Talk:Mogen clamp

"to protect the glans"

"The device is designed to remove the foreskin, while protecting the glans." Oh really? Citation BADLY needed! The device has no particular feature that might protect the glans. It manifestly does NOT protect the glans, since at least three boys have lost parts of their glandes in Mogens.--Hugh7 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, addressed in article in advantages and disadvantages sections. Zad68 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Advantages paragraph needed

I was able to find disadvantages to the Mogen clamp but I can't seem to find any "advantages" (such as it being "low cost" or "easy to use"). If anyone could provide the article with information about advantages to the Mogen clamp, it would help make for a more informative article. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC))

Done, addressed in article in advantages and disadvantages sections. Zad68 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo needed

A photo of the Mogen clamp would be useful for the article. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC))

I agree, I am working on getting a photo. Zad68 (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Zad68 has vandalized the article and removed lawsuits and FDA information about the Mogen clamp. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

I don't see any sign of vandalism, and would caution you not to make such accusations in future. Jakew (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

MurasakiSunshine, my edits were in good faith and intended to improve the article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. They were clearly not vandalism. You should read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I believe your accusation that my edits were vandalism is without merit. Please note that Wikipedia considers someone who falsely accuses another editor of vandalism to be a disruptive user. Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive user. I would appreciate it if you would rescind your accusation of vandalism and apologize. Thank you. Zad68 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider users who erase information that people should read to be disruptive. You removed valid information. You even tried to remove complications from the Mogen clamp page, despite the FDA backing those complications.(MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

Oh. And I'm sorry for claiming you vandalized the Mogen clamp page. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

Apology taken at face-value, thank you. Zad68 (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

MurasakiSunshine, when you edit Wikipedia, you're expected to follow Wikipedia's rules, including accepting Wikipedia's definition of "disruptive" ahead of your own. When you don't, you get yourself into exactly the situation you just had to apologize for. To the article: First, I removed a bunch of off-topic lawsuit detail that was entirely inappropriate for this article. Not everything that is true and/or sourced belongs in an article. It also has to be on-topic, and in proper balance. As my edit summaries indicated, I removed all the lawsuits that happened to mention a Mogen-style clamp was used, but there was no accusation or legal result that indicated the clamp itself was responsible. This was explained in an edit by Jakew in this edit at Talk:Gomco clamp, which is a page you had been editing recently, but maybe you didn't see it there. It was also explained in this edit by Jakew here on this talk page, see below here. Regarding the list of complications I removed, in a manner which you describe as "despite the FDA backing those complications," here are the two sentences I removed: "Between 2000 and 2011, the FDA received at least 20 reports of injuries related to the Mogen clamp. These injuries included lacerations, hemorrhaging, penile amputation, and urethral damage" with a cite to this LA Times article. First, please read WP:MEDRS, and specifically see this sentence: "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles." Second, the removed sentence's "20 reports of injuries" seems to come from the LA Times article statement "Twenty-one of those reports were related to Mogen clamps, all but one of which involved injuries." This would make "at least" unnecessary. Further, the FDA spokesperson's statement that they were "related to" the Mogen clamp isn't specific enough for us to conclude that the clamp was in some way at fault. There might be information from the FDA that could be relevant and useful to include in this article, but this popular press paraphrase of an FDA spokesperson's overly-general statement isn't good enough. The second sentence I removed "These injuries included lacerations ..." appeared to be either synthesis or just the mistaken result of a plain misreading of the LA Times article. This list of injuries was from the outdated 2000 FDA statement, and were not related to the Mogen clamp in particular, but to the circumcision procedure itself without concern for the type of clamp used. The list was applied absolutely incorrectly to the 2011 popular-press article's paraphrase of the FDA spokesperson's statement. For all these reasons, starting most importantly with the popular-press source that failed WP:MEDRS, I removed the two sentences from the article. Zad68 (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)