Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:00, 28 September 2008

Medicine Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Definition of "relative risk"

Welcome back, Jake! You added "Published meta-analyses, using data from the RCTs, have estimated the summary relative risk at 0.42..." To me, the wikilink to "relative risk" doesn't sufficiently clarify what's meant here. I suppose you mean that the rate of HIV infection in circumcised men divided by the rate in uncircumcised men was estimated at 0.42. If so, I would insert in parentheses something like "(rate of HIV infection in circumcised divided by rate in uncircumcised men)". Coppertwig (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig! That seems a reasonable addition to make. I'm slightly concerned that it is a little ORish, but explaining a term doesn't seem to have any NPOV implications, so that concern is minimal. Jakew (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Title of section after complications

To use the phrase "possible medical benefits" isn't very neutral if you ask me. You seem to imply that because we have outlined the complications then to even it out we should add your opinion that it possibly confers medical benefit. I disagree with that. Tremello22 (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The subsections themselves discuss the potential benefits. Further, as analysis includes results of all kinds, should we decide on "Analysis" as a heading, then we have to combine the two sections (complications and benefits) so as to maintain neutrality. -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting, with a straight face, that it is unreasonable to describe a possible lowering of cancer rates as a "possible benefit?" Maybe we could title the section "Doubleplusunbad effects"? Nandesuka (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes because the American cancer society have said that circumcision should not be used as a means to lower cancer rates. This is because there is no evidence to suggest it does. Tremello22 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremollo, that does not mean that it not a benefit, it means that it is not a suggested mode of prevention in and if itself. To deny that if one is circumcised for other reasons that it does not confer possible benefits is somewhat illogical. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremello22, I think you need to re-read the ACS statement. The ACS do not say that they do not recommend circumcision because there is no evidence that it is protective. In fact, they say quite the reverse: "Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done shortly after birth. Men who were circumcised as babies have less than half the chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not. The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but may be related to other known risk factors. For example, men who are circumcised cannot develop a condition called phimosis. Men with phimosis have an increased risk of penile cancer (see below). Also, circumcised men seem to be less likely to be infected with HPV, even after adjusting for differences in sexual behavior."

I should also point out that even if the ACS were adamant that circumcision was not protective, that would be evidence that the benefit is disputed. It would not indicate that the benefit is impossible. A title such as "benefits of circumcision" would imply that the benefits definitely exist. Describing them as "possible" acknowledges that some are disputed. Jakew (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi I am fine with your suggestion of combining the 2 under one heading. Tremello22 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Avi other studies have found no link either. Anyway I've combined complications under the medical analysis since you think it isn't neutral as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremello22 (talk • contribs)

Refactorization

Per Tremollo's initial start, I have re-ordered the article. Sections which describe potential complications of circumcision are in the first section. Sections that specifically discussed circucision being implicating in reducing complications, severity, or frequency of verious illnesses/diseases are in the second section. The sections on Phimosis, Paraphimosis, and Hygiene did not fit well in either section, so remained on their own. -- Avi (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my objections. My objection is that by using that heading you imply that there is more evidence to suggest a benefit than there is to suggest there is no benefit. Just because the studies showing no benefit haven't been written here doesn't mean there aren't any. the reason they aren't here is because they have been left out purposefully. I think the layout of the article is fine now. Tremello22 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not, and we're both pushing up against 3RR, however unintended, so we should continue the discussion here. My objections to the way you have it, is that the way it is now, it seems to be hiding the benefits and trumpeting the complications. The subsections are clear that there may be benefits, just as there may be complications. Therefore both should be introduced the same way, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

