Talk:Foreskin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Removal of off-topic material

I recently removed some content from this article, because it was both irrelevant and original research, but my changes were reverted by Jayjg. Jayjg also left a warning message on my talk page, but I was not made aware of what breach of policy lead to the warning. This leads me to believe that my reasons for removing this content were unclear (or the editor failed to assume good faith), so I will explain further.

The content in question is from the Functions > Other subsection, and is in bold below:

Gairdner (1949) states that the foreskin protects the glans however, several studies find that inflammation of the glans is more common when the foreskin is present. In contrast, Van Howe (2007) found more inflammation in circumcised boys.

Meatitis, meatal ulcer, and meatal stenosis are thought to be less common if the foreskin is present. Among circumcised males, reported incidence figures of meatal stenosis include 0%, 0.01%, 0.55%, 0.9%, 2.8%, 7.29%, 9-10%, and 11%.

The wording "[if/when] the foreskin is present" is original research, and does not appear to be supported by most the sources provided. The exception is this source, but that statement was made about soldiers, and extrapolating that comment to the general population would be a misinterpretation of the source. Many sources mention correlations between circumcised and intact men, but none (I hope "none" is correct - some sources are inaccessible to me, but I checked all publicly available sources) explicitly state that the presence of the foreskin is the cause. It may seem logical to make that assumption, but there are other possible explanations for the correlation (eg. frequency of balanitis could be caused by poor genital hygiene, rather than the presence of the foreskin), so we cannot make that statement unless it is made by reliable sources.

In the first paragraph ("Gairdner (1949 states...") may also be synthesis (mostly due to ambiguity), since none of the sources cited contradict Gairdner directly, or the claim that the foreskin protects the glans from injury "from contact with sodden clothes or napkin." This could potentially be fixed by changing the wording, so that it's clear that Gairdner was talking about two different types of protection (injury and infection), and only one of those types is disputed.

Ultimately though, my main objection is that the whole section in bold is irrelevant to the article. This article is about the foreskin, and it should not be used as a soapbox to promote or discuss circumcision. Comparing penises based on circumcision status is beyond the scope of this article, and the content would be better suited for Circumcision or Medical analysis of circumcision. Rephrasing this circumcision-related content to match the sources will not result in material relevant to an article on the foreskin, so I am "boldly" removing this content as recommended in WP:OFFTOPIC. kyledueck (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I read through a number of the studies, and they specifically mention foreskins. Some of them even use "foreskin" in the title! Please explain how they are not about foreskins, when they specifically discuss them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the foreskin is discussed in the sources, it's a question of whether the cited statements are relevant to the article. The fact that the foreskin is mentioned does not automatically mean that every statement made in the source is relevant to this article. For example, one of the sources that mentions the foreskin states "Wartime conditions have always been conducive to promiscuity" - which is not a statement that would be appropriate for this article. Material that is specifically about the foreskin can be included, but material about the effects of circumcision, or comparisons between intact and circumcised penises is beyond the scope of this article. kyledueck (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate — and share — the desire to avoid repeating content already included elsewhere, it doesn't seem terribly realistic to completely exclude references to circumcision or to comparisons between circumcised and uncircumcised penises. After all, much of what is known about the foreskin is known as a result of finding out what happens when it is removed, and many of the doubts about proposed functions exist because of inconsistencies between those theories and existing scientific evidence. Jakew (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how the information came to be known, the information we present needs to be directly related to the article. I'm not suggesting that we remove every reference to circumcision, only the cases that are not relevant. You'll notice that I did not remove the link to the Sexual effects of circumcision, the paragraph in "Surgical and other modifications of the foreskin", or instances where it was relevant to the information being presented.

If the doubts about the proposed functions can be be expressed while staying on topic, that is preferable to turning this article into a soapbox about circumcision. kyledueck (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand how your comment is relevant to this article's content. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with Kyle the content in question is WP:OFFTOPIC. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What specifically do you "understand", Gary? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be a little more direct about it. There is a wikipedia home for circumcision, and this is not it. The wikilawyering has gone on long enough. This is obviously gaming the system, by editors who have enough experience to know better. If the circumcision references are not removed in the next day or two, I will call for an RFC, to compare the English language version of the wikipedia foreskin page, to other language versions, to specifically examine the circumcision references, to see if they exist in the other language versions. Tftobin (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling for an RFC is fine, but you should have enough experience to know that the contents of other articles in other languages matters little to what is present in here. Each language has its own content policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an article for circumcision. People don't go extolling the virtues of foreskins there. This is an article for foreskins. I don't expect that people will be extolling the virtues of circumcision here. Eventually, when imperial editors get challenged enough, wikipedia may perhaps decide to deal with the problem, to simply avoid the next set of disputes. Either that, or people will go elsewhere to get more accurate information, such as the online Britannica. Somewhere they can trust. Tftobin (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit in question does not mention circumcision, never mind extolling it. This is an article about foreskins. I expect to read about the effects of not having one here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You expect to read about Circumcision and its effects here? This article is about a penis with foreskin. The information you expect is already in the links I've just highlighted. To go into detail here about circumcision and its effects would be WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:PROPAGANDA. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Show me the word "circumcision" in the added text, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's wikilawyering, but it is hard to imagine that "Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, either partially or completely. It may be done for religious requirements, health reasons such as to treat a medical disorder, or personal preferences surrounding hygiene and aesthetics." is not about circumcision. Tftobin (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

