:
3526:
3517:
3485:
3476:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3404:
3367:
3364:
3363:
3362:
3336:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3310:
3307:
3306:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3298:
3297:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3197:
3196:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3176:
3175:
3174:
3161:
3086:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3033:
3030:
2942:
2939:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2897:
2887:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2858:
2857:
2833:
2832:
2809:
2808:
2795:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2753:
2739:
2726:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2676:
2675:
2655:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2617:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2526:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2498:
2497:
2474:
2473:
2459:
2458:
2436:
2435:
2422:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2403:
2402:
2388:
2387:
2377:
2376:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2360:
2335:
2334:
2325:
2324:
2295:
2294:
2284:
2283:
2262:
2261:
2251:
2248:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2211:
2210:
2174:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2124:
2123:
2114:
2098:
2097:
2084:
2063:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2036:
2033:
2027:
2026:
2013:
2010:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1976:
1970:
1954:
1953:
1929:206.148.164.27
1914:
1902:
1901:
1891:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1855:
1854:professionals.
1851:
1836:
1835:
1819:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1802:
1800:
1799:
1762:1970; 6:59-65
1751:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1687:
1686:
1677:
1658:
1655:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1619:
1583:
1582:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1538:Please review
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1437:
1433:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1386:
1385:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1166:
1163:
1151:
1148:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1086:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1047:
1046:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1003:Nudity warning
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
944:
877:Rant over.Ā :)
875:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
780:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
757:
756:
755:
754:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
724:
723:
722:
721:
712:
706:
705:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
562:
561:
560:
559:
547:
546:
545:
544:
539:We have Adler
534:
533:
532:
531:
525:
524:
514:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
461:
460:
434:
433:
429:
428:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
386:
385:
384:
383:
370:
369:
368:
367:
361:
360:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
246:
245:
244:
243:
231:
230:
211:
210:
189:
188:
180:
179:
155:
145:
122:
119:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3995:
3979:
3976:
3970:
3967:
3961:
3958:
3952:
3949:
3943:
3940:
3934:
3931:
3925:
3922:
3916:
3913:
3907:
3904:
3898:
3895:
3889:
3886:
3880:
3877:
3871:
3868:
3862:
3859:
3853:
3850:
3844:
3841:
3835:
3832:
3826:
3823:
3817:
3814:
3811:
3810:
3807:
3795:
3792:
3788:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3779:
3775:
3771:
3770:identify them
3767:
3763:
3759:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3753:
3750:
3746:
3745:
3744:
3743:
3740:
3736:
3732:
3728:
3720:
3718:
3717:
3714:
3710:
3704:
3703:
3697:
3692:Court rulings
3691:
3659:
3656:
3651:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3640:
3639:
3636:
3631:
3630:
3629:
3626:
3622:
3618:
3617:
3616:
3613:
3609:
3608:
3607:
3604:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3595:
3590:
3586:
3582:
3580:
3577:
3573:
3572:prove a point
3568:
3566:
3563:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3553:
3550:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3535:
3531:
3527:
3525:
3522:
3518:
3516:
3513:
3509:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3500:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3490:
3486:
3484:
3481:
3477:
3475:
3472:
3467:
3466:
3465:
3462:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3453:
3448:
3447:
3446:
3443:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3429:
3426:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3414:
3403:
3400:
3395:
3394:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3387:
3383:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3373:
3365:
3361:
3358:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3347:
3343:
3330:
3327:
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3317:
3308:
3296:
3293:
3288:
3276:
3273:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3264:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3255:
3251:
3250:
3249:
3248:
3247:
3244:
3240:
3235:
3234:
3233:
3230:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3211:
3195:
3192:
3188:
3184:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3170:
3167:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3152:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3142:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3133:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3123:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3113:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3104:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3093:
3084:
3078:
3075:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3066:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3055:
3050:
3049:
3046:
3040:
3037:
3029:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3013:
3008:
3005:
3002:
3000:
2997:
2994:
2989:
2987:
2983:
2979:
2975:
2972:
2968:
2967:
2962:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2946:
2940:
2938:
2937:
2934:
2929:
2928:
2925:
2920:
2919:
2916:
2911:
2908:
2905:
2896:
2893:
2888:
2886:introduction?