How are the complications given more weight and being trumpeted up? I think you are coming into this discussion from a non-neutral point of view. The layout even reflects the view of the medical associations. There may be benefits but they haven't been conclusively proven yet.Tremello22 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We all have individual biasses. The trick is to try to avoid writing those biasses into the article. Editors with different biasses working together can write a better article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think some medical associations would disagree with that statement (that there "may be benefits but they haven't been conclusively proven yet") For example, consider the WHO's statement about the association with HIV being "proven beyond reasonable doubt". Regardless, Avi has a good point. The reader is presented with "possible complications" as a heading, but "possible benefits" seem to be missing. And this is difficult to justify. Although there is no dispute about the existence of some complications, others are more controversial. For example, the meatal stenosis, breastfeeding, and emotional consequences are all disputed. By your (Tremello22) own argument, the heading "possible complications" should not therefore be used. But I think that argument is erroneous. Regardless of how likely you, Avi, or myself may personally think it is, it is possible that these are complications, and possible that penile cancer, etc, are benefits. Indeed, by saying "there may be benefits", you seem to be agreeing with that.

A further problem, which I've tried to correct on several occasions, is the "Further medical analysis" section heading. This is a meaningless heading in the context of this article, which is - after all - about medical analysis. If you're unhappy with "Relationship to specific conditions", please suggest an alternative that actually means something. Jakew (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The WHO aren't a medical organisation. We are primarily talking about routine infant circumcision here and all medical associations agree that the risks of circumcision outweigh the benefits. Here is how most of these conditions have come to be linked with circumcision - some guy who is pro-circ dreams up the reason - studies are conducted by the pro-circ people and then what do you know - it shows some protective benefit. OK, I see you are not happy with the title "medical analysis", therefoere i propose "analysis in regards to specific conditions" My aim is to keep it as neutral as possible and not imply something - you should take a read of WP:AVOID, specifically WP:WTA#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view Tremello22 (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremollo, the same case could be made for anything by Van Howe, in that he will dream up an anti-circ reason and then do the research. Intimating reasons for various researchers' motivations is WP:OR and forbidden. Published research is permissible, as you well know, so let us proceed reasonably without letting our respective personal points of view overly color our dialogue. -- Avi (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This heading change is poor. The content of the "possible complications" section also constitutes "analysis in regards to specific condition". Jakew (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremello22, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You're taking great pains to avoid describing possible benefits as such, but at the same time you want to have a section entitled "Possible complications of circumcision". Personally, I think it's logical to divide the article into "possible complications" and "possible benefits" (or "conditions which have been proposed as possible...", or however we put it). However, if you're adamant that we should avoid doing that for benefits, we have to do the same with complications. What we can't do is to treat the two sections of the article differently, as that is non-neutral. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean 2 sections of the article? There are 9 sections. Like I said before no benefits have been proven conclusively so the word analysis is appropriate. The complications have been proven. That is the difference. With regards putting the complications under the "Analysis in regards to specific conditions" heading. Are you sure - complications aren't really a specific condition. But if you want I will put it there. Tremello22 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) I mean the two sections that contain the bulk of the article: currently, section 3 ("Possible complications of circumcision") and section 4 ("Analysis in regards to specific conditions").

Suppose we were to create a "rule" for deciding how to incorporate claims about the medical effects of circumcision. Judging by the present layout, the rule seems to be this:

• Does the claim allege that the effect is positive or negative?
  • If negative, call it "a possible complication of circumcision"
  • If positive, call it "analysis in regards to a specific conditions"

It would be difficult to argue that such a rule is neutral. While I respect your opinion (and those who agree with you) that no benefits have been proven conclusively, there are equally valid opinions (such as the WHO statement on HIV) that one or more benefits have been proven conclusively. Furthermore, as noted above, there is disagreement in reliable sources over whether some complications are, in fact, complications. We can't achieve NPOV by structuring the article around a single viewpoint; instead we must base the article on the claims that have been made in reliable sources.

So here are some alternative "rules":

• Does the claim allege that the effect is positive or negative?
  • If negative, call it "a possible complication of circumcision"
  • If positive, call it "a possible benefit of circumcision"

Or:

• If the claim alleges that condition X is related to circumcision, include it under the heading "X".

