Talk:Unicirc

Doubted neutrality
The user that created the article only worked on this article. The article is definitely one-sided, because there is much criticism of circumcision as an alleged HIV prevention. This article from the famous german popular science magazin Geo describes the problems accurately: http://www.obert.de/fileadmin/user_upload/text/pdf/Sambia.pdf

--Grünebanane (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The best avaliable evidence supports circumcision in populations that have high risks of HIV/AIDS. We base our articles on WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Circumcision deniers
Oh, gosh, we're going there. The scientific evidence for circumcision to reduce female-to-male transmission is indisputable. Are climate deniers and vaccine deniers also allowed to pollute Wikipedia? How does Wikipedia deal with these issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Please see Circumcision and HIV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I have discussed this with editor Cullen328 and the discussion is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We have excellent studies supporting the us of circumcision for the prevention of HIV/AIDS in Africa. If you notice a place on Wikipedia that says differently please notify me. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

COI
I have no conflict of interest. I am an independent scientist. Here is the statement on the following article: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157065

The authors received no specific funding for this work, did not/do not serve as employees or consultants, and have no financial interest in this product or any marketed products or products in development. The authors have no competing interests, defined as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles. No competing interests, financial or non-financial, professional, or personal, exist. No competing interests exist in relationship to an organization or another person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

5 of the articles references cite your name which is why I considered you had a conflict of interest in citing your own work? Theroadislong (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I think a very fair assessment on your part. This is a specialized area and there are few researchers. Do you accept my explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersmillard (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS review articles need to be used. I have trimmed a bunch of primary sources. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

For me this article reads like a commercial and despite the authors claim it looks as if the main goal was to have this product placed here. In fact this article has not much content related to the newly created lemma. The section HIV-Prevention does not contribute any new information related to the lemma and the same applies to the section Comparison with other circumcision devices, which gathers some facts about the competing products but more or less none about Unicirc. The only sentence that tries to fullfill the sections headline is the vague sentence "was associated with less blood loss, more rapid healing, and less pain compared to other techniques". Not much knowledge gained by the article so far.--Motorpsycho (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at this topic area and it makes sense to merge all the devices to Circumcision surgical procedure Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be reasonable.--Motorpsycho (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)