2884:
2883:
2882:
2879:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2862:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2856:
2853:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2846:
2843:
2839:
2831:
2828:
2823:
2820:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2814:
2807:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2794:, in my view.
2793:
2788:
2787:
2786:
2785:
2782:
2777:
2769:
2766:
2762:
2761:editor's work
2758:
2754:
2752:
2748:
2744:
2740:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2731:
2727:
2724:
2719:
2715:
2711:
2710:
2703:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2688:
2687:
2685:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2677:
2674:
2671:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2661:
2653:
2649:
2646:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2636:
2631:
2616:
2613:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2586:
2583:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2561:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2543:
2540:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2525:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2510:
2507:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2496:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2479:
2472:
2470:
2467:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2455:
2452:
2450:
2447:
2444:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2426:
2420:
2414:
2411:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2401:
2398:
2394:
2390:
2389:
2386:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2375:
2372:
2368:
2367:
2363:
2362:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2352:
2347:
2345:
2340:
2333:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2323:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2316:
2315:War and Peace
2312:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2293:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2282:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2266:without mercy
2260:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2249:
2247:
2246:
2243:
2232:
2229:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2219:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2209:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2198:
2196:
2194:
2192:
2189:
2187:
2185:
2183:
2178:
2168:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2155:
2144:
2141:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2132:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2122:
2119:
2115:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2106:
2101:
2096:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2069:
2061:
2053:
2050:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2041:
2037:
2034:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2025:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2011:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2002:
1996:
1994:
1984:
1981:
1977:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1963:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1952:
1949:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1917:
1912:
1911:
1908:
1900:
1897:
1892:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1879:
1867:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1844:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1834:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1823:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1798:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1777:
1771:
1770:
1767:
1763:
1761:
1760:Aust Paediatr
1756:
1753:
1741:
1738:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1656:
1654:
1653:
1650:
1645:
1644:
1641:
1628:
1625:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1590:
1585:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1567:
1563:
1548:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1519:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1395:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1346:
1344:
1342:
1339:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1324:
1322:
1319:
1314:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1164:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1149:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1084:
1076:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1026:
1025:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1004:
994:
984:
977:
973:
969:
957:
954:
950:
945:
943:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
922:
921:
918:
913:
912:
911:
908:
903:
902:
901:
898:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
867:
866:
865:
864:
861:
857:
850:
840:
837:
833:
829:
828:
826:
825:
824:
821:
816:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
801:
800:
798:
789:
785:
779:Image warning
778:
772:
769:
765:
761:
760:
759:
758:
751:
750:
749:
748:
741:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
720:
717:
713:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
701:
697:
696:
695:
694:
691:
675:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
650:
647:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
627:
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
588:
585:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
558:
555:
551:
550:
549:
548:
541:
538:
537:
536:
535:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
520:
515:
511:
510:
509:
508:
505:
500:
497:
494:
491:
487:
484:
478:
472:
469:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
452:
448:
447:
446:
445:
442:
437:
431:
430:
425:
424:
423:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
382:
379:
374:
373:
372:
371:
365:
364:
363:
362:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
306:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
281:
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
260:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
248:
247:
242:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
226:
222:
221:
220:
219:
216:
209:
206:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
185:
184:
183:
177:
176:
175:
174:
171:
166:
164:
154:
152:
144:
142:
138:
133:
131:
126:
120:
118:
117:
114:
110:
102:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3978:
3969:
3960:
3951:
3942:
3933:
3924:
3915:
3906:
3897:
3888:
3879:
3870:
3861:
3852:
3843:
3834:
3825:
3816:
3802:
3786:
3773:
3769:
3765:
3761:
3734:
3726:
3724:
3721:POV template
3706:
3700:
3699:
3695:
3643:
3623:unreliable.