More irrelevant than wikilawyering. This section is not about the sentences you quote. It's about the removal of the material quoted in bold text at the start of this section. Jakew (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe the cause of the confusion is that we're now discussing two separate edits that I made, here (which is the edit at the beginning of this talk page section) and here. I made both of these edits for essentially the same reason: the content removed appeared to be off-topic, and promoted circumcision.

Jake's response was relevant to both of my edits, so that's what I based my response on. I apologize for not making that clear earlier. Essentially my point was that the doubts about the functions of the foreskin are still clear after my edits, while being neutral and staying on topic at the same time. kyledueck (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Please prove that circumcision is relevant

Please prove that circumcision is relevant to the foreskin, and should be placed here, before reverting the change. There are plenty of articles which discuss circumcision. A foreskin is not a part of the body to be removed by circumcision. If that sentence is put back, we go into RFC. Tftobin (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Lead sentence in the foreskin circumcision article: "Male circumcision is the surgical removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

When "circumcise" is defined as "to cut off the foreskin of (a male) or the prepuce of (a female)" in dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster, the foreskin is gone. Circumcision is not relevant to the structure, function, or anatomy of a foreskin. Foreskins have existed on mammals for 120 million years. How many discussions of circumcision are there in wikipedia? 33 with circumcision in the title? If you want to talk about circumcision, there are between 33 and 500 places to go in wikipedia. Circumcision is not germane to the existence of a foreskin. It is simply off topic. Tftobin (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Therewillbefact (talk · contribs), Pass a Method (talk · contribs) and Garycompugeek (talk · contribs) have now reverted the addition of Simmons et al.

• Therewillbefact (talk · contribs) gave as a reason: "Could not find this information anywhere in the references provided". Apparently TWBF did not take the (rather obvious) step of checking the full text of the cited reference, as this material appears in the right-hand column of page 1629.
• Pass a Method (talk · contribs) provided a one word edit summary: "undue", which falls short of an explanation.
• Garycompugeek (talk · contribs) stated: "remove wp:undue wp:propaganda". No explanation was given as to why the material might violate either.

Jakew (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the citation is:

Simmons MN, Jones JS (2007). "Male genital morphology and function: an evolutionary perspective". J. Urol. 177 (5): 1625–31. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.01.011. PMID 17437774. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

and the text was

Simmons et al. report that the foreskin's presence "frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer"

I agree that I don't see how this violates WP:UNDUE. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 23:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont see the reason why we should mention all sorts of rare foreskin conditions on this article. You even felt the need to mention all these conditions individually in the lede of the circumcision article, now do it here again. I reverted you for the same reason as on the circumcision article. Im okay with you rewording it without mentioning all the specific names. Pass a Method talk 08:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To assess due weight, we need to determine the amount of coverage these conditions are given in the literature. If we look at the literature regarding the foreskin, we find that a significant amount of coverage involves these conditions. I just searched PubMed for "foreskin", using the "limits" facility to select reviews. Of the first page of results (ie., the first 20 results), fourteen (70%) discuss these or closely related conditions. Now, I'm not suggesting that 70% of the article should be about these conditions, but this evidence does indicate that they are given a reasonable amount of weight in the literature and, consequently, should be given some in the article.

I should also point out that we spend approximately 15K discussing possible functions of the foreskin, sometimes in considerable detail. It seems absurd — and remarkably inconsistent with WP:NPOV — to complain about a single sentence listing a handful of its disadvantages. Jakew (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Per verifiability, can you please show me where it says frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer". To see the fulll text it says you need a password. In order for me to analyze the context of the sentence i would need be able to see it fully. Pass a Method talk 09:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The full sentence in the source is: "The foreskin frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer." Jakew (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the full paragraph say? Pass a Method talk 09:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That is the only sentence of direct relevance, and answers your verifiability question. Jakew (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but the rest of the paragraph might give me further insight. If the rest has no related context i will revert myself. Pass a Method talk 09:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unclear why you need "further insight" to see that the sentence is verifiable. However, as a gesture of good faith, here's the paragraph. "The foreskin is the product of millions of years of evolution. The foreskin augments the plunger capability of the penis during intercourse, protects the glans, houses numerous specialized sensory receptors and secretory glands, and harbors commensal bacterial colonization. An engaging theory of foreskin function in humans is based on the spermicidal quality of its secretions. The secretions kill the sperm of rival males that become lodged under the prepuce during mating, thereby preventing self-cuckoldry when mating with a new partner.44 The foreskin frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer. Circumcision limits these conditions but it is associated with decreased erectile function and decreased penile sensitivity.45 Because we now are able to effectively treat foreskin related maladies, some societies are shifting toward foreskin preservation."

As you can see, only the quoted sentence is directly relevant to the 'conditions' section. I trust you'll now self-revert. Jakew (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was about to self-revert, but the verification problem persists. Can you provide a medium for this source where the quote is visible? Garycompugeek has complained about verifiability too. Whats the point of providing a link when the link does not show the text in wikipedia? Its just as useless as giving a dead link. Pass a Method talk 10:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misunderstood verifiability. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources states: "Verifiability in this context means that other people should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source. The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." (emph added).

I fail to see why the link is "as useless as giving a dead link". http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.juro.2007.01.011 redirects to http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022534707000110 which prominently displays a button allowing readers to purchase a PDF. It therefore directly facilitates the verification process. Do you not see the "purchase" button on your computer? And those who subscribe to J Urol, of course, don't even need to click on a "purchase" button. Jakew (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jake, the problem is, you're using a source which requires $31.50 in order to access it. You do this despite there being sources which are readily accessible with the same information. I'd say this is unneccessary dont you think? is there any reason you won't use a readily accessible source instead? Pass a Method talk 11:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I chose this source because it's a concise summary, in a single source, listing the main conditions associated with the presence of a foreskin. I have no objection to replacing it with another that has the same information, if you have a particular source in mind. But this is getting ridiculous. First you claimed that it was undue to mention these conditions. I showed that 70% of results when searching for "foreskin" discussed about one or more of them. Then you asked where the source made this statement. I quoted the relevant sentence. Then you asked for the paragraph, offering to self-revert. I (somewhat tediously, as the PDF didn't cooperate well with copy and paste) quoted the entire paragraph. You didn't self-revert. Then you claimed that there was a verifiability problem, indicating that this was the only thing stopping you from self-reverting. I showed you that you had misunderstood verifiability, quoting policy that clearly states that sometimes editors have to part with money or visit a library to verify a source. You still haven't self-reverted. I have done everything you asked, and I've addressed all of the issues you've raised. All you have done in response is to keep moving the goal posts, sometimes in contradiction to Wikipedia policy. If you haven't the slightest intention of self-reverting, would you be kind enough not to offer to do so? Jakew (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was going to self-revert but i was busy doing something. Nevertheless, i still think that in the future it would be unwise to use a source which is inaccessible for foreskin/circumcison-health related issues, because these can be contentious topics. In the future can you use accessible sources please regarding such contentious topics? Pass a Method talk 14:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

While using an accessible source is convenient, it is by no means always preferred. The most highly regarded sources should be used and this often means peer-reviewed papers in for-pay journals. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The source looks ok; if you have an issue with it please take it up at WP:MEDRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because the source is legitament does not mean it should be in the article. Seems like quite the WP:FRINGE view to me. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do you say that? It's widely accepted that circumcision reduces the risk of balanitis, phimosis, STIs and penile cancer (see, for example, publications by the World Health Organisation or the American Academy of Pediatrics), so why should a statement that the foreskin predisposes to such conditions be a fringe view? Jakew (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Spare me the dramatization please. The conditions you have listed are rarely treated with circumcision aside from phimosis and I would not object to a source that uses that and/or explains the rarity of this surgical procedure to cure or prevent those conditions. As it is stands now the reader can easily assume it is common method of prevention which it is not. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would the reader make such an assumption when the sentence doesn't even mention circumcision, Gary? Jakew (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was commenting on the actual source. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So, your argument is that the reader might read a peer-reviewed secondary source and find a statement reflecting a mainstream viewpoint, but you would personally have written it differently. Actually, I'd have written it differently, too, but that's not an argument against using it. Jakew (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since we do not have access to the text in the source, could you please reference what the text uses to support its claim that "the foreskin frequently predisposes to medical problems"? FactoidDroid (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already quoted the relevant paragraph above. Please see my comment dated 09:29, 16 May 2012. Jakew (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Products made from body parts

Is it really appropriate to have products made from body parts listed. The Nazis made lampshades from human skin. Would we include that in an article on skin? Would we list products made from vulva removed in female circumcision? I find it disturbing, and more than a little creepy. Does anyone else? Tftobin (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not especially, no. However, it's difficult to see why the "Foreskin-based medical and consumer products" section deserves so much weight, or indeed why it should be an entire section. I think it would be productive to delete it, perhaps adding a sentence or two to the "description" section instead. Jakew (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jakew. It's history. Tftobin (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see this section is back. What does anyone see as its value? Tftobin (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre removal of information

