Talk:Circumcision scar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why can't this be in male circumcision? JoaoRicardo 22:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] POV

Now it is my turn to call POV. Mentioning that Cold and Taylor oppose circumcision in this context implies that their research has been compromised by their beliefs. Unless you have evidence that this is the case, the comment is POV and does not belong in Wikipedia. Christopher 12:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the statement is factual. If it said "which has compromised their work", it would be POV, but it doesn't. Both authors have presented at symposia organised by NOCIRC, an organisation committed to an anti-circumcision cause. Jakew 13:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that they oppose circumcision, I can't imagine why an unbiased qualified professional would endorse RIC. I am disputing the bearing that it has on the article. Unless we are noting the POV of every source on this page (and that would be impossible to do without expressing a POV) it is POV to single out a source with a disclaimer. Besides, are we assuming that our audience is too stupid to pick up that Cold and Taylor oppose circumcision if they follow the link? Also, I said that the sentence implied that their work was compromised, not that it was explicit. Christopher 13:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to noting the POV of other sources, especially if there is documented evidence that they are politically active in their support of or opposition to circumcision. Jakew 14:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Do Cold and Taylor oppose all circumcision? Adult, elective circumcision? Religious circumcision of minors? Social circumcision of minors? Prophylactic medical circumcision of infants? I'm left wondering this from the comment in the article. Circumcision occurs in many contexts, and I don't think there is justification form the sources to claim a blanket opposition on the part of Cold and Taylor, based on their published materials. Might that bit of synthesis represent a touch of original research? On the other hand, if you can find a Reliable Source in which Cold and Taylor state their opposition to circumcision (rather than explaining the type of tissue removed, or the relationship between human and non-human primate prepuces, or speculating on the consequences of the removal of the tissue, etc.), then by all means cite it.Zandrous 18:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kiddie porn link?

OK, I just took a look at CIRClist gallery that's linked at the bottom of the page, and there's a photo of a kid there who doesn't look a day over 14. Are there any implications for linking to it from WP? Benami 02:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No it has implications for you.... --Wolfmankurd 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is clearly a pro-circumcision agenda at work here. What is the fetish with a scarred penis? I am an intact man and wanted to add a few links and short paragraphs about botched circumcision scarring and the effect of restoration on circumcision scars, and they seem to have been edited out in favor of a scar-fetish POV. Wolfmankurd's response is inappropriately defensive and insulting. Benami's question is a valid one.

Agreed that some of the photos on the linked galleries are questionable. I'm removing, just to keep Wiki safe from possible links to child porn.A.V. 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic external link

First, I think the "Circumcision May offer Africa AIDS Hope" link added by 70.105.99.76 is not appropriate for this article. Second, http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/ which sites "International Journal of STD & AIDS" Volume 1, January 1999" and http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1262558 states that recommending routine circumcision to prevent HIV is scientifically unfounded so I would be careful about POV. If someone agrees, feel free to remove the link. Matthewc1 10:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The first is eight years old, and was criticised for methodological flaws [1] [2]. The second does not state what you claim, but instead concludes that: "Crucially, the results of two additional trials underway in Uganda and Kenya [the same trials that have recently completed] are awaited. Considering the results of all three trials together is likely to provide us with stronger evidence to guide policy." Jakew 11:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a link to the recently completed Uganda and Kenya studies regarding HIV risk and circumcision, but I'm having trouble adding it to the article. Maybe someone with more Wiki skills will add it.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070223/D8NF543O3.html

A.V. 17:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt didn't work because we don't have a 'references' section with the tag needed to show the references list yet. You can insert an ordinary link (like [3] this) for now, and I'll try to convert the format as soon as I can. Jakew 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Relevance of masturbation?

Might not be a big deal, but what is the relevance of masturbation's illegality in Iran to the topic "circumcision scar"? Zandrous 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Anecdotal comment is Original Research

The anecdotal comment about how circumcised men masturbate is original research without a reliable source claiming this information. Zandrous 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC) So I have removed it. Zandrous 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)