3620:
3588:
3584:
3471:BerserkerBen
3410:
3399:BerserkerBen
3369:
3338:
3312:
3272:BerserkerBen
3254:BerserkerBen
3238:
3206:
3141:BerserkerBen
3112:BerserkerBen
3092:BerserkerBen
3088:
3051:
3041:
3038:
3035:
3009:
2990:
2977:
2973:
2964:
2949:Circumcision
2948:
2947:
2944:
2930:
2921:
2912:
2909:
2906:
2903:
2869:
2834:
2810:
2798:
2778:
2774:
2760:
2756:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2694:
2690:
2657:
2632:
2629:
2487:
2475:
2460:
2437:
2427:
2424:
2410:BerserkerBen
2348:
2343:
2342:another you
2338:
2336:
2331:
2326:
2321:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2296:
2291:
2285:
2280:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2263:
2258:
2253:
2239:
2179:
2176:
2151:
2102:
2099:
2065:
2016:
1997:
1991:
1918:
1913:
1903:
1874:
1858:
1821:
1801:
1789:
1785:
1772:
1764:
1759:
1757:
1754:
1750:
1660:
1646:
1637:
1615:
1559:
1495:or benefits.
1367:
1363:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1315:
1312:
1286:
1168:
1153:
1150:Strange edit
1138:
1088:
1027:
1023:
1022:
949:Circumcision
926:BerserkerBen
917:BerserkerBen
897:BerserkerBen
892:
888:
860:BerserkerBen
855:
854:
805:BerserkerBen
802:
799:for detials.
794:
793:
782:
732:
686:
501:
488:
485:
482:
438:
435:
421:
212:
190:
181:
167:
162:
159:
150:
148:
134:
127:
124:
106:
78:
43:
37:
3655:201.23.64.2
3648:201.23.64.2
3499:201.23.64.2
3461:201.23.64.2
3210:Christopher
3085:3rd picture
2203:Gone, why?
1923:āPreceding
1907:DanBlackham
1766:DanBlackham
1092:DanBlackham
889:conceivable
768:DanBlackham
690:DanBlackham
187:balanced...
153:concludes:
36:This is an
3702:treatment.
3326:Alex uk 86
3263:Alex uk 86
3243:Alex uk 86
3151:Alex uk 86
2966:frenectomy
2017:impossible
1587:variable).
1436:performed.
1343:9% - 10%,
1323:9% - 10%,
939:Alex uk 86
109:Archive 11
95:ArchiveĀ 15
90:ArchiveĀ 14
85:ArchiveĀ 13
79:ArchiveĀ 12
73:ArchiveĀ 11
68:ArchiveĀ 10
3778:Nandesuka
3739:Nandesuka
3709:citations
3512:Nandesuka
3469:condom.--
3397:condom.--
3132:Nandesuka
3065:Nandesuka
2852:Nandesuka
2827:Nandesuka
2765:Nandesuka
2699:Nandesuka
2670:Nandesuka
2645:Nandesuka
2582:Nandesuka
2539:Nandesuka
2492:Nandesuka
2351:Nandesuka
2346:link it.
2088:talk page
1616:treatment
1351:Meatotomy
1234:expired??
993:Offensive
604:research.
399:Nandesuka
330:research.
170:Nandesuka
163:must stop
137:this edit
113:Nandesuka
60:ArchiveĀ 5
3762:passages
3625:Cuzandor
3603:Cuzandor
3425:Cuzandor
3413:Cuzandor
3372:Cuzandor
2961:frenulum
2953:foreskin
2299:66k long
1937:contribs
1925:unsigned
1915:---: -->
1513:context.
1378:remain.
1140:present.
151:actually
130:citation
103:Archived
3731:WP:NPOV
3635:Kasreyn
3612:Rhobite
3594:Kasreyn
3585:if true
3576:Kasreyn
3534:Kasreyn
3521:Rhobite
3489:Kasreyn
3480:Rhobite
3452:Rhobite
3442:Kasreyn
3386:Rhobite
3342:blahedo
3316:Kasreyn
3292:Kasreyn
3229:Masalai
3191:Kasreyn
3180:Kasreyn
3122:Kasreyn
3103:Kasreyn
2978:caedere
2743:garbage
2322:History
2301:and we
1809:Masalai
1776:Masalai
1664:Masalai
1562:WP:NPOV
1540:WP:NPOV
1112:Kasreyn
1031:Kasreyn
1010:Rhobite
953:Kasreyn
907:Kasreyn
836:Dr.Worm
820:Kasreyn
39:archive
3713:Jayjg
3644:random
3357:Clawed
3074:Jayjg
3012:infant
2974:circum
2959:. The
2838:WP:AGF
2792:WP:OWN
2682:intro.
2504:intro.
2344:didn't
2228:Jayjg
2140:Jayjg
1222:WP:AGF
972:WP:TFD
871:radish
543:kids."
408:Jayjg
376:Assoc.
355:Jayjg
3791:Jakew
3766:terms
3562:Jakew
3548:izard
3239:might
3165:izard
3054:TipPt
3045:TipPt
3018:son."
2971:Latin
2957:penis
2933:TipPt
2924:TipPt
2915:TipPt
2892:Jakew
2878:TipPt
2803:Jakew
2738:also.
2723:civil
2684:TipPt
2635:TipPt
2612:Jakew
2560:TipPt
2521:TipPt
2506:TipPt
2478:TipPt
2397:Jakew
2382:TipPt
2371:TipPt
2303:still
2242:TipPt
2218:Jakew
2164:Jakew
2154:TipPt
2131:TipPt
2118:Jakew
2105:TipPt
2092:Jakew
2079:Jakew
2068:TipPt
2049:Jakew
2040:TipPt
2021:Jakew
2001:TipPt
1993:cite.
1980:Jakew
1948:Jakew
1896:Jakew
1888:WP:RS
1878:TipPt
1863:Jakew
1843:TipPt
1830:Jakew
1794:Jakew
1737:TipPt
1735:rate.
1715:Jakew
1694:TipPt
1681:Jakew
1674:WP:RS
1649:TipPt
1640:TipPt
1624:Jakew
1607:TipPt
1598:Jakew
1589:TipPt
1577:Jakew
1566:TipPt
1544:Jakew
1515:TipPt
1441:Jakew
1417:TipPt
1380:Jakew
1369:TipPt
1357:TipPt
1300:Jakew
1289:TipPt
1275:TipPt
1204:Jakew
1187:TipPt
1157:Jakew
1142:TipPt
1127:Jakew
1102:Jakew
1072:Jakew
1054:TipPt
1041:Jakew
983:Adult
935:Penis
879:Jakew
832:dicks
737:Jakew
716:TipPt
700:Jakew
671:Jakew
646:TipPt
623:TipPt
584:Jakew
554:TipPt
519:Jakew
513:true.
504:TipPt
468:TipPt
455:Jakew
441:TipPt
378:TipPt
302:Jakew
277:TipPt
256:Jakew
238:TipPt
225:Jakew
215:TipPt
205:Jakew
194:TipPt
16:<
3764:and
3589:does
2716:and
2307:One.
1973:Here
1933:talk
1394:and
141:this
3774:not
3621:are
2799:who
2695:not
2654:POV
1995:].
1859:not
1327:].
1122:One
893:has
766:--
3806:Al
3749:Al
3737:.
3574:.
3384:.
3348:)
3149:--
2842:Al
2813:Al
2781:Al
2747:is
2730:Al
2660:Al
2317:.
2276:.
2205:Al
2199:]
1962:Al
1939:)
1935:ā¢
1824:]
1792:"
1542:.
1396:].
1226:Al
1175:Al
1006:}}
1000:{{
996:}}
990:{{
988:,
986:}}
980:{{
858:--
803:--
733:no
397:.
165:.
111:.
64:ā
3552:@
3545:W
3346:t
3344:(
3340:/
3169:@
3162:W
2193:]
2190:]
2188:]
2186:]
1931:(
1890:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.