Tftobin (talk · contribs) removed two sentences describing circumcision from the "Surgical and other modifications of the foreskin", with the edit summary "off topic". I am utterly perplexed by this, as it clearly it is clearly on-topic to describe circumcision (a surgical modification of the foreskin) in a section on that topic. Furthermore, a section on surgical modifications of the foreskin would be very incomplete without mentioning circumcision, which is by far the most common surgical modification. I've reverted the edit. Jakew (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision is not a surgical modification of the foreskin. The operations listed are surgical modifications of the foreskin, and as such, belong. Circumcision is the amputation of the foreskin. As such, the foreskin does not exist. See above, in multiple places, where multiple editors say it is off topic. Tftobin (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If its removal is not surgical modification, what is? Jakew (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an amputation of the foreskin. It is not a modification, which leaves a modified foreskin, such as the surgeries listed. Tftobin (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I would point out that few circumcisions remove all of the foreskin tissue (most leave a cuff of the foreskin's mucosa). It would be accurate, therefore, to describe them as modifying the foreskin, since they effectively shorten it. Second, complete circumcisions also constitute a modification. Jakew (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, there are 33 articles with circumcision in the title. Pick one. The foreskin is more than the object of circumcision, for most people. Tftobin (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

For the second time, the text you want to remove is about the possible effects of having a foreskin. If you want it gone, then ask Jakew to come up with more sources. If he can't, then argue it's a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the number of articles with circumcision in the title, Tom. If you mean to suggest that only articles with "circumcision" in the title can refer to circumcision, that is as absurd as arguing that only articles with "iron" in the title can mention that metal. As I've pointed out above (and you haven't even attempted to address), circumcision is entirely relevant to this section, and it is entirely appropriate to include a brief description of it. Jakew (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC

The objection has been raised by at least 5 editors, that this article is turning into a venue for views on circumcision. Repeated attempts by multiple editors to have the article remain on topic have been unsuccessful. Tftobin (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I guess you missed this sentence in the RFC instructions: "Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Better? Tftobin (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Not really. A neutral statement would be something like: Do the mentions of circumcision have undue weight in this article? "Soapbox" is non-neutral wording. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively: "is it appropriate to briefly discuss circumcision in this article?" Jakew (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You put what you want, in your RFC. Tftobin (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment <siiigh!> It seems that the most rabid exchanges and religious bigotry are attracted to the most trivial scraps of anything. FWIW, I could care less, but it would be too much like hard work. Still, since you request:
  • There are other articles on various aspects of circumcision. To duplicate or arrogate their function would be counterproductive and probably childish or malicious as well.
  • Notwithstanding that principle, circumcision is a topic that intimately affects matters concerning praeputia, so to shy away from it in proper context would be prissy, silly, unconstructive, and childish.
  • I don't know what the article looked like before, and I am not inclined to investigate, so I cannot tell how heavily circumcision figured in it originally. In the foregoing talk page text I notice a few red-hot objections to the prevalence of references to circumcision. If those objections ever were justified, then horrors! and some authors should be ashamed of themselves, but if its current status is anything to go by, the text seems pretty reasonably balanced to me, give or take the occasional snip or bowdlerism. In which case: Grow up! <siiiiigh!!!> JonRichfield (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Bad RfC. No question here. Not neutrally stated. Suggest it's closed as unproductive. NickCT (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. Not sure what's the request to comment for. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible WP:CPVIO copyright issue

A recent edit changed the article content to include a large, unattributed quote from the book "Sex as Nature Intended It: The Most Important Thing You Need to Know about Making Love, but No One Could Tell You Until Now" by Kristen O'Hara, published 2002 by Turning Point Publications, link to its Amazon sale page.

Previously the book was used as a reference, with the following Wiki-code:

[[Kristen O'Hara|O'Hara]] (2002) describes the gliding action, stating that it reduces friction during [[sexual intercourse]], and suggesting that it adds "immeasurably to the comfort and pleasure of both parties".<ref>{{cite book |title=Sex as Nature Intended It: The Most Important Thing You Need to Know about Making Love, but No One Could Tell You Until Now |author=O'Hara K |page=72 |year=2002 |publisher=Turning Point Publications |quote=During intercourse, the natural penis shaft actually glides within its own shaft skin covering. This minimizes friction to the vaginal walls and opening, and to the shaft skin itself, adding immeasurably to the comfort and pleasure of both parties.<br/>Friction is not entirely eliminated during natural intercourse but it is largely eliminated. Friction can take place in the lower vagina, but only if the man uses a stroke that exceeds the (forward and backward) gliding range of the shaft's extra skin. And in such a case, there will be friction only to the extent that the shaft exceeded its extra skin, which is uncommon since the natural penis has a propensity for short strokes. Primarily, it is the penis head that makes frictional contact with the vaginal walls, usually in the upper vagina where there is ample lubrication. [...] The gliding principle of natural intercourse is a two-way street—the vagina glides on the shaft skin while the shaft skin massages the penis shaft as it glides over it.}}</ref>

The recent edit changed this to end the ref cite just after the "quote=" parameter, and the effect of it was that the entire quote ended up as part of the article content. This appears to be unattributed duplication of a large section of copyrighted material and so was removed as WP:CPVIO.

Also, a section of the quote from O'Hara ("Primarily.... glides over it.") was cut and put after a statement attributed to Guest (2012).

Is there any reason for us to think it isn't WP:CPVIO? Or was an error made in the original edit? Zad68 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

All I am trying to do is add a bit of information about the foreskin functioning as a linear bearing as reported by Dr. Guest. I did not intend to alter any of the O'Hara material. I don't think I did. If I did, it was accidental and not intentional. I understand and respect Wikipedia's concern for copyright. I don't see any copyright issue with a link to Dr. Guest's comments in the Ottawa Citizen.

I also relocated, without change, some material so as to get better flow.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is O'Hara a sufficiently reliable source for use in this medical article

As a follow-on from the previous section, it does not appear that O'Hara is really a sufficient medical or scientific reliable source for use in this article. Is her book "Sex as nature intended it: The most important thing you need to know about making love, but no one could tell you until now" published by what appears to be a Christian evangelical publishing house (that one's in TN) a publishing house I can't track down (their phone number is for a construction company and they have no web presence) a reliable source for scientific information in a medical article? Zad68 17:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the O'Hara material could be removed without hurting the article, because there is so much other material on this matter.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the book citation and replaced it with a medical journal article by O'Hara that is completely verifiable and comes from a peer reviewed publication. This should remove any question about O'Hara.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Foreskin ballooning

There is need for a brief discussion of foreskin ballooning, which is a harmless transient developmental condition. Sugarcube73 (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Are Waskett and Morris a sufficiently reliable source for use in this medical article

Jake Waskett's occupation, last I heard, was computer programmer. Brian Morris is not a medical doctor. He is a professor of molecular medical sciences. The foreskin is completely outside his area of professional studies. Tftobin (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Notation 38 (^ "STI — eLetters for Fleiss et al., 74 (5) 364-367". Sti.bmjjournals.com. Retrieved 2012-07-16.) on "Some authors believe that smegma contains antibacterial enzymes,[37] though their theory has been challenged[38]" led to a page that "recent letters" page with no relevant information. Using the search option to look for responses to "Fleiss" in that page I found this link: http://sti.bmj.com/content/74/5/364/reply#sextrans_el_112?sid=060f08d3-eaff-4f77-8a31-c2d0bf64644c which seems to be the article originally referred. The author is Jake Waskett. I updated the reference and link. 17 January 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.215.70 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

My question stands. Why is Jake Waskett being quoted, as if he is a doctor or a medical authority of some kind, when he is a programmer? What are his qualifications to be regarded as a medical authority, enough to challenge an actual medical doctor? Please remove the reference, or please prove that Waskett is medically qualified. Tftobin (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done The contentious content supported by the non-WP:MEDRS-compliant Waskett sources, along with the contentious content also supported by non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources the Waskett-supported content was in reply to, have all be removed from the article. The article now has no references to any Waskett sourcing. Zad68 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Zad80!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tftobin (talk • contribs) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Changes on 8 Sept. 2012

I had to undo some of the effects of a number of recent edits, due to some serious issues, largely having to do with the edits failing WP:MEDRS quite badly, and also some WP:NPOV problems. My edit corrected the following:

• A large amount of content addition/expansion based on outdated (one newly-added reference from the year 1916!) and primary-source references, including:

• <ref>{{cite journal | author = Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS | year = 1998 | title = Immunological Functions of the Human Prepuce | url = http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/ | journal = Sex Transm Inf | volume = 74 | issue = 5 | pages = 364–7 | doi = 10.1136/sti.74.5.364 | pmid=10195034 | pmc=1758142}}</ref>
• <ref>{{vcite journal | author= Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS | title = Immunological functions of the human prepuce | journal= Sex Transm Inf | date= 1998 | volume= 74 | issue= 5 | pages= 364-7 | url= http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/ | doi= 10.1136/sti.74.5.364 | pmid= 10195034 | pmc= 1758142 }}</ref>
• <ref>{{vcite journal | author= Jefferson G | title= The peripenic muscle; some observations on the anatomy of phimosis | journal= Surg Gynecol Obstet | date= 1916 | volume= 23 | issue= 2 | pages= 177-81 | url= http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/jefferson/ | doi= | pmid= | pmc= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{vcite journal | author= Schöberlein W | title= The Significance and Frequency of Phimosis and Smegma | journal= Münch Med Wochenschr | date= 1966 | volume= 7 | issue= | pages= 373-377 | url= | doi= | pmid= 6072647 | pmc= }} </ref>
• <ref>{{vcite journal | author= Parkash S, Jeyakumar K, Subramanya K, et al. | title= Human subpreputial collection: its nature and formation | journal= J Urol | date= 1973 | volume= 110 | issue= 2 | pages= 211-2 | url= http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/parkash/ | doi= | pmid= 4722614 | pmc= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{vcite journal | author=Freud P | title=The ulcerated urethral meatus in male children | journal=J Pediatr | date=1947 | volume=31 | issue=4 | pages=131-41 | url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/freud1/ | doi= | pmid=20256409 | pmc= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{vcite journal | author=Simpson ET, Barraclough P | title=The management of the paediatric foreskin | journal=Aust Fam Physician | date=1998 | volume=27 | issue=5 | pages=381-3 | url=http://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/simpson1/ | doi= | pmid=9613002 | pmc= }}</ref>
• <ref name="Winkelmann1959">{{vcite journal | author= Winkelmann RK | title= The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and significance | journal= Mayo Clin Proc | date= 1959 | volume= 34 | issue= 2 | pages= 39-47 | url= http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/winkelmann/ | doi= | pmid= 13645790 | pmc= }}</ref>

• Edits that used outdated, lower-quality evidence on the WP:MEDASSESS scale in a way that contradicted more recent, reliable secondary sources, examples

• This edit added a Fleiss, Hodges & Van Howe 1998 anti-circumcision advocacy article to contradict a well-respected secondary source, the American Academy of Pediatrics (expanded on it more here); even after the AAP was updated to 2012, it left Fleiss et al.
• This edit moved sentences around to place an individual primary study from Sorrells 2007 ahead of the newer, reliable secondary source, the CPSBC 2009 statement.

• Edits used very old sources to support new article content, as in this edit, using personal editorials written by Whiddon (1953), Foley (1966), and Morgan (1967). (I note all three of those documents were found on the anti-circumcision activist site cirp.org), plus:
• This edit added new article content based on new sources added from Winkelmann from 1959 and Jefferson from 1916, and:
• This edit added more new article content from Winkelmann 1959, and:
• This edit added more new article content from new source Freud 1947, and new source Parkash 1973.
• This edit changed neutral wording to non-neutral wording, see WP:CLAIM, this is another way of not respecting secondary sources... and in this edit does it in reverse (changes "argues" to "reports") again furthering a POV.
• This edit, chops and moves content around in a way that changes source attribution and also appears to use a 1969 source in a new way.
• Based on this, there was no reason to do this edit, which removed article content based on Szabo (2000) regarding how the foreskin is the probable pathway for HIV infection
• COI spam edits such as this, see WP:COI and WP:EL for guidelines concerning external links.
• Original research and synthesis in this edit and also this edit (not supported by source cited)
• POV editing in the addition of new article content based on published anti-circumcision advocacy articles (lots of examples) but removal of article content based on pro-circumcision advocacy articles, as in this edit

I am not stating that the article's sourcing before these edits was perfect or that the article was free of POV, but that these edits made the article significantly worse, and had to be undone. The article's sourcing and content still need to be reviewed, and it's on my "to do" list but a lower priority for me than other articles. Zad68 03:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Schober 2009

Schober (2009) paper studied mostly circumcised men, so her findings are irrelevant to a description of the foreskin. Sugarcube73 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Schober (2009) studied both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and the findings specifically discuss the foreskin, so they can't possibly be "irrelevant to a description of the foreskin". Please don't remove the material again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have redone the removal of Schober 2009. It needed to be removed not for the reasons Sugarcube73 gave, but per WP:MEDRS guidelines. Schober 2009 was a single, survey-based, small-population primary study, which according to WP:MEDASSESS produces low-quality evidence per Wikipedia standards. The article sourcing should be based on recent, high-quality review articles, systematic reviews and textbooks. Zad68 21:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Is it appropriate to have a photograph of a black male penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.123.229 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is. Zad68 01:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great answer Zad- exactly right and with a dash of perfectly economical humour in the "it is '.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 11:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The skin colour of the penis is irrelevant but what is relevant is that the foreskin is partly retracted. An image where the whole of the glans is covered by foreskin would be more appropriate! CardBoardBoxLiving (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Prepuce redundant

I am concerned at some of the recent additions to this article, which have been cited by:

• Chengzu, Liu (2011). "Health Care for Forskin Conditions". Epidemiology of Urogenital Diseases. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House.
• Xianze, Liang (2012). Tips on Puberty Health. Beijing: People's Education Press.
• Guochang, Huang (2010). General Surgery. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House.

They talk about the concept of "prepuce redundant" (i.e. just having a slightly longer than usual foreskin) and how it requires medical intervention. One absurd statement reads: "Some males feel reluctant to keep the glans exposed for uncomfortable feeling of the glans chafing the underwear, which might partially explain the prevalence of untreated prepuce redundant". The last I checked, having a long foreskin (including one that still covers the glans when flaccid and erect) is totally normal and healthy as long as it is retractable. --TBM10 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Unlike Phimosis, "prepuce redundant" is not a widely-acknowledged concept around the world, only popular in few countries like China. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, my understanding of the phrase was actually the "redundant" foreskin left over after a circumcision. I have tried to deal with this wave of new information in the article and clarified some of it (which appears to be sourced from Chinese books which are unverifiable). What I was (and still am somewhat) concerned about was the possibility of a reader believing that "prepuce redundant" is abnormal and requires medical intervention, when in reality and in most parts of the world it is totally normal. My own personal experience, it does not impede or cause disruption at all. --TBM10 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Tremello

Tremello, I think the following text is better than the content you replaced which is sourced by a possibly unreliable source (newforeskin.biz): The foreskin is typically retractable over the glans, and depending on its length, which varies between males, it may remain covering part of the glans whether the penis is flaccid or erect. Research found that 95% of males were able to fully retract their foreskin by adulthood. ref: cite journal|title=Further Fate of the Foreskin Incidence of Preputial Adhesions, Phimosis, and Smegma among Danish Schoolboys |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/oster/ |journal=Archives of Disease in Childhood |volume=43 |pages=200–202 | date=April 1968 |first=Jakob |last=Øster |publisher=Department of Paediatrics, Central Hospital, Randers, Denmark |accessdate=November 14, 2011 | doi = 10.1136/adc.43.228.200|pmid=5689532 |pmc=2019851|issue=228. What do you think about the reasoning for replacing it? Also, I think the following statement is neither necessary or entirely relevant to this article: "Circumcision is a key part of the Jewish and Muslim religion. It is not required in Christianity. See Religious male circumcision." Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding newforeskin.biz. I don't think it is unreliable source because it is a reference used for a different statement - the newforeskin.biz reference is a page which gives images of different foreskin coverage. Unless the images are obviously fake, then I don't think it is an unreliable source for this statement. Because the statement isn't controversial. Reliable sources are primarily for disputed topics.

Regarding "Circumcision is a key part of the Jewish and Muslim religion. It is not required in Christianity. See Religious male circumcision." I am not too bothered about you removing that.

Regarding Jakob Oster's 1968 study I replaced it with Wrights 1994 study - you may have missed that because I used ref name Wright"/>. Here is is : http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/ I did this because Osters study as well as Gairdners study has been disputed in the years since.

In your amendment you have included the 95% statement. In my statement I put "..not supposed to be retractable in infancy.[2] I did this because there is a perception that it is supposed to be retractable - hence we hear of cases where doctors try to pull it back and force it back - causing damage.

I also say: The age at which a boy can fully retract his foreskin varies." but you you also add , but research found that 95% of males were able to fully retract their foreskin by adulthood.[3 I cant find the 95% statistic in the oster reference. Are you sure we need it? I don't see how it adds anything. Thanks. Tremello (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response, I think we agree on most points! Are you happy with my revision of 5th November? --TBM10 (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture Misleading

The photo of a foreskin while flaccid and then retracted when erect is misleading as it depicts a uncircumcised man in the top and a circumcised man at the bottom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HQ_SAM_SASu.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.10.157 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No looks OK to me, loose skin present, no sign of scar. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It IS the same man in both. --TBM10 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit - should this historical "stuff" from 50s and 60s have been removed from the article ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreskin&curid=29289333&diff=623800133&oldid=623791020 The editor who removed this material from the article labelled his edit " removing some really old stuff" But the material removed : Some early studies showed that the presence of the foreskin made sexual penetration easier. is by its nature and self definition "old stuff" and contributes to the historical context. This and so much material about the pros and cons of lopping off foreskins really belong in the circumcision article. The editor who made this reversion is active in a particular editing group on the Circumcision article in particular and on the subject in general.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The section was not about the historical understanding of the sexual function of the foreskin and therefore it was out of place. We should be using sources from the last 10 or 20 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Added Contrasting Lead Image

I updated the Foreskin page by adding a second image that contrasts well with the lead image, showing the range of foreskin lengths. I believe the Foreskin page is lacking images of a longer than average foreskin, which is why I added the second image. For people to be educated about the Foreskin they should be able to see different ways it looks. Can this edit remain? What do you think? I think it adds to the article and provides something that wasn't there before. Anonymous 001100 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There is little difference between the picture you have taken and the one further down in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think the lead image is representative of what a normal foreskin looks like? Can any images be added to the page to enhance it?--Anonymous 001100 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-redundant images that illustrate a concept described in the text can be added. You should be aware that people have been trying to add pictures of their own penises to articles ever since Wikipedia began, with little success. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That was not my goal, nor has it ever been, just to add some random picture. I did it because I honestly thought it added something to the article, but now that I know what constitutes non-redundant I will not do it any more. My mistake and apologies.--Anonymous 001100 (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Foreskin definition

The term foreskin and prepuce have been used interchangeably, but this useage was challenged by Taves DR in a 2002 article in Medical Hypotheses.. The distinction is whether the covering of the glans penis occurs with erection. He was unable to find evidence of non-human primates having a foreskin that was long enough to cover the glans when the penis is erect. It is clear in his example showing a 10 fold reduction in the force needed to penetrate an artificial dry entroitus and as implied in the article in Wikipedia that humans foreskin do cover at least part of the glans some of the time. The picture of an erect penis with fully retracted foreskin is therefore misleading and probably is anomalous. There are interesting possible implications about the evolution of the primates but these I assume should wait for discussion in the research literature.

Drtaves (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Retraction pictures

I'd like to add to this article near the text about foreskin retraction, an image of an uncircumcised flaccid penis from three angles in three different states, form full foreskin coverage of the glans to full retraction of the foreskin. This is the picture

Stages of Foreskin

BT33015 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [[User:|BT33015]] 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Does not add anything really to what we already have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it "does not add". The current article has one photo of a flaccid where the glans is almost completely covered and then one flaccid with foreskin covering to erect with foreskin retracted. This series shows three different states of coverage all when flaccid; therefore there is difference and more from "what we already have". Moreover, curiosity of foreskin look, function and functionality is very common, this photo series depicts more of the subject of the article.

BT33015 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the article could benefit from a series of retraction images. The retractability of the foreskin is one of its most important functions, and not one that's generally well understood. This has been evidenced by the comment section here - some people have thought that the existing image depicts two different men, one who is circumcised on the bottom, and one who is not at the top. A retraction series would make the function more clear to readers.

With that said, I do not believe that the suggested image above is ideal. The contrast and detail of the image are poor. If an image is to be used, I'd suggest a higher-quality one, such as File:A Foreskin Retraction Series.JPG or File:A high-resolution image of foreskin retraction.JPG. kyledueck (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Kyledueck as to the need or retraction photos. As to if the two penis are two different men, I don't know. As to my image, if the subject mater's quality is in question, I'd be happy to re-do a image to make it more clear. As a photographer, I'll have to talk to the model I used; however I would like the chance to re-do the image. --BT33015 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) BT33015 (talk) (UTC)

Don't trouble yourself. There's no need for another set of images; either of the two I listed above are fine, so I'll just add one of those to the article. kyledueck (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As a photographer, I would like another chance. Here is a series from another set that I can't find the first stage photographs.

This is a black and white series of 2 stages of foreskin coverage from 3 views

But I feel my work is most of the time adequate for something like this.

--BT33015 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I strongly feel the other options I mentioned are still higher quality, and add more to the article. I can appreciate your desire to contribute, but I don't see the point in taking more pictures when ideal images already exist on Wikimedia commons. kyledueck (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about the image that has been added. The foreskin in question clearly has a case of phimosis, as can be seen mid-way through retraction when the foreskin appears tight on the glans, and in the last image a phimotic ring can be seen around the shaft. I agree there is a need for retraction photos or even a video, but I don't think the one added today is perfect. --TBM10 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What about this image then? kyledueck (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a shame about the clothing in the background and the dirty fingernails in some of the images... --TBM10 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Both the photo added and the second photo suggested are amateur and without artistic expression. I will do a new full photo series as soon as I can. --BT33015 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I've rescheduled with the model I used in the black & white photo. In the next week I'll have it done. --BT33015 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Black and white images are not as preferable as color. --TBM10 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Angle and contrast are important when photographing human antomy. My goal is tasteful and educational. --BT33015 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a different picture, I've done two with some color differences.

darker -

File:Three Stages of Foreskin.jpg

This is three stages of coverage of the foreskin over the glans of a uncircumcised model.

ligher -

This is three views of three stages of the retraction of the foreskin for an uncircumcised model

I like the second of the two. --BT33015 (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Video to illustrate the article

Commons has a good video that shows the forskin.

. Maybe this can be used in the article? Alice2Alice (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Foreskin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070122014627/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org:80/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010003545/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)