Talk:Preputioplasty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "With great success"

This seems likely to draw the ire of the non-POV brigade and the qualification goes without saying since European physicians and surgeons are unlikely to continue doing it if it's not successful. So I removed it. Masalai 01:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also - Foreskin restoration

Foreskin restoration is physically repugnant because it looks disgusting. It also gets stuck in one's teeth as well when a man or woman is performing oral sex. It should therefore be banned as a surgical procedure, and anyone desiring to have their foreskin restored should be placed in psychological counseling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.187.126 (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The section I added is disputed. I added it in good faith in order that visitors here who come here because they have a genuine interest in the penis and foreskin may also see the article on Foreskin restoration. It was removed with the one word edit summary "Irrelevant".

I am not about to get into a revert war over this. Instead I think we need to build a consensus over whether this item should or should not be included.

My rationale for including it, and especially in a "See also" section is that it nether adds to nor detracts from the article, but that it provides a link of interest for those who wish to follow it that is relevant to any article about the human foreskin or things done to it surgically.

Additionally, the article as a whole is lacking a See also section. There are many other links that would be of use within it. However I feel we should confine ourselves initially to looking at the one link to Foreskin Restoration. I propose that we include this link. I suggest we handle this in the usual manner and support or oppose below Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer). Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question What does foreskin restoration have to do with preputioplasty? Surely it is a clean different subject. Masalai 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment They are different topics about the same part of the body. A reader seeing preputioplasty is likely, but not certain, to be interested in other topics about the penis, about male genital surgery, and about foreskins or the lack thereof. The intent of this link is just that: to lead the reader on in the best traditions of Wikipedia. It is distanced from the text because of the "See also" heading. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the preputioplasty article is going to have been led there from a more general article, where a link to your article is much more appropriate. Masalai 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a mistaken view. Anyone will access pages in whatever order they access them. I really can't see why you feel so strongly against this, but I accept that you have a right to your view. A thought might be a "Human Penis Navigation Template" that goes at the foot of all penis related articles. They are easy enough to make and save some time and trouble. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The subjects are unrelated. True, they both involve the foreskin, but I think this is a poor reason for linking the two. By similar reasoning, we should link elephant to beetle since both breathe oxygen... I would rather have a small number of highly relevant links than a large number that is less useful to the reader. Jakew 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you are deploying reductio ad absurdum cleverly, but incorrectly. The link is substantially different from Elephant and Beetle via oxygen, or, below, London and Paris becaise both happen to be cities. Each of this article and foreskin restoration are procedures performed upon a penis. The linkage is substantially closer than the examples imply. Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Precisely. I was going to compare inserting "See also Paris" in a London article or "See also Foot" in an ear article but Jakew's example is also to the point. One descends from the general to the particular, not from the particular to the particular, especially when they are so tangentially related. Masalai 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)