Jakew (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the point is: depending on the source, the claim differs as to whether circumcision offers a protective benefit. The valid opinions of the WHO are mentioned in the appropriate section along with other opinions that disagree. What's the problem? I don't see it myself. Tremello22 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, as I noted previously, sources differ as to whether circumcision has a specific harmful effect. For example: "these physicians have incorrectly included meatal stenosis among complications of neonatal circumcision" (Wiswell TE. Circumcision questions. Pediatrics 1994;94:407-8). A second example: "There was no evidence of an association between neonatal circumcision status and breastfeeding outcomes, or between circumcision status and health and cognitive ability outcomes associated with breastfeeding, and the findings do not support the view that neonatal circumcision disrupts breastfeeding." (Fergusson DM, et al. Neonatal circumcision: effects on breastfeeding and outcomes associated with breastfeeding. J Paediatr Child Health. 2008 Jan;44(1-2):44-9). And a third example, quoted from the article: "Moses et al. (1998) state that "scientific evidence is lacking" for psychological and emotional harm, and cite a longitudinal study finding no difference in developmental and behavioural indices."

Yet in each case, these conditions are found under the "possible complications" heading. That seems remarkably inconsistent. Jakew (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Jake. -- Avi (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremello, you said "the complications have been proven". Surely not all complications have been proven. Are there any about which there is no controversy? Jake has a good point: including complications about which there is controversy as to whether they are complications in a section labelled "possible complications" would have to be balanced by treating benefits about which there is contoversy in a similar manner. I'm not sure we can conclude that there is controversy in RSs about the alleged HIV benefit after the RCTs: I haven't seen any refs questioning it after the RCTs as far as I remember. So perhaps for purposes of NPOV the HIV benefit can be considered proven. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as there are possible complications, there are possible benefits too. Feel free to make the wording parallel, and restore WP:NPOV. Jayjg 02:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The things Jake mentioned are not under complications anymore since I put them under the more neutral heading "Psychological and emotional consequences". Meatal stenosis doesn't have its own heading either. To coppertwig - there have been criticisms over the validity of the RCT's and so it still isn't proven either way. Further still, you only mention HIV - what about all the other conditions - they would still be under the heading possible benefits. To Jayjg , it is neutral.Tremello22 (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, it's not neutral to bury the possible benefits, but have special headings for possible complications. This has been explained to you already, and will have to be fixed. Jayjg 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "meatal stenosis" is still included under "possible complications". A second problem is that "Psychological and emotional consequences" is not a sub-heading of "Analysis in regards to specific conditions".

As a general comment, it's not terribly productive to think in terms of "proven" or "unproven", since the question is whether sources disagree or not, not whether there is absolute proof (which would require us to make that assessment, and of course we can't do that). It's probably better to think in terms of "controversial" vs "uncontroversial", though I'm not convinced that even these are good criteria for the layout. Jakew (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is though that each complication isn't given its own heading. Also, Complications are directly caused by circumcision - whereas almost of these conditions are indirectly linked to circumcision and therefore should not be treated equally.

Your proposal of headings would mean that those conditions would be then strongly associated with a benefit to circumcision. Which would violate NPOV policies. Also the title heading "possible benefits" doesn't correlate with the subheadings - penile cancer isn't a benefit of circumcision, Human Papilloma Virus isn't a benefit of circumcision. See what I mean?

You say "the question is whether sources disagree or not", then why should we favour one side of the argument? Presumably the title would be "possible preventative benefits of circumcision in relation to specific conditions". How can you say with a straight face that that is neutral? You might as well say "circumcision prevents the following conditions:".

You say we can't make an assessment but let me remind you that it it is generally agreed by medical associations worldwide that this elective procedure carries risks of complications and that there isn't sufficient evidence to recommend it to newborns. This is evident by the fact that countries that used to do it have turned their back on RIC. In most places that don't do it, it is generally considered mutilation. Tremello22 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

re. your other title suggestions below - What is the point in dividing the article into "Possible decreases in risks" and "possible increase in risks"? You would have to use a lot more judgment to judge which conditions go with which title and I thought it is , as you said, best to restrict as much as your own judgment as possible. Tremello22 (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me address your concerns one by one.

