Medicine Redirect‑class Low‑importance

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

I came across a nice instructional video showing a Gomco clamp circumcision:

http://newborns.stanford.edu/Gomco.html

(Brandon Arnold (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Poor little guy is gonna be hurting for a few days. But I wish I'd had it done at birth like he did - I love my circumcision. Yiddophile (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what if the "poor little guy" grows up wishing he hadn't been circumcised? There exist people who have the reverse of your desire to have been circumcised your entire life; they wish they didn't have to be circumcised the rest of their lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.124.235 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trade places? I have had sex both with and without a foreskin. The only thing you're missing is the smell of cheese. I wish I had been circumcised at birth so I could have enjoyed its benefits all my life. Ever had your pediatrician forcibly separate adhesions to your glans? That was agony I remember. I know I'll never convince you, but thank your parents for your circumcision. And a Gomco - the Mogen clamp is faster, but the Gomco gives a better cosmetic result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.98.19 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

97.116.124.235 has now made three separate attempts to cite material on "historyofcircumcision.net".[1] [2] [3] This is a private website, and is hence a self-published source, which is unsuitable for use in Wikipedia.

The edit summary for two of the recent reverts reads "There are primary sources listed there". This may be a reason for checking and then citing those sources instead, but it is not a reason for citing a source that fails to meet the requirements of Wikipedia policy. Jakew (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely ridiculous claim, given that my additions are the only cited pieces of information in this entire article and especially given that you have no problem with preposterous remarks like the following, which is quoted directly from the version of the article with which you are so fond (from the heading Advantages no less): The circumcision scar, sometimes called the "circline" (reference?), is an extremely predictable and uniform brown ring which is visible on virtually all circumcised American men born between 1950 and 1980.(reference?); besides the egregious '(reference?)', it is a false statement and one that is clearly fetishist. --97.116.124.235 (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that claim has needed a source for a long time, and it's time it was deleted. I've therefore done so, and have also removed (once again) the self-published sources. Jakew (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Gamco.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryleigh McWillis died as the result of circumcision with the Gomco clamp. Why can his death not be added to the article? (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have substantially trimmed off-topic material relating to lawsuits involving Gomco circumcisions. The article is about a surgical device, not who sued who or where they happen to be employed. I am strongly inclined to delete this material altogether, actually, as these lawsuits involved merely circumcisions that happened to be performed using the Gomco clamp: I do not see any indications that the Gomco itself was held specifically responsible. By analogy, it would be ludicrous to list every lawsuit involving a surgical operation at scalpel, even though almost all such operations will have been performed using that tool. Jakew (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]