Talk:Foreskin restoration

• Talk:Foreskin restoration/archive

Kimmel

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

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

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

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

Biased stories

Jakew, concerning the link you and Robert are promoting "Self-mutilation: Attempted Foreskin Reconstruction", what are you doing here? Do you want isolated cases to be identified as the norm or are you prompting restoration diaries of successful restoration to be included here? Where is your scientific method? Do you approve of articles about boys dying from circumcision to be posted in the male circumcision article? This is so clearly rampant POV, but it goes along with the "all restoring men are gay mental patients" slant. DanP 19:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Latest revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear group,

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

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

Thanks,

Dan

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

Injury to the genitals

With regard to the recent change to "a man who has undergone circumcision or has sustained some other injury to the genitals" my concern is that it will be read by the pro-mutilation faction as suggesting circumcision itself is injury (indeed some are voluntary, some fetish, and some necessary by true indication). But I didn't want to simply delete the word "other", as that has clear connotation that circumcision is not an injury (by the "or" wording). I'm sure there is an adjective (not "other") that does not press either POV. DanP 22:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence of lack of neutrality in Robert's edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on #3. Unquestionably true.

on #4. Why is this non-neutral?

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

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

on #7. Lost me there.

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

Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This "some people" routine

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

My recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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