• "The difference is though that each complication isn't given its own heading". This is a discussion about the structure of the article, so obviously that needn't be the case for all time. Nothing is stopping us from breaking up the complications sections.
• "Also, Complications are directly caused by circumcision". The degree to which we can be certain of causality can vary. To take one extreme, we can be reasonably certain of a causal relationship between circumcision and bleeding, because the penis starts to bleed during circumcision, there's an obvious explanation for bleeding, and it is well-established that the body bleeds when cut, and of course penes are unlikely to start bleeding spontaneously, so the correlation is highly consistent. But to take another example, we can be less certain of a causal relationship between circumcision and failure of breastfeeding, because the evidence of correlation is inconsistent, the proposed mechanism speculative, and so on. As a general rule, there really no reason to treat what WP:RS call complications differently from what WP:RS call benefits.
• "Your proposal of headings would mean that those conditions would be then strongly associated with a benefit to circumcision. Which would violate NPOV policies". No, the proposed headings do not indicate a strong association, nor a proven association, just a possible one. Similarly, if I say "it is possible that Tremello22 is over six feet tall", it does not imply that this is likely. Nor does it imply that it is unlikely.
• "Also the title heading "possible benefits" doesn't correlate with the subheadings". Fair point. There are two obvious solutions. One is to use "conditions proposed as more likely to affect circumcised males" and "conditions proposed as less likely to affect circumcised males" as the parent headings. The other is to use "Reduced risk of HIV (etc)" as subheadings.
• "You say "the question is whether sources disagree or not", then why should we favour one side of the argument?" We don't favour one side, but the only reason why the subject is discussed in the first place is because it has been proposed that there is an association. If you think about it, there are an infinite number of things that probably aren't associated with circumcision: playing frisbee, writing poetry, and the common cold spring to mind. We don't discuss them because nobody has stated that they are unrelated, and nobody has stated that they're unrelated because the lack of relationships is, to be blunt, incredibly boring. Jakew (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Lets just go back to look at the complications. Yes bleeding is caused by circumcision. Then you try to win the argument by bringing up breastfeeding. In case you didn't notice, breastfeeding isn't in the complications section. Care to list anything else? The other complications such as loss of penis are directly caused by circumcision. So do you agree that if there has to be a slight NPOV unbalance (which you see, but I don't) then do you not think that it should go in favour of things we are actually certain about? But like I said, this is missing the main point: even if there was a debate over causality in the majority of these complications, the current structure isn't a problem because the complications are not given a subheading and so are not going to be attributed to a "complication of circumcision"(i.e. it isn't one of the anti-circ arguments - see what I mean about this page turning into a debate rather than an analysis) whereas if you had your way then circumcision would be attributed to benefiting these conditions. You argue that "possible benefits" or "conditions proposed as more likely to affect circumcised males" doesn't infer anything and you use a bad analogy about height. Someone's height is an innocuous thing - there is no debate to be had over someone's height, it isn't a sensitive issue and more importantly - it is easily provable. Lets just remember shall we, the title of this article is "Medical Analysis of circumcision" Now if this was a debate and it was the pro-circ's turn to step up to the debate podium and list off the list of benefits "lower risk of...etc" then I could understand the need for an argument-proposal style structure. But if it were that way then you would automatically be giving the pro-circ side the floor and therefore conferring an advantage.

re: your argument about Breastfeeding. It is currently in the "Psychological and emotional consequences" section. We can change the title of the "Psychological and emotional consequences" section if you would like. I am willing to admit that the word "consequences" carries a negative connotation. So would you like to propose a heading? There is no reason why that section need be an anti-circ section (if we look at things from that adversarial perspective, like you seem to be doing). As I say, there may be some people that get circumcised late in life that actually are happy about it. Maybe they like the new look or they had phimosis, or whatever. For them there is a psychological benefit. Or maybe there are Jews that would be emotionally or psychologically impacted if they didn't get circumcised. Maybe there could be 2 subheadings "positive" and "negative"? Tremello22 (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tremello22, let me explain the problem as clearly as I can. Here is the disputed part of the article structure:

• 3 Possible complications of circumcision
  • (conditions that have been proposed as complications of circumcision are included here)
• 4 Psychological and emotional consequences
• 5 Analysis in regards to specific conditions
  • (conditions that have been proposed as benefits of circumcision are included here)

Now, the problems with this structure are as follows:

Section 3 includes conditions such as meatal stenosis and painful erections, which are disputed. Please note that this isn't inherently a problem, as they have been proposed as complications and hence are "possible" complications. However, as I shall explain, the unequal treatment of evidence is a problem.

Section 4 includes psychological and emotional harm, as well as breastfeeding. You acknowledge that the heading is problematic, but my question is this: why is this section 4 and not 5.1? Isn't it "analysis in regards to specific conditions"? In fact, aren't both sections 3 and 4 "analysis in regards to specific conditions"? Of course they are.

And then we have the wonderfully named section 5, "Analysis in regards to specific conditions". What does this mean? Will any reader, just looking at the table of contents, have any idea? I don't. 'What', (s)he might well ask, 'is an "analysis in regards to a specific condition", and how does it differ from the preceding sections?'. And perhaps after (s)he finishes reading the article: 'why does this article try so desperately to distance itself from the very idea that there might be benefits, so much so that it uses a heading that's so vague that it is practically devoid of meaning, yet it doesn't try to distance itself at all from the merest suggestion of a harm?'

As I've shown, you can't say that complications are undisputed and benefits are disputed, because there are several complications which are disputed. And using such a division as the basis for structuring an article can easily create NPOV problems. To illustrate that, imagine if we were to divide complications into a section entitled 'possible complications' and another entitled something vague like 'analysis in regards to specific conditions that may or may not be complications'. Now imagine that you're a researcher who proposed one of the complications in the long-winded section name. What does that structure say to you? By contrast with "possible complication", it implies that your complication is unlikely. It's like telling two of your three children that you love them, while maintaining a stern silence towards the third. Jakew (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On the whole there is more evidence to suggest that the complications happen, than there is to suggest benefits of circumcision in each of the conditions. Also, there is no debate to be had on the complications therfore the use of the word "analysis" isn't need. The so-called benefits of cirucmcision there is a debate to be had. That is the difference. Now that you have changed the parent heading to possible benefits, it is massively over-favour the pro-cirucmcison point of view and massively overhyping the benefits. None of these things have been conclusively proven. I also thought you said that "possible benefits" wasn't a good heading. It just shows you how biased you are. Tremello22 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The best structure for the article

Clearly the current structure is inadequate and non-neutral. Here are some ideas that would be neutral:

1. Divide the article into "possible complications" and "possible benefits" (or "potential...", or "possible increases in risk" and "possible decreases in risk"). Create sub-headings for each condition (or, if closely related, group of conditions).
2. Avoid dividing the article by complications/benefits, and have a flat structure with a heading for each condition for which an association with circumcision has been proposed.

My personal preference is (1), many because 2 would be difficult to navigate. What do others think? Jakew (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(1) will be better for the reader, and more neutral. Jayjg 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer (1) as well. -- Avi (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The case of the mysterious Arda study

I've deleted a link to a study apparently authored by Arda et al. The link was to an article at CIRP, and appears to be a legitimate study published by BJU International, entitled "Toxic neonatal methaemoglobinaemia after prilocaine administration for circumcision". However, when trying to find a better link for the article, I ran into some problems:

1. PubMed has no record of the study.
2. Google Scholar has no record of the study.
3. Searching BJU International's website revealed no evidence of the study's existence.
4. According to the CIRP page, the study appeared in volume 85, number 9, page 1. BJU International's page for that issue reveals no record of the study, and indicates that pages for that issue were numbered from 1007 to 1153.

