This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garycompugeek (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 12 April 2012 (→news article addition: cm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:52, 12 April 2012 by Garycompugeek (talk | contribs) (→news article addition: cm)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical analysis of circumcision redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Medicine Redirect‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
 | Error: Target page was not specified with to. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Medical analysis of circumcision redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Huge series of dubious changes
I've just reverted a long series of dubious changes due to multiple problems. These include, but are not limited to:
- Multiple WP:NPOV violations. These range from WP:PEACOCK terms such as "A classic 1993 study on HPV ... A famous study on nongonococcal urethritis ... An exhaustive 1994 study on herpes simplex virus type 2" to assertions of opinion such as "Cutting off a part of your sons penis is not a logical way to prevent a rare and easily treatable UTI" to asserting the results of one study while ignoring contrary results such as "Most notably, circumcision drastically reduces the glans sensitivity to vibration". These are just a few examples, of course.
- Multiple WP:NOR violations. For example, as far as I can tell, none of the sources cited in the sentence beginning "Certain components such as Langerhans cells" actually discuss protective functions of the foreskin.
- Wrong article. If neutral and properly sourced, material about the function of the foreskin belongs in foreskin, not here.
- Failures of basic English (eg., "What is the foreskin? is a question that many Americans would have trouble answering"). (This sentence is inappropriate tone for an encyclopaedia anyway, but I'm including it to illustrate that even the first added sentence is problematical.)
I would request that the person who wishes to make these changes first present each change here on the talk page, so that such issues can be resolved prior to editing the article. Jakew (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Help formating !
Look under Staph. infections jmak (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the Circumcision Procedure section necessary on this page?
There is a link at the start of the article to the articles on "male circumcision" and also to "penis". This article is about the *medical analysis* of circumcision - primarily arguments for and against - so I don't think it's necessary to have this section repeating what is already on the aforementioned two articles and, I assume, those reading/searching for this article already know what circumcision is (if not, they can read about it on the page linked at the beginning of the article. 82.43.199.163 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Lead addition
I reverted an addition to the lead that had several problems:
- It began "However, a study by Gregory Boyle and George Hill found that male circumcision resulted in only a 1.3% reduction in HIV transmission." There are undue weight problems involved with citing a fringe publication in the lead, but the main problem is that through juxtaposition and the use of the term "however", it presents this as though it contradicted the previous material. In fact, Boyle & Hill simply present the absolute risk reduction in the trials rather than the relative risk reduction.
- "Another study, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Fogarty International Center, found that circumcised men were more likely to transmit HIV to their female sexual partners..." The cited source found nothing of the sort, and again there are undue weight problems, as well as the fact that this is a primary source. An additional problem is the huge amount of puffery involved in listing funding sources, which is completely unnecessary.
Jakew (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
news article addition
I reverted Jake's revert of MurasakiSunshine news ref from the New York Times on circumcision by cauterization. Jake you site WP:MEDRS#Popular press for your reasoning however I believe you are taking it a bit too literal. It also states "Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, and historical information in a medical article." This has value as a historical reference. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Would you care to explain how "With a circumcision by cauterization, electrocautery needles are used to severe the foreskin and prevent bleeding. This method of circumcision is now considered dangerous and outdated" constitutes a historical statement, Gary? It clearly is nothing of the sort. It's a statement in the present tense that makes an assertion about current medical thinking. Jakew (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually even worse than I thought. Not only are the cited sources inappropriate for the claim, but none of the cited sources even () support the assertion that the method "is now considered dangerous and outdated". And one even explains that there are mixed views: "Some physicians believe electrocautery should never be used in circumcision. Others describe it as perfectly safe." So that managed to violate WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. And all in one edit. Jakew (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously not safe considering multiple children (I think I can source 7 or 8 cases directly) lost their penises because of it. Also, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, 1997 stated that electrocautery should never be used for circumcision. Either way, it is a method of circumcision and should be added to the article in some form because it was at one point in use. It's not popular in the USA and Canada now but I have heard of Turkey using cauterization. Just say there is a dispute over the safety of cauterization. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
- Please see WP:NOR. We can't draw our own conclusions about whether it is safe or not; that's for reliable secondary sources to decide (and they'll probably consider not only the number of serious injuries, but will also put that in perspective by considering the number of total number of surgeries). There is no reason why the CPSM should not be cited; that's a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Jakew (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jake that we should not draw our own conclusion for that is WP:OR but the refs MurasakiSunshine supplied are all quite dated which is why I said historical significance, 1975-91. They are just reporting historical fact Jake and seem to add another method that was missing from circumcision procedures, perhaps we could word it differently or come up with some better refs to cover this procedure? Garycompugeek (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Categories: