Talk:Ridged band

External Links

The external links are to two different articles from the British Journal of Urology, a letter from Pediatrics News, and The Ridged Band web site. In my opinion the external links are not repetitious and should all remain in the article. DanBlackham 06:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The link to The Ridged Band web site was deleted by Friends of Robert. I restored it, fixed (hopefully) the POV in the introduction to the external links, and added a link to the BMJ where it mentions CIRP so people can see it for themselves. FoucaultYou 16:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, "Friends of Robert" has changed it, adding their POV to it. I'm new here (at the wiki), and I have no intention of starting off on the wrong foot; What action should I take now? FoucaultYou 18:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Notice of username change: FoucaultYou is now TrevorPerry TrevorPerry 18:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Well you see it is considered arrogant to assume that you are ever so NPOV while all others are dredfully POV. Where should you start? Try to understand what POV really is. - Friends of Robert 15:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I know what POV is, and you're steeped in it to a ridiculous level. I presented what you wrote, in a tasteful, NPOV way, and you went back and changed it so that it'd match your militant pro-circ view. I don't know what you're issue is with providing both points of view in a respectful and tasteful manner. You didn't even present any reason for making the most recent changes that you did. I deserve that, at the very least.TrevorPerry 17:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Friends of Robert changed the title of the "Foreskin: Ridged Band" URL, omitting the "foreskin". The official title of the website is "Foreskin::Ridged Band". Changing it would be inaccurate.TrevorPerry 17:37, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

External Links

There was only one study. The inclusion of additional links gives the impression that there is some supporting evidence. This is not so. This whole Taylor "finding" is speculative at best. Robert Brookes

I agree with you. He examined dead infants and thought it was sexual tissue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.83.97 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC) ---

Correction for accuracy

As the article only made it to the British Journal of Urology as part of a paid supplement. To "name drop" the BJU is to seek respectability by association and to deceive by suggesting that the highly speculative piece is a serious piece of science. Robert Brookes

---

Absence of sexual effects?

I'm going to take the liberty of adding a paragraph discussing the disputed sexual functions of the rigedband, from a NPOV of course. No doubt Mr. Brookes here will find it unacceptable, but I find that this page is too... too sterile, shall we say, and lacking in real and valuable information. FoucaultYou 16:09, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Here is a novel idea. Why don't you post it here first to get some comment before you post it into the article? BTW, is it lost on you that what you posted was 'very' POV? - Friends of Robert 15:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I intended to do so. That's why you haven't seen it posted on the article. I appreciate the suggestion, regardless. I'm not sure I understand where you think I was POV. Some claim that the ridged band has immense sexual sensitivity and importance in triggering ejaculation - that viewpoint should at least be presented in the article. NPOV does not mean no information, nor does it mean that you must censor anything you disagree with. It just means that the wiki article must present the information neutrally, without taking sides. I'm postponing work on that section until I can find someone to mediate (and it'll give me time to work on other projects I have in mind here) - I can tell that there will be further issue with the presentation of the sexual function and worth of the ridged band.TrevorPerry 17:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You will find Theresa a great help. Give her a shout. You must go ahead and post whatever speculation as may please you. Others may just add to it, qualify it and place such off the wall speculation in its proper context and proportion. Thats the way it is done around here. PS: if you want so "help" can can always post another message on one of those anti-circumcision lists for the admirers of the foreskin to come lend a hand ;-) - Friends of Robert 17:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taylor's findings are not "highly speculative"

In my opinion the following sentence should not be in the article.

Taylor's ridged band has not been confirmed by other studies and as such must be considered to be highly speculative.

Taylor's study is a very straight forward description of the cellular anatomy of the foreskin. As far as I know no one with any standing in the scientific community has challenged the cellular anatomy described by Taylor. Furthermore Taylor's findings have not been disproved by any other scientific study. Until Taylor's description of the cellular anatomy of the foreskin is either challenged or disproved, it should be accepted as valid. -- DanBlackham 01:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree, which is why I omitted it in my most recent edit. Theresa decided to put it back in. Is it an attempt to assuage Friends of Robert? Theresa, could we have your input here?TrevorPerry 01:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I looked on pubmed and couldn't find any supporting evidence. Perhaps a rewording. If I leave in Taylor's ridged band has not been confirmed by other studies but take out the rest would that be OK? Theresa Knott
    • Yes, it's true that no one else has done work on the ridged band. Taylor et. al. coined the term in 1996. This does not remove from the validity of his work, nor does it make his work "highly speculative". Because his work was merely anatomical observation, there is very little room for speculation; what you see is what you get. --TrevorPerry 21:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I can't agree with that. Scientists see false artifacts all the time when they are doing straight observation. For example Giovanni Schiaparelli saw canals on the surface of Mars. These canals were actually confirmed by a number of astronomers inluding Percival Lowell who went as far as theorising that they were built to supply water from the melting polar caps to a desert world. Unfortunately for this theory there are no canals. The straight lines that they thought they saw did not actually exist and were probably the product of wishful thinking :-( What a shame! Anyway I've amended the article. Take a look and let me know if it's acceptable. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 21:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Wonderful edit, I have no issues with it, and I doubt that Dan will either. As for Mars, I wasn't aware that you needed a spaceship to observe human anatomy. Just teasing, Theresa. Great job! TrevorPerry
        • The sentence is acceptable to me. -- DanBlackham 00:59, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Take it easy guys. The way it works around here is two steps forward and one step back. Leave it to nanny she knows best ;-) - Friends of Robert 04:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I can't agree that Taylor's speculation was "pure" speculation. Look at the article itself - it mentions high innervation, presence of specialized nerve cells, etc. I move that the sexual sensitivity of the ridged band is only purely speculative to those who don't have one.user:TrevorPerry
  • Trevor do me a favour and be very very careful about your tone. Robert Brookes has been making digs, calling people liars, stupid, and pov pushers. It's very tempting to retaliate his constant swipes at everyone by having a little dig back. Hell it's only natural. But we all must resist that temptation. If Robert Brookes comes up before the AC at some future point (and i truly hope that it doesn't come to that, and instead he learns how to work cooperateivly with others) then it leaves a much cleaner trail if everyone does their utmost to be nice and he still insists on being rude.

• • Having said that let me now go on to adress your point. The presence of specialised nerve cells and plenty of them does not necessarily imply that they have a sexual function. Until further research is done, we simply do not know. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 20:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, now we are making progress. So far so good. But what is needed is to consider the fact that there is a fringe opinion relating to such a sexual function and the psycho sexual motivation that floats their boat. Methinks there is an interesting (but very sad) pathology at play here which explains much about the zealotry of anti-circumcision activism. People have a right to know this stuff. - Friends of Robert 05:47, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll watch myself. What is the AC? I understand your point regarding sensitivity. I merely feel that the phrasing, especially the usage of "purely", was misrepresenting the plausibility of such speculation. It's not a big deal for me, so I'll just drop it; I am getting too perturbed by Robert, I should back it off a little. If you want to change it back to "purely", or keep the current wording, I'll support you (or whomever). Thanks for your adivce and continued dedication to Wikipedia.--TrevorPerry 21:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • • Sorry I forgot you were new. The AC is the Arbitration Committee Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 06:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Speculation on the motivations for the discovery of the ridged band and its sexual functions are non-relevant rant and have been removed. Such POV pushing is not appropriate. Robert Blair 19:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• And the promotion of this ridged band is what? - Robert the Bruce 20:02, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Postulate" is a better word here, since there is some evidence (pretty good, in my view) of a sexual function for highly sensitive flesh that would be stimulated by intromission, just not conclusive proof. —Ashley Y 08:42, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• A better word for whom? Obviously (as you have stated) you have a particular bias in this matter. On that basis we should emphasize the guesswork aspect ... until you can produce this "conclusive proof". - Robert the Bruce 09:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Postulate" already suggests a guesswork aspect, as well as an evidence aspect, both of which are present. "Demonstrate" and "speculate" are both equally inappropriate, "postulate" is an appropriate half-way point. —Ashley Y 09:32, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

• No. Postulate is not a word that is in everyday use therefore needs to be "explained". One of the main reasons why it should not be left without qualification is because Taylor himself used it. People should know that Taylor's conclusions were pure guesswork and recognised as such. - Robert the Bruce 11:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Erogenous function

Jakew, please state what your objection is to including erogenous function in this article. DanP 00:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None whatsoever, if proven. However, Winkelmann did not provide any evidence whatsoever for an erogenous function. Hence it is more accurate to describe it as a belief. The only study to investigate the effect of circumcision on sexual sensitivity was Fink's. In private correspondence, Dr Fink told me that the p value for the question addressing sensitivity directly was .345 for all men, or .791 for those with the same partner. This strongly implies that if the ridged band has any impact, it is minimal at best. Could you explain why you feel it necessary to remove discussion of lack of confirmation of Taylor's findings? - Jakew 00:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text is The description of the ridged band arises from an anatomical study of foreskins obtained from cadavers, and in itself does not appear to be controversial, although it has yet to be confirmed. However, the suggestion of a sexual function for this part is of the foreskin is purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed. What exactly is "not controversial"? The study, the foreskins, what exactly? What is your source for including the latter sentence on "purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed"? Isn't that up to the reader to decide, or are you including your own original work here telling the reader you have more info that Taylor does? DanP 01:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Robert Blair, your most recent edit summary says: "Revert to better version; add book reference"

This is not a better version. Here are problems with it:

• A closing parenthesis is missing in the first paragraph.
• The words ", and in itself does not appear to be controversial, although it has yet to be confirmed." have been removed from the text. These are factual and neutral - what is the problem with them?
• The sentence "However, the suggestion of a sexual function for this part is of the foreskin is purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed." has been removed. Again, this is factual and neutral - what is the problem?

-- These words are unnecessary and inappropriate POV pushing. Furthermore, they are inaccurate because the newest research shows that excision of the ridged band decreases inputs into the central and autonomic nervous systems and sexual response are attenuated.

• You have added the paragraph beginning "More recent research appears to confirm this hypothesis." However, as has been noted previously, this is a highly selective look at the research. If we are going to discuss the research into the consequence of removal of the band, we should discuss all of it - not just those that lend support to your beliefs. However, we have already discussed all of this at length in Medical analysis of circumcision - why duplicate the effort? We've already pointed the reader in that direction.

--If you want to engage in a full discussion, then as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, "lead on MacDuff".

• You've added O'Hara as a reference, but O'Hara considers the ridged band unimportant in intercourse.

--O'Hara discusses the ridged band on the referenced pages. Her opinion is just as important as anyone else's under neutral POV policy. I am adding yet another reference.

Robert Blair 14:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For these reasons, I'm reverting. - Jakew 12:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "However, the suggestion of a sexual function for this part is of the foreskin is purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed." is not neutral. It would be more accurate to say, "However, the suggestion by pro-circumcision activists that this part is of the foreskin has no sexual function is purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed." -- DanBlackham 16:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If the article were about the views of pro-circumcision activists, you might have a point. But the article is about the 'ridged band', which was described by Taylor, and it was he who made the suggestion. Now, would you like to cite a source that has tested and established a sexual role? If so, the sentence is erroneous and should be removed. But to my knowledge, no study has done that. Hence it is factual. If it were to say "the suggestion of a sexual function for this part of the foreskin is purely hypothetical and probably wrong," it would be non-neutral. But as it stands, I have trouble seeing why it is not neutral. Perhaps you could explain? - Jakew 16:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that the ridged band does not have a sexual function is one made by pro-circumcision activists. For the statement to have a neutral POV the source of that suggestion should be identified. A neutral POV statement would be:

"However, pro-circumcision activists have suggested that a sexual function for this part of the foreskin is purely hypothetical and remains unconfirmed."

Is the above sentence acceptable to you? -- DanBlackham 01:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I have left "genital integrity", but have added a comment that this is often called "anti-circumcision". I hope that this will both clarify and protect the delicate egos of those who don't like to call a spade a spade. I have removed the POV "scholarly" wording. I have corrected Winkelmann's description (Winkelmann did not test for erogenous function). I have removed "some circumcisionists have suggested that the ridged band does function to enhance sexual function" - are you sure you don't mean "anti-circumcisionist"? I have restored discussion of the nature of Taylor's findings, and incorporated links from the deleted paragraph further down the page. I have also removed discussion of selected medical studies - we have already linked to medical analysis, where this is discussed in full, and it is pointless to repeat ourselves. - Jakew 23:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shen & Senkul

Why should this relevant study not be included? —Ashley Y 01:41, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

How many times do we have to go over this? If we're going to discuss the effects of circumcision (in context, of removing the ridged band), we need to be thorough about it. It is neither acceptable nor NPOV to discuss just the studies that you feel support your POV. Now, we could include a lengthy discussion of all the relevant studies, but what's the point? We've already directed readers to Medical analysis of circumcision, where there is already such a discussion. It's better to have one good article and point readers to it than many mediocre discussions. - Jakew 03:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, information applicable to the ridged band needs to be in the article on the ridged band.

Robert Blair 03:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The alternative is to cut and paste the text on sexual effects from Medical analysis of circumcision. Arbitrary inclusion of studies is not NPOV, and is unacceptable. Besides, there's no evidence that the information is relevant to the ridged band (though I concede that it is possible). - Jakew 03:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Is there a reference other than the Taylor paper that uses this term? I've added an originalResearch template until this is clarified. +sj + 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Foreskin?

Was there an earlier dispute that caused this to become a separate article? +sj + 01:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be merged. It's a neologism more than 'original research' ; but the way it is presented here, as its own article, suggests that it has attained some common parlance (which it has not; the primary author is the only one to publish scholarly articles using the term). +sj +

I'd endorse a proposal to merge. The same argument also applies to 'gliding action'. - Jakew 14:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of OriginalResearch tag

DanP, was there anything in particular that motivated you to remove this? - Jakew 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I apologize and I should have added a discussion point. OriginalResearch was added without discussion and I did not see any parts of the article where Wikipedia editors were the primary source. It seems that "Ridged band" was explained by Taylor and within the other references. According to Wikipedia:No original research, original research is created by editors of Wikipedia. It goes on to say "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data". I'm not aware of claims in this article that are not also made in the research sources cited. Again, I apologize for the delay in explaining the tag removal. DanP 21:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A merge, and a better sectioning of foreskin, are probably the cleanest solution. There's nothing wrong with externally-referenced information; but the intro paragraph here and structure of the article suggest the term is in active use; when it has only been used in one publication, ten years ago (and then heavily promoted by the person who coined it). It is fine to mention this; it should be introduced with 'quotes', just as it was in the scholarly article, and merged with the broader topic. For comparison: we don't have individual articles on "smooth mucosa" or "corial tissue".

I see your point, we also don't have articles on "inner foreskin" and "outer foreskin", despite structural distinctions. but I don't believe a merger with foreskin is an accurate one. It might be more logical to merge this with frenulum, since they seem to physically merge into the same entity and have the same attributes. But even that is questionable, given that some treatments, say for phimosis, focus on the ridged band (or one of its many other less-scientific names). Also, foreskin restoration does not restore the ridged band, so there is another distinction that makes a merger undesirable in the long run. DanP 18:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We do actually have an article on the inner mucosa (I've nominated it for deletion as I think it is somewhat redundant). As for where it belongs, can I point out that the structure was originally described in a paper on the foreskin? I'd also point out that phimosis is not related to the ridged band. It is, however, related to the dartos muscle lying beneath the ridged band. As for foreskin restoration, doesn't that article explicitly say that the RB is not restored? - Jakew 19:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see your point on phimosis, though I find dartos muscle a bit vague -- it includes all the way to the scrotum, does it not? In this case, unlike inner mucosa, I think there is an important distinction. Yes, the foreskin restoration article says explicitly that the ridged band is not restored -- neither is the frenulum restored (except perhaps in some rare surgical reconstructions). So it seems odd not to have an article on the ridged band, despite the controversy regarding its sensitivity. One could make a similar argument for the g-spot, which is similarly plagued by more uncertainty (even as to its existance in some cases). But merging this article with foreskin makes about as much sense as merging nipple with breast, as they are not the same in meaning or in the scientific research. If we have separate articles on the Death erection and obscure distinctions like Perineal urethra, having ridged band described makes sense in the bigger scheme of things. Although I admit this article needs serious repair work. DanP 03:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Masters and Johnson reference

Master and Johnson provide no information on ridged band, so this reference is inappropriate and has been deleted.

Recent reverts

Jakew, I have reverted the following section:

sometimes called anti-circumcision) proponent at the 1991 Second International Symposium on Circumcision, ',
organised by  leading anti-circumcision organisation NOCIRC in San Francisco. He and others
later followed up on this in an article concerning anatomical and
histological study of the human foreskin that was published in the British Journal of Urology supplement in 1996. 

It is excessive detail on geographical and organizational aspects which are inappropriate in an introductory paragraph. One would have a tough time finding such off-topic personal detail on researchers in articles pertaining to any body part (say, the g-spot). I am also wondering why the Function tag was moved, as the paragraph you encapsulated seems to pertain more to Taylor's anatomical description than it does to actual biological function during intercourse. As to the claims that this "does not appear to be controversial, although it has yet to be confirmed", please indicate your source for this. We should not be inventing new findings, but only reporting existing ones. DanP 22:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems an appropriate level of detail to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Can you find other articles that have such introduction? DanP 22:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Few other articles are based entirely on the theories of one activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

One more statement like that and I will not respond to you again. Read the [g-spot], and then Google for ridged band. More than Taylor (who you believe was the only researcher) is involved in this "conspiracy theory" of yours. DanP 23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's a worrying threat. Anyway, please stop inserting obviously biased descriptions into articles (e.g. "pro-genital mutilation activists"), that's a violation of Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we can see each other's views. I'll take out the biased descriptions as you wish. DanP 23:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop pretending agreement where there is none; this is an abuse of the Talk: process. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

NOCIRC seem quite happy with the label "anti-circumcision" - at any rate, they use it to describe their founder, themselves, and many of their members. [1] [2] - Jakew 11:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not uncommon to introduce a term noting the author and publication. Second, in one of your edits, you assert that it is theorised by pro-genital mutilation activists that he originally presented at NOCIRC. It's a fact. It's pretty unusual for scientists to present findings at an activist conference before formal publication - not unheard of, but it does tend to raise alarm bells. Obviously it would not be NPOV to say so explicitly, but this is relevant information that ought to be made available. In my opinion, you're disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Third, the paragraph speculates about function - it belongs there. Fourth, ok, we can remove the observation of lack of controversy, but the fact that it has not been confirmed should stay. It is highly unusual to accept description of new anatomical features based upon one study with such a small sample size. - Jakew 10:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You raise good points. I indeed left that information in, however I still doubt it merits inclusion the introductory paragraph while it is more of a biographical nature. You are still on the spot to cite your sources at to who exactly is claiming lack of confirmation, and you are well aware that there are references in the article to other sources aside from Taylor's. I can see your points from a scientific view, but they are not explained scientifically in the article. DanP 11:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

"Revised" version

Michael Glass and 207.69.137.21 appear to favour a version of the article that has introduced many problems.

• Firstly, Winkelmann did not identify the structure at all! He made general comments about mucocutaneous tissues. It was Taylor who specifically investigated the prepuce and identified the structure. Stating otherwise is not only original research, but is simply wrong.
• The quote from Winkelmann under 'function' ("All biologic phenomena...") is bizarre in this context. What possible relevance does it have to the function of the ridged band?
• There is no reason to censor the fact that Taylor's findings have not been confirmed.
• Nor is there reason to censor "Studies have shown differing results of the consequences of removing the foreskin (see Medical analysis of circumcision)."
• This latter sentence is replaced with a careful selection of studies with negative findings, ignoring those with positive or neutral findings. Thus, it pushes a POV. There is no reason to do this - we already discuss the issue in depth at med. analysis. Jakew 10:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jake, I believe that we could bring the two versions together. This is my take on the situation:

• Winkelmann did describe the structure of the ridged band, even though he did not name it. While he did make general comments about mucotaneous tissues he also commented specifically on the prepuce. Taylor then built on Winkelmann's work, and I think this should be acknowledged.
• I agree that there could be a better quotation from Winkelmann than the one you mention.
• There is no reason to censor direct links to articles that tend to confirm Taylor's comments or those that would tend to refute his claims. I have no objection to a link to Medical analysis of circumcision provided that there are direct links to relevant articles as a back-up. Michael Glass 13:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael, Winkelmann did not specifically describe the structure of the ridged band. He described features of mucocutaneous tissue. His comments apply equally to the glans penis, for example. The most that can be said is that he described the prepuce as mucocutaneous (which it is, by definition), and claimed that it was erogenous. There is absolutely no point in discussing the various studies over and over again in every article. I've created sexual effects of circumcision, in which the findings are tabulated, and linked to it. Jakew 19:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Jake, thanks for these comments. I have taken them into account, but if you read Winkelmann you will see that he does have one section where he describes the foreskin. The section on sexual effects of circumcision is a reasonable link, as I said before. However, some might prefer to go directly to the studies themselves, especially as the article on circumcision is branded as controversial.

I have made a couple of other edits and I want to explain why.

• Deletion of the anti-circumcision note. It is redundant; 'genital integrity' says it all. Also, the extra words tend to overbalance the sentence, which is rather long as it is.

• Removal of This has not been confirmed. It is also redundant. Worse, it spoils the flow of the article. Far better to proceed straight to Viens' criticism, which is far more forceful.

I hope that this explains what I am trying to do. I am not just making changes for ideological purposes. Some of them are for reasons of style.

So if you must, please revise; don't just revert. Michael Glass 14:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Winkelmann does indeed describe the foreskin, briefly, though you may notice that he mostly reviews the work of others.

I've added a comment that the studies themselves may be found in the other article, so this should address your concern.

I've changed genital integrity to anti-circumcision, though have directed the link to the appropriate page. This is on grounds of clarity - anti-circumcision is a term requiring no explanation, while genital integrity is a bit baffling to the uninformed. Taylor uses the term 'anti-circumcision' himself: "Most of the people I've talked to who are interested in circumcision—like NOCIRC in California, a doctor from Seattle, or Intact—there are several anti-circumcision groups—they like the work [Taylor's research] very much."

Your justification for removing 'this has not been confirmed' seems reasonable. Jakew 14:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A message to the anonymous poster and others

Mr/Ms anonymous, I welcome your suggested revisions, but please make use of the discussion page to explain your edits.

To Jake, many thanks for the work you have done in tabulating those findings of the sexual effects of circumcision.

My most recent changes include the following:

• I have included Genital Integrity with (anti-circumcision) beside it. This is more cumbersome but more even-handed. On balance, this perhaps may be better.

• There's a However to introduce Viens' comment.

• In the paragraph referring to the findings of the sexual effects I have turned one long sentence into two shorter sentences. I have also replaced the ponderous reference to removing the foreskin and the ridged band with a simple reference to circumcision. Of more significance is a reference to mixed results. This is to cover the study that found decreased erectile function but increased satisfaction.

• In the section about the frenar band I have referred to the muscle sheath after which it is named. While the two names may sometimes be used interchangeably, ridged band refers to the enervated and vascularised skin while 'frenar band' refers to the muscle sheath.

I hope that this explains what I did and why I did it. Once again I ask other contributors: revise if you must, but please don't just revert. Michael Glass 02:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Michael, I don't see too much harm in including G.I. as well, but Taylor himself uses the term 'anti-circumcision', so I think we ought to use it. I've included GI also, though I am having second thoughts about it. While there is no doubt that Taylor is anti-circumcision, I can't find an indication that he subscribes to the other ideas that form part of GI. It's rather like describing someone who believes in (at least one) God as a Christian.

I think that the paragraph on sexual effects is perhaps losing its focus. It does belong in the article, but should refer not specifically to circumcision (which the article is not about) but to the removal of the RB. This examines empirical evidence for or against the claim that it has a sensory role during sex. I'll think about the best way to restructure it, but I've left it for the time being.

Otherwise, your edits seem fine to me. Jakew 10:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mild reorganisation

I have slightly reorganised the article to consolidate Viens' criticisms under one heading and to move the alternative name closer to the beginning of the article. The aim is to make the article flow better. Michael Glass 07:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving the criticism subtly introduces POV to the article. In fairness, Viens' remarks have as much validity as Taylor's, and deserve equal placement, rather than being relegated to a backwater.

Additionally, I can find no mention of the term 'frenar band' in scholarly sources. Can anyone else? If not, it should be removed. Jakew 15:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the addition of a subheading entitled Criticism draws the attention of the reader to Viens' criticism of Taylor's work, and bringing Viens' points together makes his criticism more forceful. At the moment the article has a clear exposition of the work of Taylor and Winkleman followed by Viens' criticism. Far from relegating Viens to a backwater, the criticism is given the last word. I believe that this is at least fair dealing for Viens. The term frenar band got 10,600 hits when I googled it [3]. It doesn't have to be mentioned in such a prominent place in the article, of course. Michael Glass 09:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you try Google Scholar, Michael? It's often useful for restricting the search to reliable sources, excluding much of the junk. Here is a Google Scholar search for 'frenar band'. As you can see, there are only two results, one of which is some activist's web page (not a WP:RS), and the other appears to refer to a phimotic band instead. In contrast, ridged band returns 26 pages.

As an aside, while writing this I came across the following from Taylor himself: "'Ridged band' is not synonymous with 'frenar band', the muscular ring or sphincter of equine prepuce." [4] Jakew 13:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Jake. I think Taylor's point that the frenar band and the ridged band are different should be in the article itself. Michael Glass 20:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-circumcision

"Most of the people I've talked to who are interested in circumcision—like NOCIRC in California, a doctor from Seattle, or Intact—there are several anti-circumcision groups—they like the work [Taylor's research] very much."

Taylor presented at a NOCIRC conference.[5]

So, Taylor attends and even presents at a conference for a group that he describes as anti-circumcision. Clear? Jakew 15:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Being at a NOCIRC conference doesn't imply being an anti-circumcisionist. The way you combine two articles to come to a conclusion would be OR as well. Please site a direct quote or a verifiably source stating that Taylor is an anti-circumcision proponent.

The site of which Taylor is a co-author doesn't speak of anti-circumcision and speaks of gential integry instead. So I think it's safe to asume that genital integrity is the term by which Taylor desires to be labled. --ZimZum 15:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an interview with him. I see no evidence that he's a co-author of the site. Do you have any? Jakew 15:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"opponent of circumcision" may be a better term. That's used in two (republished) Winnipeg Free Press articles: "It’s routine circumcision that Taylor opposes."[6] "Dr. Taylor actively opposes circumcision."[7] Agree? Jakew 15:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I think it's most neutral to drop the label entirely since it cannot be clearly established and mentioning it seems to be a form of POV. I don't see anywhere a reference to researchers being 'circumcision activists' for example. You are citing a news article and the letter section btw, not really good sources. --ZimZum 15:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"identified as an opponent of circumcision" is verifiable. Newspapers are generally considered ok as sources, when the context is appropriate, but you've got a point about the letter. Jakew 15:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This is too weak still I think. Can you find any anti-circumcision statements made by Taylor? --ZimZum 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of his statements are pretty anti-circ, don't you think? Jakew 17:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks mainly pro-foreskin to me. Or is anything that doesn't claim that circumcision is the best thing since sliced bread an anti-circumcision stance? --ZimZum 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision" Jakew 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

To me this looks like an objective study that doesn't try to advise or discourage against circumcision. It merely finds how much skin is lost in the average circumcision. If we use this kind of reasoning every researchers trying to find something positive to say about circumcision should be labeled a circumcision activist. --ZimZum 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree about the content, since it doesn't matter - that isn't the reason why he's labelled as such. As noted, he has presented at a NOCIRC conference, a group that he himself describes as 'anti-circumcision', and others have also identified him as a circumcision opponent. Jakew 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo/diagram of topic?

It would be helpful to see a diagram or illustrative photo of a ridged band. I'm not entirely sure what this is located based on text alone.

I agree. I have added the Template:Reqdiagram to this talk page, and request that a medical diagram or photo (such as the one found on This Page) be added to the main article. Gyakusetsu 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a better quality image. --Droze99 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, thank you. kyledueck (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mystery of the Medical Post

Curiously, there seems to be a remarkable insistence upon including in 'Functions' a quote from the Medical Post. I am somewhat mystified by this: while I could entirely understand the inclusion of quotes from peer-reviewed medical journals, anatomy textbooks, etc, I was not aware that the Medical Post were in the habit of making authoritative pronouncements about the function of body parts.

Since the form of publication (a newspaper) is a rather unconventional source for the subject matter, at least at face value, perhaps it has some special importance? Would Swampcritter would be so kind as to demonstrate this special quality. For example, do many (or indeed any) sources recognise the authoritative nature of the Medical Post in making such pronouncements? Has this particular Post article been cited in many scholarly publications? Is Ms Milne a recognised authority in the field? Jakew 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The ability to respond to stretching forces is what makes the “ridged band” unique. Milne is an expert journalist and she is reporting on the research of an expert anatomist in a publication aimed at physicians. I would suggest that when it comes to anatomy’s more technical aspects, Milne’s reportage is at least as credible a source as the critique by a graduate student in moral philosophy (A.M. Viens) published in a bioethics journal. Swampcritter (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that peer-reviewed journals are considered to be the most reliable of sources, and newspapers are somewhat questionable. If the Post is unusual among newspapers, and is known for being an authoritative source on anatomical function, then by all means present evidence of this. If not, I suggest that we limit ourselves to statements in more reliable sources (interestingly, Taylor's paper makes no reference to response to stretching forces). Jakew (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Medical Post is not a mass circulation daily newspaper. Essentially it is a trade publication for Canadian doctors. Access to the MP site is restricted to users who have presented acceptable medical credentials. I think MP satisfies the criteria for a reliable source easily, especially since the content in question is based on an interview with the researcher who first described the "ridged band." The ability of rb to respond to stretching forces is not a radical new idea that Taylor just came up with--it has been all over his personal Web site for years and is completely consistent with his 1996 tissue study, which found Meissners concentrated in the peaks of the ridges. More problematic, in my view, is the prominence given to the anatomical opinions of A.M. Viens. J Med Ethics is a peer-reviewed journal, but it is a journal of the humanities, not of the sciences, and Viens is a student of moral philosophy, not an expert in anatomy. Swampcritter (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Restricted access has very little to do with reliability. The principle reason why peer-reviewed journals are considered to be reliable is the degree of fact-checking that has taken place: the expert reviewers and, to a lesser extent, the editor check claims for some degree of reasonableness. This fact-checking process is absent on private websites and far less rigorous in interviews, which is why we need to be cautious of them. This brings us back to my earlier questions.

As far as I can tell, Viens has not asserted a position regarding anatomy. He has, however, discussed the relationship between pathological study and the experiences in the living; whether one may infer one from the other. Such questions touch upon many fields, and these doubtless include philosophy. Jakew (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, dissection for medical purposes certainly has raised a wide range of issues. I believe the Church prohibited medical dissection for centuries. I'm not sure the “ridged band” page is the best place to be discussing these issues. Swampcritter (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be inappropriate for us to discuss all issues relating to pathological study. To avoid original research, let's stick to those that have been raised in the specific context of Taylor's work.. Jakew (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Redundancy

Taylor says “S100 staining showed additional end-organs and myelinated nerve fibres within papillae and confirmed the richly innervated nature of the ridged band”. There is no redundancy in describing an anatomical structure as "rich in nerve endings" and at the same time noting the distribution pattern of one particular type of nerve ending. Swampcritter (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Since 'richly innervated' appears important to you, I've included it in the sentence discussing innervation. I've also included Taylor's summary of the band's innervation ("contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa"). Jakew 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Imbalance

A.M. Viens, a student of moral philosophy, wrote a lengthy 6-page article on circumcision titled “Value judgment, harm and religious liberty.” A grand total of 3 sentences in this article refer to Taylor’s 1996 tissue study. None of these sentences is supported by a single reference. Yet these sentences by a philosophy student are reported in this Wikipedia article in their entirety and presented as though they constitute a powerful critique of Taylor's biology and of the scientific method. Meanwhile, basic information relating to the nature of nerve endings is rejected as "redundant." Swampcritter (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a little worrying that an entire article is devoted to the theories of one man (Taylor). WP:NPOV requires that we include criticism as a minimum. Jakew (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NPOV requires that we include "the best and most reputable authoritative sources available". It's not clear that Viens reaches that standard. —Ashley Y 00:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:V, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Since Viens' paper appears in a peer-reviewed journal, it appears to not only meet the minimum standard, but is in fact one of "the most reliable sources". Jakew (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe peer-reviewed journals are the most reliable sources, then why did you repeatedly delete Viens' credentials as reported in the Journal of Medical Ethics? If the British Journal of Urology is a reliable source, then why do you keep deleting Taylor's characterization of the ridged band in the BJU as "richly innervated"? Swampcritter (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between citing and summarising reliable sources and quoting the entire text of a reliable source. Since we cannot do the latter, we must select the most important information about the subject matter. In the case of many papers, including Taylor's, the paper includes an abstract in which the author summarises the most important points. In Taylor's abstract, he summarises the main point about innervation: "This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa".

Unfortunately, the edits which you're making imply the opposite. Compare:

• In this forest, there are many trees with red, spiky leaves.
• In this forest, there are many trees with spiky leaves. Trees with red spiky leaves are only found in the valleys.

The first is analogous to Taylor's claim in the abstract: the notable thing about the forest is the high density of red spiky leaved trees.

The second implies that the notable thing about the forest is that red spiky leaved trees are relatively scarce, and that the notable thing about the forest is the high density of non-red but spiky leaved trees. Jakew (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your analogy is wrong. A correct analogy would be “the rainy coastal region, which is thickly forested, contains more red alder than the drier interior region. The coastal region’s red alder, a deciduous native tree, is found only in the crests of ridges”.

You say the abstract summarizes the most important points of Taylor’s paper, yet you quote nothing from the abstract except one sentence, and even this one sentence is truncated to exclude the part about “specialized sensory mucosa”.

You offer no explanation whatsoever for deleting the straightforward characterization of Meissner’s corpuscles as a “type of sensory receptor”.

By your own account, Taylor’s work is rebutted by Viens. Apparently not content with merely quoting Viens’ 75-word rebuttal in its entirety, you have sought to advance your POV even further by concealing Viens’ possibly tenuous credentials and raising specious objections to a simple 49-word description of the ridged band’s histological structure. Swampcritter (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unhelpful to offer an analogy which bears no apparent relationship to either of the alternative versions. I have altered the article to include Taylor's summary of the innervation from the abstract, but since it appears to be so important to you, I have also included "richly-innervated". Jakew (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The latest changes are acceptable to me, except for one thing: a visitor should not have to follow the link to "Meissner's corpuscles" to find out what they are. No publication aimed at a mass audience would use such terms without a single word of explanation. Swampcritter (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple English

I read about the term "ridged band" many times without knowing what the heck it was. It was only when I saw a picture that I worked out it was referring to wrinkly skin.

Most people obviously focus on troughs rather than ridges and call such physical appearance wrinkly. In this case for some reason the ridges are focussed on and it is described as ridged. Other than in anti-circumcision literature wrinkly skin on the penis has always been described as wrinkly skin. Therefore I have added that description for clarity so that people don't encounter the confusion I experienced due to the unique description of something that could much more easily be described and easily understood but for the unique description.

I believe my changes will make the information much more easy to understand.Jb3 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how some philosophers article has anything to do with medical science, I am removing it, it's offensive that it's stayed so long here to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.228.210 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've restored this material, because the stated reason seems to lack validity. Viens doesn't dispute Taylor's interpretation of his microscope slides, or otherwise make any claim that would require expertise in histology. Instead, he discusses the degree to which one may extrapolate from one field of knowledge (histology) to another (sexology); something that would seem very much in the realm of philosophy. Jakew (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)