For these reasons, I'm not confident that the study was ever published, and have therefore removed the link to the CIRP page. Jakew (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Brennerman and Freud

Brennerman is from 1921 and Freud is from 1947. Are there truly no later studies for this? Secondly, Freud disagrees with Brennerman and says that the ulceration appears in noncircumcised children as well, although to a lesser degree. If anything, Brennerman needs to be dropped and Freud used as the later study. Lastly, can we get a better url? CIRP is performing its classic POV highlighting job again . -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a brief mention of meatal ulceration in the abstract of a 1995 literature review. I don't have the full text, unfortunately.

Although it's desirable, I don't think it's necessary to provide a link at all. After all, we're already providing a citation, so the link only serves as a convenience link. If the link is problematic, for example if editorial comments and/or highlighting have been made, then it may be better to omit the link. If a reader chooses to do so, (s)he can find easily find CIRP's reprint of the article via a search engine. Jakew (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-mention of prostate cancer

I think this sentence could be considered original research: "Neither the American Cancer Society nor the professional medical organizations' policy statements on circumcision cited here mention a relationship between circumcision and prostate cancer." It's also somewhat non-interesting as non-information. I therefore support deleting it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be original research, which is why it was deleted. Conceivably, a source might somewhere exist saying something like "prostate cancer is not mentioned in statements about circumcision by the ACS and medical organisations X, Y, and Z". If such a source exists, I see no reason why it shouldn't be cited. However, I think it very unlikely that a source would say "...by the ACS and medical organisations cited in Misplaced Pages's article, Medical analysis of circumcision". Jakew (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete 'smegma and cancer' section

It seems to me that the 'smegma and cancer' section (which was previously part of another, unrelated section) doesn't really belong in this article. Although it's interesting, it doesn't directly relate to circumcision; at best, it's background information for the penile & cervical cancer sections (it has been proposed as a mechanism for negative associations with these cancers). I propose to merge any information not already present in smegma into that article, and then delete the section. Any comments on that proposal? Jakew (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am ok deleting it. You mean you are going to merge the info into the sections right? That's fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremello22 (talk • contribs) 17:12, September 24, 2008 (UTC)

I think Jake means delete the information from this article completely, and put the information into the smegma article instead (not into sections of this article). I probably support that. Do the refs for the smegma section mention circumcision? Do other sources cite those refs in the context of circumcision? Does any source state that studies about smegma are relevant to circumcision? If not, it probably doesn't belong here, per WP:SYN. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The refs do mention circumcision, but it is very much background. At least some of them are also cited in other sources. For example, Schoen (The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. CA Cancer J Clin 1991; 41: 306-9) cites Plaut & Kohn-Speyer when discussing possible mechanisms. I don't think that it's technically synthesis to include this material, but on the other hand it is at best indirectly related to circumcision (the hypothesis being that circumcision is directly related to penile cancer because circumcision reduces the incidence of smegma, and smegma is carcinogenic). The relationship between this material and smegma is direct and self-evident, and it seems to me that that would be a better place for the material. There's no reason why we can't add a sentence or two of the form "As a possible mechanism, Schoen cites ..." to this article, but I see little point in including in-depth material in two different places. It makes more sense to include it in the most relevant place, and summarise elsewhere. Jakew (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Describing authors

I support this edit by Tremello, which deletes "an anti-circumcision campaigner". To ensure NPOV I think it's probably easiest to simply name authors, without describing them; it might be hard to come up with NPOV descriptions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. AlphaEta 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Poisoning the well about a person is never appropriate. However, I would say that regarding the CIRP links, it remains appropriate to point out their POV, as they use HTML highlighting themselves to poison the well or highlight data that supports their perspective. I am certain that Van Howe, when he published his paper, did not submit it full of yellow highlighting, bolded statements, and underscores. Thus in the notes, if a link is to a CIRP version, and not the original paper, a warning is not inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Readers might not understand that the highlighting is not in the original document or that we're intending to cite the original document, not the CIRP version. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class medicine pages
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages