Talk:Foreskin/Archive 4

World Health Organization deletions
Sugarcube73, why do you think that deleting the World Health Organization (WHO) material here and here while leaving in that other commentary is appropriate? In what way should the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology material be retained...but not the World Health Organization material? I've also alerted WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sugarcube73, regarding your response, here is why I have an issue with your rationale: The World Health Organization is authoritative as far as medical sources go. It's a very good source, and although the text states that the WHO debates, the WHO states that the precise functions of the foreskin may include "keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors." It also states, "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent." This is direct conflict with material you attempted to add earlier, and with high-quality sources at the Circumcision article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The people at the World Health Organization are human beings and they can be as fallible as other human beings. They are not an oracle that cannot be questioned.


 * With regard to their 2007 circumcision paper: This 41 page page has a lot of information about circumcision, however it only has two paragraphs in section 2.2 on page 13, so it is extremely poor as a reference for the foreskin. The foreskin article is about the foreskin and not about circumcision, so it is a poor choice. Furthermore, this article is now a decade old and is becoming to some extent outdated.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, all medical professionals are human beings, and human beings are not perfect; we know that. But it still stands that the World Health Organization is an authoritative source and is one of the best sources we can have on these topics. You are focused on the WHO, but the same can be stated of the Nordic Association of Clinical Sexology source, which is not on the same quality level as the WHO. And we both know that the foreskin topic includes the topic of circumcision, which is why you have been known to include information that relates them. You have also been known to add really old sources. Using up-to-date sources for this article, per WP:MEDDATE, is another issue, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 reborn:

Please note that this "Foreskin" article is an anatomical article, not a medical article. Human anatomy does not change with the seasons. For that reason, people still cite the anatomical work of Leonardo da Vinci. Dates for anatomical articles are less important than providing accurate information.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sugarcube73, do note that anatomy is a branch of medicine, which is why there is an Anatomy section at WP:MEDMOS. With all of the medical material in this article, it is silly to state that it's not a medical article. And either way, you should be sticking to quality medical sources for circumcision information and other medical issues in the article (unless it's a History section or something like it); WP:MEDRS is clear about that. As for using old sources for anatomy, there are many things that people did not know about anatomy that they now know because the knowledge has changed. No editor should be using highly outdated sources for anatomy material unless the knowledge on that particular matter is the same. But even then, they should be using modern anatomy sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that this article is about the foreskin, not about circumcision.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If anyone is in need of that reminder, it is you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Reorganization of functions section.
The functions section has good material, but due to the numerous edits of numerous editors over the years, it has become somewhat disorganized. I am undertaking a complete reorganization, while keeping all existing material.

This is simply to make it more readable and improve the article.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What disorganization are you referring to? Also see WP:MEDMOS, which is the layout we follow for anatomy articles, although we don't always follow it exactly. If I see any WP:Undue arrangements from you, I will be reverting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the section on anatomy articles. I have bookmarked it for future reference. You sound rather hostile and I don't know why you are taking that tone.

What I have done is to reorder and rearrange existing material. I have not added anything. This needs happens in Wikipedia articles that have a lot of editors, such as this one has had over the years. I think you will see the improvement.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I just checked and I found that the "foreskin" article was started in 2002 and has had more than 3,400 edits by numerous individuals. That is why some organization is needed.

I also realized that the article is deficient in saying nothing much about the dartos muscle. A few sentences would be in order.

Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This was an undue setup, which is why I reverted. You placed the following information in a Dissent section: Fink et al. (2002) reported "although many have speculated about the effect of a foreskin on sexual function, the current state of knowledge is based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence." Masood et al. (2005) state that "currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin." The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent.


 * This is an undue setup because you were presenting these sources as minority viewpoints. What the World Health Organization stated is supported by multiple high-quality sources; for example, the ones currently seen in the Circumcision article. Your setup made it seem like the role of the foreskin is well understood and that there are a few views that challenge that, even though these sources are speaking of the research in general. At least as far the circumcision aspect goes, the view is not the minority view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The views that find no sexual function for the foreskin were expressed ten to fifteen years ago. Time has marched on, more evidence is accumulating, and the current view by several authorities is that the foreskin has important sexual functions. For example:

http://nacs.eu/data/press_release001.pdf

Nevertheless, it is more important to clean up the article than to get stuck on this issue. This is supposed to be a cooperative work and one is supposed to get a consensus. So, I'll restructure that part of the section and re-post it. Sugarcube73 (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What "current view by several authorities"? Press releases are not good medical sources. They are not good sources, period. Anyway, as you know, Jytdog has made substantial changes to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * And that includes removing these old sources you added. You should not be adding sources from 1916. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is Taylor et al. soruced so many times? It is clearly biased and coming from mainly one group. Janna788 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Many of the sources under function are not reliable and seems one sided. Based on the rules, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". One example of facts not being checked is Taylor et al. which is cited three times under function. Taylor et al. was never fact checked by reliable sources and the people who have disagreed have been removed from the page  which again seems like the tone is not neutral. Donik767888 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Donik767888, do read WP:Sock. It is no coincidence that you popped up after the Janna788 account was indefinitely blocked and proceeded to make the same edits as the Janna788 account. The use of 8 in your username is also a dead giveaway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not Janna788, (I don't even know that account is blocked?) but I made an account when this person informed me about this page. I can't prove that I am not both accounts here but I am hoping to have serious discussions here being taken into account. Donik767888 (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So if I report you in a WP:Sock investigation, the WP:CheckUser data will not show that you are Janna788? Either way, you've admitted to being a WP:Meatpuppet. It would help if you would show me where you were pointed to this page so that I can deal with this matter accordingly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I just want to make the page more neutral, that's it. I made this account soon after someone I know made their account, not the same person however. I don't have strong views or taken any offense. I also was not trying to do vandalism, or anything like that. I do love Wikipedia and just starting to look into editing, now that I have an account. I also read the rules on making Wikipedia more neutral and citing reliable sources hence my actions.

You mean why I was pointed to this page or where I was pointed? I didn't understand the last part of your paragraph. If you mean where on this page, I was pointing to the sources such as Taylor et al, which was more than 17 years ago and seems out of date as well as same source been repeated more than once which seems unnecessary. I also don't believe O'Hara K (2002) source is reliable since turningpoint publications (which you can check) isn't really a reliable third party fact checked source. WHO is a great source, for example since it is an organization that has been fact checked, has third party checker which Wikipedia urges users to cite. I was hoping sources would be similar to WHO but many of them look fishy and negative on purpose, coming from personal opinions/bias rather than being objective. That's the reason why I came here. Donik767888 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * By "it would help if you would show me where you were pointed to this page," I meant "On what website were you alerted to this page?" I want to know where so that I can pinpoint the WP:Canvassing violation. I am not interested in entertaining a sock or meatpuppet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't alerted from a website. So suggestions are ignored? What is a meatpuppet? Someone who makes a new account to improve a page then because that's why I am here. Donik767888 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sighs. I don't have time for this. You want to know what a WP:Meatpuppet is? Read the policy. You admitted to being one. You, Janna788 and now popping up out of nowhere is no coincidence. As seen with this edit, Antron199 doesn't even know what he is doing and clearly needs to read the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS. If, with regard to anatomy or other medical issue, something that was true years ago is still true today, it does not need to be removed simply because the source is old. If the source can be updated, then we should do that.


 * I'm going ahead and starting a sock investigation. This way, the sock aspect can be confirmed or challenged. If challenged, it will be clear to me that you and Antron199 are meatpuppets. I will also be seeking to get this article semi-protected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor also removed older sources. Look into investigation, I have nothing to hide. I made this account in September. Antron199 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Antron199, the other editor is significantly more experienced. You, from what I can see, were simply removing content based on the sources being old. Do you think we are going to remove content from the Hand article simply because the sources (such as the 2002 "A natural history of raccoons. Caldwell, N.J.: Blackburn Press. p. 15" source) are old when we know that the information being reported on is still current knowledge? No. We would lose valuable content like that. Read WP:Preserve. You creating this account in September and using it one time at the Genital modification and mutilation article (after another disruptive editor) before (today) focusing on the same content that the other new accounts have focused on does not clear you. In fact, it makes you look even more suspicious. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspicious for focusing on a topic? I initially linked in a source from NCBI which was removed for being too old as well. I also removed one source that does not meet MEDRS as well as being outdated, I was listening to an experienced editor. Antron199 (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am also an experienced editor, and I can safely state that you don't know what you are doing, as is clear by you having been reverted and simply mimicking the experienced editor who reverted you. You clearly still are not even considering the WP:MEDDATE aspect of WP:MEDRS and the WP:Preserve policy I've pointed you to. At some point, I will thoroughly look at the literature and assess whether any of the removed material should be re-added with up-to-date sources. As for suspicion, I know what I am talking about. If you are focused on by a CheckUser in the sock investigation, we will see if you are someone who has operated any of the previous accounts (including any at Genital modification and mutilation article). If a CheckUser does not find that you are tied to any previous accounts, my suspicion of you will remain per what I've stated above about the timing of your visits and what you have focused on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not call it mimicking, just following the protocol on the sources being up to date and coming from a reliable source. Antron199 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If the content is still current knowledge, then the source is essentially up-to-date. Look at the sources in the Hand article. There is no need whatsoever to replace all of those sources with newer sources, except for showing readers that the material is supported by newer sources. In such cases, newer sources are simply for show. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying if the sources are very reliable and come from an objective place. I also put a source that I remember was here months ago but it was removed again because it was from 2007. Antron199 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding this, I think you would not have been reverted if the content was supported by a tertiary or secondary reliable book source, or by a literature review. And it would only help if the book source or review was within the last five years. But then again, when adding statements by individuals, WP:Due weight should be considered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Why were other sources from Stephen Moses and Robert Bailey deleted then? Annalie111999f (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The source you removed falls under WP:TERTIARY. Unless you have solid sources to offer opposing, or proof that the evidence has changed with regard to, the content you tried to remove, I see no reason to remove it. I already explained sourcing and updating matters to you above when you were using your other accounts. Stop socking and adding on to this discussion section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Bias
"The foreskin is the least sensitive hairless tissue of the body". It's not true, Foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis [source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847]. so this sentence is totally wrong. another study in 2016 claimed that circumcision does not reduce penis sensitivity, but even their study showed that foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis to the lightest and most gentle of touches. [read this article https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2016/04/22/circumcision-and-sexual-function-bad-science-reporting-misleads-parents/] Armin1718 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources is reliable. Alexbrn (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why?! Its Sorrells L. Morris . The article is fine touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis and is from the British Journal of Urology. Here is the full text https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x . Armin1718 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is primary research. See WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you to read this thread about biased medical literatures. https://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1078529309478838272 . Armin1718 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexbrn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Article
The UK National Health Service (NHS) has confirmed that reduced sexual sensation is a risk of male circumcision. This implies the foreskin increases sexual sensation (because its removal reduces sexual sensation).

Thus, this sentence (or similar) should be added in this article: "The foreskin increases sexual sensation."

The sentence should be added in the following places in this article:
 * In the introductory section of the article just after the sentence regarding the World Health Organisation's debate.
 * In the "Functions" section just after the World Health Organisation's paragraph.
 * In the "Sensitivity" subsection under the "Functions" section, at the end.

The "Moses and Bailey (1998)" paragraph (in the Sensitivity subsection under the Functions section) should be removed because this study is outdated and the NHS has disproved a number the statements made. The foreskin is associated with sexual sensation. Inconclusive studies and contradictory studies should be omitted from this article.

In the "Modifications" section of the article, the following should be added in the circumcision paragraph: "Circumcision involves a number of risks including reduced sexual sensation."

Jas9777 (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging Alexbrn and Doc James on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your proposal would be WP:SYNTHESIS since the source does not say "The foreskin is associated with sexual sensation". It says that a "possible complication" of circumcision is "permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex". This is covered at our Circumcision article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is listed as a "possible complication". In the article on circumcision. Does not belong here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020
The article as it is now, is heavily biased towards pro-circumcision. There's a very long paragraph about how foreskin loss doesn't affect sensitivity, yet most of that info comes from researchs made by John R. Krieger or S. Moses. The other side of the argument, that foreskin loss does indeed damage sensitivity, is barely represented. I suggest adding more research about that, for balance and objectivity. Compare the Spanish Wikipedia article "Prepucio", where that research is properly represented (like the studies from the British Journal of Urology, and the European Association of Urology). 2.153.121.67 (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't do "sides of arguments" but represent accepted knowledge as represented in good sources (see WP:MEDRS). Spanish Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Latest edits, including the regeneration material
As seen here, I reverted this material. The editor added the regeneration material to the Human penis article as well. But I didn't get around to trimming and/or tweaking that.

Alexbrn and Tom (LT), thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why you pinged Alexbrn..? His views on "intactivism" are very clear. One could easily infer his views on this addition. Consequently, I think this could be a WP:CANVASS violation. Although that might not have been your intention. Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you pinging me when you know I watch this article? As for why I pinged Alexbrn? Because he is a medical editor who has been involved with this article, as is clear even by the section immediately above. And I pinged Tom (LT) because he is an anatomy editor. The WP:APPNOTE section of WP:Canvassing does not support your "I think this could be a WP:CANVASS violation" statement. And editors have tried getting pinging added to WP:Canvassing to no avail. Now...I would rather hear what Alexbrn has to state than what you think he would state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Flyer22 Frozen, I "ping" people when I want to make it clear that I am replying to them, or mentioning them. Prcc27 (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not presume to know my views - and as it happens you could not be more wrong. But not everybody is on Wikipedia to push their POV, so don't project your low-grade worldview onto others. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I scrolled through that mega-edit when it happened, admittedly not looking in great depth, and it seemed okay. That said, it we have a large amount of duplicate material in two places, that's not great - we are a hypertext after all. Alexbrn (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time I saw Fyler 22 ping you at a talk page, you suggested adding something about "medical misinformation spread by opponent to circumcision" in an article that had nothing to do with opponents of circumcision or medical misinformation. I'm not saying you were intentionally POV-pushing, but perhaps it was a POV suggestion you made implicitly. As a result, I just felt like pinging you was problematic given your remarks last time I saw you pinged by that user. And now, I definitely stand by my assessment, even if my inference about your views on the merits of this discussion were off. Your remarks that my world views are "low-grade" further prove my point that you should not be pinged by users trying to get an uninvolved neutral user involved in a discussion., please consider pinging someone else in the future. Thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please try to lose your banal WP:BATTLEGROUND view of things. I suggest focussing on content and Wikipedia's WP:PAGs rather than trying to "infer" things about editors. If you have concerns about behaviour take them to an appropriate venue, but don't disrupt this article Talk page further. So far, none of your contributions here have even mentioned the actual content Flyer is asking about. Alexbrn (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't starting a battle. I asked Flyer22 Frozen why they pinged you (and I assumed good faith), and I got an answer reaffirming their good faith. In hindsight, I probably should've taken it to their talk page. I will keep this in mind moving forward. Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Prcc27, I prefer not to be pinged to articles I'm watching. I see no issue with pinging Alexbrn on this topic. That he helps counter activism on this topic is a plus, not a strike against him. He follows our policies well.


 * Alexbrn, yes, some of the material can stay. But, per WP:Lead, I don't think that should be in the lead. And I disagree with the rearrangement. The editor also used a media source. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi all, thank you for the ping and happy to contribute. I have reviewed the diff snd am having trouble working out what the nexus of this argument is, because there were quite a few changes. To be honest most seemed reasonable changes that at first glance I may have kept whilst assuming good faith. I think they were both cited and in my mind fairly clearly disclaimed that these were research (may a separate section might help here). Is there a particular area where I could help provide a third or fourth opinion on? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bias
This article is very biased and violates WP:NPOV. You cite Morris and Krieger, both of which are not reliable sources. They are extreme pro-circumcision advocates, one of which sells patented circumcision devices and another whose website links to circumcision fetish websites.

https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2013173804A1/ko http://web.archive.org/web/20070829145507/circinfo.net/circumcision_websites_online_discussion_groups.html

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, as has been demonstrated by numerous reliable, secondary sources:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337720859_What_Is_the_Best_Age_to_Circumcise_A_Medical_and_Ethical_Analysis https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303896150_Infant_Circumcision_and_Adult_Penile_Sensitivity_Implications_for_Sexual_Experience https://www.huffpost.com/entry/does-circumcision-reduce-_b_9743242

I don't know who made these edits (most likely pro-circumcision trolls) but it's embarrassing for a website that claims to purport neutrality to be this sloppy in its citations. Dashoopa (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS for the relevant sourcing standards, and lay of the stupid WP:BATTLEGROUND comments. Alexbrn (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw WP:MEDRS and all three of my sources were reliable and in line with it. Your sources were not and violate WP:NPOV. I understand you have a strong opinion on this subject which you passionately defend but that shouldn't stop you from being neutral as an administrator and following the rules set out on Wikipedia. Dashoopa (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No WP:MEDRS proffered, stupid WP:BATTLEGROUND comments only. Alexbrn (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What? Dashoopa (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree this article shows bias. Morris and Krieger have many papers, the list under the search 'Krieger circumcision' shows "cited by 1. cited by 2. cited by 1." I think that alone should ring alarm bells. Here's researchgate on them: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274710223_Does_Male_Circumcision_Adversely_Affect_Sexual_Sensation_Function_or_Satisfaction_Critical_Comment_on_Morris_and_Krieger_2013 Absolutely unreliable and acknowledged as such. I think this article shows wilful bias.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has WP:PAGs to determine whether sources are reliable for cited material. If we just followed editors beliefs there would be chaos. Alexbrn (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sensitivity
It should be made clear that the subject is highly controversial and that there are claims of 'bad science' on the subject. "They found that the foreskin was more sensitive than any other part of the penis" British Medical Journal 2016

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2016/04/22/circumcision-and-sexual-function-bad-science-reporting-misleads-parents/

Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want Wikipedia to say something is "controversial" you'd need a good source to cite that says the same. The blog you link is not a reliable source; WP:MEDRS is needed for biomedical claims. Alexbrn (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I would consider this a review article in a reputable medical journal, the British Medical Journal. The US National Library of Medicine has a paper 'Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/ and there are many papers discussing the variability of the available evidence: "Although it may seem that this (sic) controversies make it impossible to reach a consensus" : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-020-00354-y  and "Currently no consensus exists..": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7707202_Penile_Sensitivity_and_Sexual_Satisfaction_after_Circumcision_Are_We_Informing_Men_Correctly Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 23374102 is an eight-year old comparative study, not a review. 16037710 is an even older comparative study. 32994555 is a 2020 review article in a reputable journal - an excellent source, and so usable. I've only glanced at it and couldn't see anything about controversy. What passage do you think is pertinent? Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again. "A negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven" from the summary certainly shows that the question of foreskin sensitivity remains moot in 2020. The title of this review suggests questions remain unanswered. Many of the papers under consideration are more than ten years old.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those words are from the abstract, which we should be wary of per WP:NOABSTRACT and in any case are about circumcision in general rather than the foreskin in particular (the topic of this article). We'd need something specific about the foreskin for inclusion here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you explain why the British Medical Journal is not a reliable source under WP:MEDRS? And do you agree that the debate on foreskin sensitivity is ongoing?Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Within the section under discussion the words 'contrary to popular belief and opinion' appear. The subject is controversial. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Has a WP:MEDRS source from The BMJ been mentioned? I'll probably get a chance to look properly at 32994555 tomorrow to see if there's anything pertinent to this article. An update would be good. My impression from the previous reliable sources cited is that the question of foreskin sensitivity was settled years ago, so if that's changed we can say so. Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So the citation is: and the relevant passage would seem to be:

Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made a notice on the Neutrality Noticeboard about this content. Apologies, I can't understand the template form. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Bias Issues
Does this page have a 'pro-circumcision' bias? There are a great number of citations to Morris and Krieger, both of whom are circumcision 'evangelists'. Brian J Morris is not a trustworthy source for the issue of sensitivity, he has a commercial interest in circumcision and his views are considered by many to be extreme.

The language of the page reflects a pro-circumcision bias. The word 'uncircumcised' appears, although 'intact' is also present. Men do not refer to themselves as 'uncircumcised'. 'Men who are not circumcised' is acceptable.

The study about keratinisation involving thirteen men should not be included and I wonder why it is?

The entire section on sensitivity is laid out in such a way as to indicate a conclusion that the foreskin is less sensitive than your big toe. The frenulum is sometimes called the 'sex nerve' and sensations measured in scientific studies which use other parts of the body as control are questionable. The one cited is completely inconclusive, as argued very well in an enlightening piece by Brian Earp published in the British Medical Journal. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2016/04/22/circumcision-and-sexual-function-bad-science-reporting-misleads-parents/

The fact that the science is under argument is not reflected properly, I propose "The Question of Sensitivity" should be the heading. There is vigorous debate. Sensitivity and tolerance thresholds indicate what anyway? The large cohort study was the most useful and informative which I provided. But it is not cited. Opinions are valuable I believe when made clear - which they are.

While medical papers must rightly form the basis of current anatomy, much anatomy is still missing from this page. There is no primary explanation of the role and purpose of the foreskin in sex or its relationship to the female prepuce etc. This should be under the heading. The heading instead contains information about potential problems and notes that circumcision is sometimes a remedy. (when very rarely is this the case)

The page arm contains no mention of amputation.

An explanation of the foreskin as a vestigial structure, "more trouble than it's worth" seems to be the conclusion of this article. That is a pro-circumcision minority view.

It would be good to see this article be primarily about anatomy and function - fascinating subjects that Wikipedia should have a great page on. The foreskin is part of a sex organ, its function is sexual. Topic avoided.

I have done my utmost to offer sources and done a little editing. I hope this article can improve from 'C' in the future. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about circumcision. Morris has been discussed ad nauseam and for Wikipedia, high-quality sources cannot be discarded simply because a particular author triggers activists who don't link the science he does. The way to improve this article is to summarize more high-quality sources, which it badly needs. The Earp blog post was not "published in the British Medical Journal". It's a blog-post for an ethics journal's site (which happens to be within the BMJ Group). This is a poor-quality source, the opposite of what we want per WP:MEDASSESS. Note a similar discussion has been taking place at WT:MED Alexbrn (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like the Darwin quote before the Morris vestigial structure claim is WP:SYNTH, and should be removed. It makes much more sense to simply link to Vestigiality instead.. " Regarding vestigial structures, Charles Darwin wrote, 'An organ, when rendered useless, may well be variable, for its variations cannot be checked by natural selection.'[15] In the March 2017 publication of the Global Health Journal: Science and Practice, Morris and Krieger wrote, 'The variability in foreskin size is consistent with the foreskin being a vestigial structure.'[19]" Prcc27 (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with the edit. But I see that vestigiality is already linked in the article. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Found another sentence in that section that is a SYNTH problem: "The area of the outer foreskin measures 7–100 cm2,[31] and the inner foreskin measures 18–68 cm2" We can still keep that information, but I feel like it needs to be moved to a different section, otherwise it's SYNTH. Prcc27 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. You identify WP:SYNTH for me. I think this may be a problem in the 'sensitivity' section also. We remind ourselves that this is not an article about circumcision yet this section uses the word eleven times. Each paragraph seems to be constructed in such a way as to support a pro-circumcision position. The first says there is probably no sexual function for Meissner's corpuscles, while the only mention of sensitivity to fine touch is a citation to Darwin. The main paragraph starting 'Moses and Bailey' cites only evidence supporting the claim set out in the first paragraph. It is in stark contrast to current (2021) advice in the UK and US. The CDC says, to paraphrase "men who enjoy the sensations of the prepuce will no longer experience those sensations". The NHS advice in the UK is similar. Not citable but is obviously based on science. The section does not even acknowledge that a contrary view exists. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/ I'm not clear on why this section exists. Sensitivity is part of "function" which is the briefest section of the article and appears to avoid the main subject. The page needs a new layout really Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree this page needs a new layout. A lot of the references to circumcision in the functions section either need to be removed from this article, or moved to the section of this page that specifically addresses modifications such as circumcision. After all, this is a page about foreskin, and we should give more due weight to what the science has to say about the foreskin rather than about circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see my sandbox for a proposed reshuffling of this article. (For some reason some of the photos aren't showing, but pay no attention to that). Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ANATMOS would be the way to go. There should only be a few sentences on circumcision (linking to the main articles) unless the foreskin is the explicit distinct subject. Much of the current article is poorly-sourced or off-topic. Alexbrn (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with condensing references to circumcision to a few sentences. Prcc27 (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Would it not be the right place to put all those references under 'modifications'. I'd like to see the reference removed from the header paragraph. Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The reshuffle is looking good I think. Thanks Prcc27. Under 'Evolution' is the sentence: 'During the physical act of sex, the foreskin reduces friction, which can reduce the need for additional sources of lubrication.[28]' I think that should be moved to 'function'. I wonder if the 'physical act of sex' is vague, do we mean 'intercourse'? My apologies - I am doing much Talk and not much Edit. Very grateful. Thelisteninghand (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a new proposal at my sandbox with most references to "circumcision" being removed. Although, maybe I removed too many of the references? Please let me know what you think. Also, I agree that that one sentence should be moved out of the evolution section. Prcc27 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I am reading your reshuffle - yes the sentence is better placed now and the whole article has a much better sense and shape. The 'evolution' section has two quotes from different sources running together: "In 1949, British physician Douglas Gardiner noted.." the quotes end and then begin again, "Some medical researchers.." the second line is Collier and has a different citation. Needs separation. It's bumpy - but is it WP:SYNTH? Under sensitivity: "One study examined the glans of seven circumcised and six uncircumcised men and found the epithelia to be equally keratinised.[23]" Is a study of thirteen subjects worthy of place in WP? Lastly I want to open up a WP discussion on the use of the word 'uncircumcised' with reference to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uncircumcised as being a profound reason for debate on its use here. Perhaps if you agree you can edit it out - or I can.. but any advice on how to start a debate welcome. Thanks again Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Prcc27 I've edited your sandbox re: 'uncircumcised'. I think it reads well, hope all agree.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I will edit this article to reflect the changes on my sandbox (aside from the change of the term "uncircumcised"). Prcc27 (talk) 03:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would not support a change other than a move to conform to WP:ANATMOS, since if this article is to improve this will need to be done anyway. Alexbrn (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Then please feel free to come up with a proposal that fits that guideline and/or make a BOLD edit. Otherwise, I don't see how doing nothing and leaving the status quo is better than at the very least fixing some of the blatant issues in the article. For example, some of the sentences are clearly in the wrong section, and something should be done about the circumcision centric bias. I'm not familiar with that guideline, so hopefully someone with a little more experience with WP:ANATMOS could step up. Prcc27 (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. There is still a lot of too-old sourcing in the document, although some older stuff is relevant. This for example might usefully be used to update some of the foreskin developmental content. Alexbrn (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like there should be something about the ethics of circumcision in the society and culture section. Prcc27 (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though there's a danger of swerving back into a discussion of circumcision, rather than focussing on the foreskin, which is supposed to be the topic of this article. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word 'uncircumcised'
Given the definition here: uncircumcised We might discuss the use of the word on all relevant pages.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which policy or guideline are you seeking to change? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. I've probably used the wrong route here, forgive me. There can be no 'policy' about a word, I guess. I want to raise a discussion in the appropriate way, with editors who would use the word or have an opinion about its use. It may have future implications for guidelines on language - but it's in common use now. Would the 'language' tag be more appropriate I wonder?  Thanks Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As shown at WP:RFCCAT, policy is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case; and lang is for requests related to a Wikipedia article about language and linguistics, not for requests concerning the language on a page. It's not at all clear what context the word "uncircumcised" is being used for which a discussion is necessary. If it's a matter of religious practice, the RfC category would be reli; if it's about the medical (i.e. scientific) reasons or methods, use sci; if it's a society matter (not being religious), use soc. If two or three of these apply, use any or all relevant ones. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has very many articles on circumcision. For a general discussion of any point it would probably be best to ask at WT:MED first. A RfC launched without some WP:RFCBEFORE could be seen as disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The draft edit is looking good.Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Redrose64 for the direction. To set out the argument here, as I understand it. The word can be perceived as a slur indicating "impure". But people do not have a right not to be offended. It belongs to the context only of circumcision. It has a similar sense to bearded men being called 'unshaven' or a single woman being called 'unmarried' - it's a term with implied stigma in a social context therefore it is not neutral language. It is an easy word to avoid, 'not circumcised' is accepted.

I've edited the word out from the new draft of this article although it remains in quotations obviously. I'd be interested in comment. Hopefully we are moving forward at some point with the new version if all agreed? Can the study I mentioned with 13 subjects be deleted? Thanks all.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Uncircumcised" is fine, as used by serious sources of the kind Wikipedia likes. The draft version of the article is now redundant, as the main article has moved on. What study with 13 people do you mean? Alexbrn (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn, please define 'fine'. You need to articulate an argument here not give opinion. And what do you mean by "the main article has moved on" the draft is better by all WP measures. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia adopts the tone and writing standards of the high-quality publications it cites. Your proposal is, frankly, weird and would lead to clunky, wordy writing. If you want to propose some kind of topic-wide medical style rule you will need to get agreement, probably from participants at WT:MED. Alexbrn (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Frank speaking is always good. To me when I see the word it looks faintly ridiculous and clumsy. You can't be 'un-circumcised', that is a given. The term is weird and a linguistic anomaly. Please see Political Correctness and https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uncircumcised The term has multiple meanings and is not neutral.Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC) See also Inclusive language Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Posthe and Akroposthion


I am requesting consensus to include these terms of distinction. The akroposthion is basically the part distal to the glans containing the ridged band.

Special:diff/1018843832 removed it despite the source. Not sure why. Isn't adding the technical terms and language a good thing? WakandaQT (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1879? That would be a historical term then. Is it significant? Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Add to Foreskin-based Products section
Add this line to the Foreskin-based Products section: "Foreskin of babies are also used in cosmetics." with the following references

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/dec/07/foreskin-facial-treatment-baby-salon-wrinkles https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-cut-above-the-rest-wrin/Boston Magazine https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2015/04/14/baby-foreskin-facial-boston-hydrafacial/
 * ✅ Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021
The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) is not an accurate source of information on medical conditions of the male foreskin -- See doctors from Europe/Latin America

The only reason the AAP lists foreskin as a medical risk is because in the late 1800s they wanted to have males and females circumcised to reduce pleasure during sex and discourage masturbation. This is historical fact. Only circumcision of males was passed, and Americans created a tradition of doing it without questioning it while the AAP continues to spread misinformation on the subject, while ignoring the historical background of why they encouraged circumcision in the first place. Circumcision is genital mutilation ___ https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796?fbclid=IwAR3A37SBEb_uoLHgwu_2aMcMmxt-xnNbiGiYKzwRKUA85JKcrSmNkD4-ZOs

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-neonatal-circumcision-sudden-infant-death.html#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20more%20than%20100%20newborns%20die%20each%20year,surgical%20operations%2C%20dating%20back%20more%20than%204%2C000%20years

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2020/07/uks-approach-to-male-genital-cutting-is-indefensible-says-expert

https://www.secularism.org.uk/

Lewka2991 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Circumcision and neutrality
I have noticed that after the edit-war the lead of this page seems rather biased in favour of circumcision. This page is supposed to focus on the anatomical structure of the foreskin and not encourage (or discourage) circumcision, which sould be a personal decision. The lead should not be a place of debate in favour and against circumcision but the current version is exactly that. Let alone that the sources provided seem to specifically encourage infant circumcision, which, in my opinion, is also ethically questionable.

I agree with Prcc27 who said that the page of the foreskin is not supposed to focus too much on circumcision. In my opinion, a sentence that makes circumcision seem almost inevitable and necessary to prevent disease is not appropriate for the lead of this page. Especially, if we consider that, according to data, about 60% of global population is uncircumcised and lives a totally normal life.


 * Many international (UNAIDS/WHO) and national (CDC) medical organizations support circumcision as a preventive medical treatment similar to vaccination. It's a strawman position to state that they state that a person "can't live a totally normal life" while not being circumcised. Their position is that in the aggregate it's a significant, net-positive to health outcomes. OntologicalTree (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I also fail to see how the lead claims that circumcision is an inevitable procedure. Presently, it gives attributes (such as claiming it serves a "protective" function) to the foreskin that are widely disputed in the presently given citations. There is no consensus on the matter: so why does the lead give credence to only the anti-circumcision perspective? Many sources explicitly dispute this. Yet only one perspective is presently considered valid. OntologicalTree (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I consider the sentence that was previously on the lead: "In some cases, particularly with chronic conditions, treatment may include circumcision", or at least a variation of it, much more appropriate and neutral for this page. I'm expecting others' opinions too. Piccco (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I concur with you, and would prefer the older wording. And I would like to add that the lead is supposed to summarize what is already in the body of the article. I don’t believe the circumcision paragraph in the lead reflects what is currently in the body. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I know the user has a topic ban, but it’s worth noting that Stix1776 had an issue with the “the foreskin may become subject to a number of pathological conditions” wording (see top section above for their reasoning). Prcc27 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Stix1776 is right as well. Literally every part of the body can be a subject to numerous conditions, most of them can be minor cases and are not the canon. I don't see why the conditions of the foreskin need to be emphasized in the lead making it seem like circumcision is the only solution for the alleged diseases.
 * I think a simple mention on circumcision could be made, since it is indeed performed in some cases, but it should be neutral without pushing the POV that it is a necessary "prophylactic health intervention against disease". It's clear that the user who currently made those edits was pushing a pov. Piccco (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Was there a source provided for the old wording? Prcc27 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There was one source that's still in the lead and it was written like this:
 * The foreskin may become subject to a number of pathological conditions, most of which are rare and are easily treated. In some cases, particularly with chronic conditions, treatment may include circumcision, a procedure where the foreskin is partially or completely removed.
 * Personally I find this wording, or some variation of it, better since it clarifies that conditions can be rare and it also mentions circumcision once. Maybe we could add that circumcision is an adult, and not a children, treatment, since in childhood the foreskin is naturally tight? Piccco (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as we avoid original research. Prcc27 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the old wording would be fine. Should I bring it back? Piccco (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should medical organizations such as the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UNAIDS, among others, be ignored? Circumcision is most commonly performed (in 2022) as a preventive medical treatment against potential disease. OntologicalTree (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They are included on the circumcision article. This is an article about the foreskin. Prcc27 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"The foreskin may become subject to a number of pathological conditions"
This wasn't said in the source. The source simply lists a number of foreskin related ailments. Frankly any editor could find a source listing "diseases of X organ" and say that feet or whatever may have pathological conditions, but this isn't the norm with Wikipedia. I noticed that this text has been in this article since 2013, so I didn't want to be overly bold and hack away at the lead.Stix1776 (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * See the article for wisdom teeth. The majority of its present lead relates to its prophylactic removal.
 * It is not an issue: as long as other information is conveyed in the lead as well. KlayCax (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead phrasing and further WP: NPOV conversation
I agree with and  in the fact that's suggested revision has WP: NPOV issues: but the current wording is similarly troublesome and in some ways worse. The article on wisdom teeth extensively goes into the debate surrounding its prophylactic extraction. It's not necessarily a "bias" to include a debate about a widely removed body part. (e.g. Tonsils, wisdom teeth, foreskin, et cetera.) I'll ping  — both editors with an extensive history on the circumcision article (as well as ) to see what they think.


 * Comparing version #1 and version #2: #1 is the better, far more WP: NPOV version. KlayCax (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead for the tonsils article does not mention anything about Tonsillectomy. This article used to talk extensively about circumcision, but the consensus was to give less weight to circumcision, which is why we try to keep references to it brief. Prcc27 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wisdom teeth is probably the best example. It's widely routinely removed for (similarly heavily disputed) prophylactic reasons and the dispute of that currently compromises a majority of that lead. Two or three sentences mentioning it here shouldn't be an issue: as long as it isn't advocating a particular perspective. KlayCax (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The current wording is the one that existed for the longest time in the lead without any problems. I find this wording to be neither in favour nor against circumision, as it briefly mentions it as treatment in some chronic conditions. The debate around circumcision is not omitted, but simply discussed in more appropriate pages like: circumcision, Circumcision controversies, Circumcision and law, Ethics of circumcision, Forced circumcision, Prevalence of circumcision etc. Piccco (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a good point. There is no “Wisdom teeth removal controversies” article, so obviously any controversy regarding wisdom teeth removal would have to be covered at the Wisdom teeth article. On the foreskin article, we simply keep references to circumcision brief, and we link to the circumcision article for readers that want more information on that topic. Prcc27 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Reductant wording
The lead presently describes the foreskin as "the double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane part of the penis that covers the glans penis and the urinary meatus"

This wording is utterly reductant. Skin (like all other organs) in all animals has blood vessels, neurons, smooth muscle tissue, and mucous membrane. It also appears to be a direct copy of the citation, which seems dangerously close to a copyright problem. OntologicalTree (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: I do not have an issue with that suggested change. KlayCax (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Incorporating now as part of a broader expansion of the page. KlayCax (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That concern would make sense if we were talking about the lead of a bigger body part, let's say arm, that consists of many other organs, including skin. But since the foreskin is only... skin, it makes sense that we explain its composition in a little more detail.
 * As for the copyright concerns, I don't think there is an issue, since all the words mentioned are medical names that will, of course, remain unchanged. Also, the structure of the sentence is pretty simple, it's just listing those names. Piccco (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s redundant. And when most readers hear the word “foreskin” or “skin”– blood vessels, neurons, smooth muscle tissue, and mucous membrane probably aren’t the first thing that come to mind. I think the information is useful and explains what the foreskin is made up of. Prcc27 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022
Edit main image for various reason. Suggested image use is:

Reason for change: -current image doesnt display any other anatomical features that should be included as main image display to show true function & representation of foreskin (ex. meatus, frenulum, rigded band, glans) -diversification to images already established on other related topics (mostly caucasian; add some diversification even with pictures) growing up in the south uncircumcised drew to curiosity and back then it was very difficult to find similar examples to me because every image was caucasian -new image shows more texture on the skin to help understand the changes in the epidermis from different regions of an uncircumcised penis Neweditor1017 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * how do i establish a consensus? Neweditor1017 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for Main Image Change
Reason for change: -current image doesnt display any other anatomical features that should be included as main image display to show true function & representation of foreskin (ex. meatus, frenulum, rigded band, glans) -diversification to images already established on other related topics (mostly caucasian; add some diversification even with pictures) growing up in the south uncircumcised drew to curiosity and back then it was very difficult to find similar examples to me because every image was caucasian -new image shows more texture on the skin to help understand the changes in the epidermis from different regions of an uncircumcised penis Neweditor1017 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Repetition
I want to express exasperation because I, and others, have given our time and energy on the prepuce article in en.wikipedia to make it correct. The ridged band is a proper term. The prepuce is the most sensitive part of the penis. Wikidoc says so. https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Foreskin Now, I have spent some hours researching and have good sources to cite the above. But I already did that more than a year ago. For the unenlightened, Meissner's corpuscles are not the only sensory cells, there is a hell of a lot more to it than the comedy version stated in this article. I won't start an edit war. The previous process involved medical editors I seem to remember. Way to go imo. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikidoc is obviously not a usable source. You're going to have to read and follow WP:MEDRS. I understand that it can be frustrating when what one thinks are 'good sources' don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but that is how it goes. MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not included as source. Included as example of up-to-date wikivoice. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC) It also includes all useful citations, of course.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a copy of this Wikipedia article as it was in 2011-ish. MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we proceed to rfc?
The good people here have mentioned their wish to avoid edit wars several times above. I believe the issues outlined and discussed here, NPOV, FRINGE, etc have not been resolved by consensus.Bon courage, Prcc27, Dashoopa, Armin1718 piccco and all interested editors might consider an RfC or a notice to Project Teams. I will create in due course but maybe someone who hasn't done it before could take the reins?Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Got a ping but I wasn't watching this page any more, so am out the loop. A neutral RfC with just the specific question of the form "should passage X be replaced with passage Y?" would be okay I guess (any supporting "argument" could be given in response to the RfC, by the nominator even). Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Thelisteninghand, I see that, like me, you also care about this article and I understand it. I'm willing to see KayClax's point of view in this arguement only so that we could build a consensus together and avoid disruptive editing in the future. I don't know how rfc works exactly, could anyone explain? Piccco (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I wanted to inform you that these days I have prepared a few more sentences for lead of this page that include only information that is verified by credible sources (such as WHO, CUA etc.), so that the lead wouldn't seem so empty. The information is provided by the sources Klay Cax proposed, so I guess they wouldn't have a problem with a small addition in the lead. Piccco (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RFC is a process where a neutrally phrased question is put to the wider Wikipedia community. It gets listed in a central location and I believe folks who are signed up for such things get periodic notifications. The idea is to draw in additional input when there is some sort of impasse. The process takes about a month, and when a consensus is demonstrated, the outcome tends to be treated as binding. Per WP:RFCBEFORE, it is probably premature to embark on that process - I don't think there is even a clearly defined question to ask the community at this point. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * MrOllie Thanks for the answer. I personally think that it is likely for me, KlayCax and the other users to reach a consensus and avoid this process now. As I stated above, after KlayCax's concerns about what they considered controversial for this page, I collected some information that is verified by the sources they suggested, so that they new version could satisfy all of the users. I will wait for their responce. Piccco (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it's all about sources. I suggested rfc or Project Team notice board - I think that's the way more medical editors got involved before. Agree there's no question - I've given that some thought. I see problems with various entries that are not neutral, sometimes because they omit part of the discussion. 'Structure', 'Function' are incomplete, the closing of 'Evolution' is clumsy. Look at these sections; each begins by stating there is controversy and end with Morris and Krieger assertions - a kind of SYNTHESIS that reads to give a certain impression, I'm calling it Original Research. On 'Function' the citation at the end is to a study which states it is about whether circumcision 'makes a difference' - I deleted it for a number of reasons beyond that. Meissner's corpuscles are not soley responsible for touch sensation and recent science says they are about rapid 'point to point' discrimination. Other corpuscles and nerve endings totally omitted by authors (well they would wouldn't they). I've got two papers from NCBI to update this. But we must reach consensus that it needs updating. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I say, I'm a bit out of the loop on this. I strongly suggest any request for discussion is framed as a specific query about charging text X to text Y, with rationale. General discussion about what is "neutral" are generally an utter waste of time. Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thelisteninghand, I hear your concers. I would suggest that we avoid making minor edits at the article for now. Let me handle it with KlayCax, because it is likely what we might reach to some concensus. The issue about the sections ending with a one-sided conclusion could be easily solved by involving the other side of the arguement as well. For now, it's good to not open more issues here, just wait for KlayCax to catch up and give me some time to talk with them. Piccco (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
The prepuce is involved in the sexual acts of masturbation and intercourse. I would have thought that was what wiki refers to as a 'sky is blue' statement. What we in the UK call the 'bleeding obvious'. Deleting such obviously true statements is vandalism. HOWEVER checking masturbation I see absolutely no reference to the prepuce. Just uncited nonsense about people using lubricants. Let's not forget that it is this kind of editing that gave rise to intactwiki. And US lubricant sales growth. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is when it is and it isn't when it isn't. And for circumcised people, it isn't. The absolute statement you were trying to get into Wikipedia was nonsense; what we have is fine. I have no idea what intactwiki is and you need to read WP:NOTVAND. If you're here for WP:ADVOCACY you are likely to find your wiki career a short one, I suggest. Bon courage (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * My wiki career is already quite extensive thank you. I am here to improve and write articles and I enjoy the cooperation and collaboration of a great many editors. This article is C Class and needs an awful lot more information to make it to 'good'. No diagrams, no identification of parts, a paucity of information on structure and function - some obvious areas for improvement. https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Foreskin Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so making it worse is not a great move. Bon courage (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Mucous Membrane
I've changed the link to go to preputial mucosa as it seemed obvious and more specific to this article. Hope that's agreeable.Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Ridged band" and "functions" in Wikvoice/lead
. I reverted your edit that definitely states that the human foreskin has sexual/protective function. A previous version of the article did state that. But it wasn't supposed to (the sentence apparently slipped through other editors): as there was were multiple RFC's a few years ago (I believe with and a few others) with a consensus that controversial aspects of the foreskin shouldn't be claimed in Wikivoice as definite. You cited an organization known as Foregen — an organization that describes itself as "dedicated to the function of the human foreskin" — for the statements and. Both of these claims are contradicted by major medical organizations: including the World Health Organization/Canadian Urological Association.

As other editors have pointed out (particularly here and here): it's problematic to assign controversial aspects of the foreskin to the definition. (Saying it indisputably has function.) '''The changed definition slipped by other editors and contradicted the talk page consensus. So it was reverted. (I preserved that that the foreskin is muscular/musocal.)''' KlayCax (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There was also a general agreement ( aside) that circumcision shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. (if I recall correctly) added it back in without consensus - but it shouldn't be in the introduction of the article. KlayCax (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello KlayCax, I decided not to revert your edits again in order to avoid unnecessary edit-war. I will instead list my concerns here, as, in my opinion, you should have also done before making big changes in the page.
 * Based on the archives you included, in spring 2021 the users Bon courage, Prcc27, Thelisteninghand, Dashoopa, Armin1718 etc. had discussions about the page and, after several edits, in around 21st of April the first three seemed to have come to a consensus where everyone was satisfied. At that time, the article looked almost identical to what it looked like before your current edits, meaning that the current shrinkage was never agreed on by other users nor was it ever part of the consensus. Since then, the only big trimming of the page was made by OntologicalTree in spring 2022, when Prcc27 and I agreed that it didn't have consensus and that content removal was not an improvement.
 * As for the lead, you removed some very basic information claiming there was consensus (when?) and labeled it as "controversial". This part never seemed to be a subject of debate. For some reason you tried to present it as such. It is simply objective information and its existance on the lead is in agreement with WP:ANATMOS. Similarly, the mucocutaneous band between the outer skin and the mucosa, usually cited as "ridged" or "frenal band, ring" etc., which you suspiciously silenced in the whole article, is an actual anatomical location on the penis and it seems to be widely accepted today. I don't know if any scientific research straight up denied its very existance but, most importanty, it was never the consensus to have this information removed (according to archive and older versions of the page).
 * I have other issues too which I won't list for now. I will expect other's opinions because there seems to be a great dissonance among users as for what this article should look like. As an experienced user, you know that in these articles the content is not imposed by one person, but it is the middle ground that comes after discussion.
 * Piccco (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Foregen.org clearly does not meet WP:MEDRS - we should not be using it as a source for anything. - MrOllie (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We may need to find an alternative source, something more reliable than Foregen. Prcc27 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to piccco for the notification. Have to say the article still reads a lot better than when I found it! Not sure about this source https://circumcision.org/functions-of-the-foreskin/ but it mentions 'ridged band' - may be seen as partisan though. One cause of the problems for this page is the English speaking world is completely divided on circumcision. We might say that somewhere in precise terms.https://www.londonchildrensurgery.co.uk/blog/are-there-any-benefits-of-circumcision-in-babies/ 'rarely performed' in UK versus '55-65%' in US. I wonder what other language Wikipedias say.Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blogs and advocacy groups aren't any better. Please have a look at WP:MEDRS. For this sort of content something like an antamony textbook from an academic publisher would be expected. MrOllie (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that the foreskin is viewed not as a seperate anatomical structure, but a subcategory of the circumcision debate. The purpose of an anatomy article is to provide anatomical information. Let's say we agreed not to mention the ridged band on the lead, the rest of the information removed -blood, nerve supply, moisturization etc.- is not denied by any source, but they are rather basic amatomical facts. My point is that since this is an anatomy article and for the majority of the male population the foreskin is a normal structure of their body, the main focus of the page should be the anatomy of this structure and not the controversies (that are subject of a seperate article). Piccco (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree completely. After RfC last year the article was made to read well. I'll continue to support neutral inclusions but agree inclusions dealing with circumcision DO NOT belong here. Does the article on 'arm' deal with amputation? Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . No, but body parts that are commonly prophylactically removed (and for similarly controversial reasons) — such as the wisdom tooth article — have leads that mention that fact. It's nothing unprecedented. KlayCax (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point but I'm not sure teeth make a great comparison. Check labia.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're meaning here, . Could you clarify? KlayCax (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The prepuce is living flesh. Teeth will be lost, the prepuce is not the same. Very simple point.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this information was deleted in the edit.


 * As other user pointed out previously (and copying what he stated): all skin has neurons. As for the muscular nature of the foreskin: the description states that the foreskin . None of that has been deleted. The statements and  were removed because the sources were either non-reliable/POV (e.g. Foregen) or  directly contradicted (or stated to be disputed) by the sources. For example, Collier (2011) directly states that there is a lack of consensus surrounding the statements, and it was previously used to argue in Wikivoice that the foreskin indisputably has those characteristics... Which was the explicit opposite of what the source was stating.  That's why the sentences were deleted. The cited sources directly contradict the statement. 


 * Both Canadian Urologist Assocation and (Cox, 2015) (although the publishers of Cox, 2015 have conversely a well-known, extensive, and in my view extreme position favoring circumcision: which I wrote about on the circumcision talk page) directly contradict Taylor et al., 1996. So does the American Academy of Pediatrics if I recall correctly. The term seems predominately used among anti-circumcision campaigners: not among major medical organizations or urology textbooks. There's a few sources that I could find that seem to mention a "ridged band" of the prepuce: but the vast majority state that it's "disputed" or otherwise explicitly reject it.


 * I'm not sure if you meant to delete this statement:




 * But since you brought it up I felt a need to respond.




 * I don't have a strong opinion about circumcision. (Although since you brought it up I'll repeat what I stated to another editor.) I'm absolutely, resolutely not in favor of routine circumcision.  Nor have my edits represented any sort of pro-circumcision bias. The reason a lot of these articles surrounding the topic were revised were due to widespread WP: NPOV problems that don't fit in line with the goals of Wikipedia. (Such as falsely asserting that individuals who are suffer from widespread sexual dysfunction; the Canadian Urologist Association goes into a lot of these debunked claims here, which I recommend you check out.) I personally agree with your assertation that circumcision has no significant prophylactic (assuming that safe sexual practices + other guidelines are followed) benefit in developed nations. However, there's no evidence that the procedure is harmful either in terms of long-term sexual pleasure of function, and no mainstream medical organization (and arguably scientist) who would hold to that view today. (See WP: Fringe) Routine circumcision can still be unethical: even with that fact being the case.




 * Which it doesn't. The debate was moved to the body.




 * What information is being censored? Again all of the information was just moved to the body. Stating disputed opinions — in a heavily controversial (particularly in the developed world) field of research — obviously violates WP: NPOV. There's simply a present lack of consensus among the matter among major medical assocations, outside of: 1.) Prophylactic circumcision in the developed world may have minor-to-moderate upsides and downsides. But it's not defintiely critical to health: and for the large majority of people it probably won't make a difference in terms of sexual health, given safe sexual behavior. 2.) Adult, consensual prophylactic circumcision in high-risk areas of HIV transmission is an effective measure against it. 3.) Sexual pleasure, function, and libido among adults who have undergone it seems to suggest no substantive change (positive or negative) on sexual pleasure/function. (See the Canadian Urological Association statement here.)


 * Similar positions on pleasure/function are taken by the World Health Organization and others.
 * It's obviously problematic if Wikivoice directly states the opposite. KlayCax (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . (Tagging.) KlayCax (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello KlayCax, I've just read your comments. Before anything else, I just wanted to clarify that I (like you, I guess) have no interest in engaging in long and unnecessary arguing here. This aside, I saw you claimed that you are, in fact, not in favor of circumcision. Previously I would've bet my life that you are a strong supporter of the procedure (or that you just don't like foreskin), but as an indication of a friendly approach I will opt to accept that as true.
 * I see that you oppose to the excessive use of the word function, protective or sexual, (or implications of it: natural lubricant) in wikivoice, except for the function section. Though I might not really find it necessary, I will accept that. Small note: the CUA states that circumcised men are sexually functional (with which ofcourse I agree). However, do they straight up decline the possibility of a foreskin function? It could be that the foreskin might still have a function, but simply not that crucial to the point that its removal would make a human sexually non functional? e.g. hair has a clear function in humans, that doesn't mean that a bald person would not be perfectly functional still. I guess the lack of a definite answer is the key here.
 * As for my intentions, I simply want some parts of male anatomy to have a decent representaion in wiki and a well informative artcile that doesn't look ignored and includes sufficient information from an anatomical point of view. If having a good quality article is also what you intent, then, I guess, we are on the same page. Piccco (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP: NPOV, Wikipedia can't take sides or do original research.
 * Multiple medical organizations — including ones that are in areas where circumcised men are a minority — such as the Canadian Urological Assocation and the European Assocation of Urology, amid others — directly deny that the foreskin has a sexual function or plays a role in sexual pleasure. That's why Wikipedia can't state that. A majority of international, national medical organizations, and metastudies deny it. Per the Canadian Urological Assocation: . It's not simply a WP: Fringe viewpoint exclusively confined to American academics. Positions denying any function for the foreskin are also expressed in the positions of major medical organizations in non-circumcising societies in Canada, Europe, and Asia.
 * I'm not in favor of routine circumcision in developed countries, no. The only thing that's been removed by me from circumcision-related articles are claims in Wikivoice that circumcision induces sexual dysfunction. As mentioned aboved: it's rejected by a majority of medical organizations along with the World Health Organization. There's a lot of reasons (e.g. bodily autonomy and lacking sufficient prophylactic benefit in developed nations) to reject it, regardless.
 * The removal of making those statements in Wikivoice has no impact on the ethics or necessity of routinely doing it in developed countries. (Which, at least for the second, a majority reject.) Yes, many of them do. That's why we can't definitely state it as such.  None of the information is deleted. It's just not in Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the Canadian Urology paper does not "directly deny" sexual function of the prepuce. It begins that section with "There is ongoing controversy regarding the impact of circumcision on penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction." There is some evidence of no effect but it also says, of the African studies: "The two trials reported very different baseline sexual dysfunction and, in both, the uncircumcised group reported improvement in sexual satisfaction over time" and "The study concluded that circumcision led to a decrease in glans sensitivity and overall penile sensitivity." Regarding the cited evidence, they say in their conclusion: "There is lack of any convincing evidence that neonatal circumcision will impact sexual function or cause a perceptible change in penile sensation in adulthood (Level 3–4, Grade C)." So the CUA is saying there is a lack of evidence -that is a different position to denial. I think a less selective approach to sources would be of huge benefit. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the Canadian Urology paper does not "directly deny" sexual function of the prepuce. It begins that section with "There is ongoing controversy regarding the impact of circumcision on penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction." There is some evidence of no effect but it also says, of the African studies: "The two trials reported very different baseline sexual dysfunction and, in both, the uncircumcised group reported improvement in sexual satisfaction over time" and "The study concluded that circumcision led to a decrease in glans sensitivity and overall penile sensitivity." Regarding the cited evidence, they say in their conclusion: "There is lack of any convincing evidence that neonatal circumcision will impact sexual function or cause a perceptible change in penile sensation in adulthood (Level 3–4, Grade C)." So the CUA is saying there is a lack of evidence -that is a different position to denial. I think a less selective approach to sources would be of huge benefit. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Meissner's index
I've reverted this edit by. This material seems to be referenced by a legitimate journal article, and that reference definition was used elsewhere in the article. Its removal caused a referencing error for the article and added it to Category:Pages with broken reference names. I don't think this material is the foregen.com material that's being discussed above, but the edit summary was "SEE TALK". What's really going on here? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Morris and Cox is an extreme outlier (in terms of favoring evidence that supports his case) in terms of circumcision. I'm guessing that is why an editor remvoed it. Unfortunately, this is a subject with extensive POV-sourcing and very few neutral sources, which makes the creation of a NPOV article challenging. KlayCax (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes 'extreme' is the correct term. Morris in particular holds the view that circumcision should be mandatory. His views are obnoxious and offensive certainly in the UK. Beyond that the reference, from a readers point of view is confusing and unsupported. Where is the study that shows that meissner's corpuscles are responsible for sexual sensation? The wording is that the results 'suggest' something that Morris would like to assert - the laughable notion that the foreskin is the least sensitive skin on the male human body. I 'suggest' the results may be interpreted in a great many number of ways. This is a RED HERRING. It is simply not supported anatomical fact, it is a statistical 'suggestion' and has no place on this page. Hope all agree. It tells us nothing. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Heaping attacks on the authors of the cited sources isn't going to help anything. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Morris citation shouldn't be removed, . But he is a famous outlier in terms of views surrounding this topic and shouldn't be cited in Wikivoice, running an organization called the Circumcision Foundation of Australia, (e.g. He's claimed that the benefits-to-risk ratio in developed nations surrounding routine circumcision is "200-to-1" — a stance that is overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream healthcare providers and organizations.) and arguably meets the criteria of a WP: Fringe source.


 * Although — since we're on the subject — the articles circumcision controversies and ethics of circumcision suffer from the opposite problem. In which established medical organizations have been sidelined and replaced with figures such as Marilyn Milos, Robert Darby, Frederick Hodges, (on the WP: Fringe "anti-circumcision side") and are uncritically cited throughout the article.


 * I'm not sure what is the best solution to this is. But I suggest that controversial/POV-pushing sources (e.g. from Morris, Cox, Milos, Darby, Hodges, et al.) be minimized to the uttermost extent and replaced with citations from major medical organizations (such as the British Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Canadian Urological Association, et al.) whenever possible. Circumcision research is a heavily controversial field of study — and outside the three things mentioned above — there's simply a lack of consensus on the matter.


 * Unfortunately, a lot of the current historical studies and/or opinions on the matter have come from intensely POV sources.
 * (Making a detailed, NPOV article difficult.) KlayCax (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with this. The Morris quotes are very out-of-date and misleading. Look at the source, it says "Our ultimate objective was to determine if there is any structural basis for claims of a potential effect of loss of the foreskin on sexual sensation and pleasure." I think we need to move forward. And I approve of your wording "minimized to the uttermost extent and replaced.." (!) I have 2021 ref from NCBI Journal of Anatomy which will do the job but I will not edit until we reach some consensus here. It's not worth the candle. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the citation you have in mind? KlayCax (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cox, Krieger, Morris are cited to conclude each of the sections Structure, Function and Evolution. That's what makes the article appear to lean the way it does. Must change. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a proposal for 'Function' to deal with sensitivity : "Meissner's corpuscles are rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors that are mainly responsible for fast changes in tactile sensation and two-point discrimination, but very few are found in the lips, nipples or external genital organs" https://acbjournal.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.5115/acb.20.105 "Mechanical stimuli are converted into electrical signals by PIEZO2 mechanoproteins and these are also expressed by other corpuscles; Merkel discs, Merkel cells, Ruffini and Krause corpuscles. The prepuce was observed as highly innervated, containing sensory formations of various mophotypes, including these cells, making it the most sensitive skin of the penis." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450466/#joa13481-bib-0012 Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak source (v. low-impact, primary, not MEDLINE-indexed). WP:POVSOURCING is something to be avoided. What are the excellent sources in this topic space? Bon courage (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We need to do something about harmonisation. All WP rules and guidelines have exceptions. In order to break the repeated use of Cox Krieger and Morris we must find better sources to conclude at least some of these sections. I argue that the above sources are acceptable, they are not required to be 'excellent'. Further comments welcomed as are further sources. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * isn't needed on Wikipedia if RS contradict. We can showcase multiple perspectives without awkwardly trying to fit conflicting sources together. KlayCax (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A misunderstanding possibly. I'm talking about avoiding concluding each section with Cox Krieger and Morris. "harmonisation" is a reference to the pulled RfC comments. It's a problem.Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What aspects should be in the "history" and "culture section"?
I think there's a general agreement on the talk page that the article should minimize references to circumcision. But it gets more difficult when it comes to thing such as history, culture, and the like. (Since the "historical, cultural, and social views" on foreskin almost always come back to the matter.)

Any ideas/suggestions? Should the sections be deleted entirely to prevent a verbatim repeat of history of circumcision and circumcision? KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, personally I am not negative with the current small additions, as long as the text provides information that has some value, is not excessive and also doesn't seem to advertize or take a clear position on circumcision in general. I find the additions on the history and culture section interesting. We should also remember that the history of the foreskin is not only about circumcision and more content about cultures that valued it like ancient Greece and Rome would also be welcomed any time. In fact this type of content would make more sense to be included in the history section of this article. Piccco (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Artificially separating the two subjects (foreskin and cultural/societal views on circumcision) would bring a significant amount of problems. Historically, the subjects (and views) have almost always been heavily intertwined — the Maccabean War, Hadrian's edict, et al. It would be nearly impossible (and nonsensical) for the article to cover one and not the other. (The reverted post was only around a paragraph long.) KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said I'm not necessarily negative with a paragraph in the section. In general I found the additions interesting (though there were also parts that felt more about Jewish culture than the foreskin itself). What I meant is that if this section was ever to be expanded in the future, the expansion should avoid being again about circumcision cultures. Reading some responses of yours seems like you agree on that too. As Prcc27 says, the main focus should remain on the cutlures that kept and had something to say about the foreskin, since this content is not included in any other wikipedia article and this would be the proper place to do it. Piccco (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I prefer the status quo, which is what I restored the article to. The edits KlayCax made clearly go against the consensus to keep the focus on this article about the foreskin– not circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Historically, the two subjects have been intertwined, and the additions were only a paragraph long.
 * I wouldn't consider it undue. Although I think it should be kept relatively short within the article. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you have no right to unilaterally add it to the article after being reverted. This is disruptive behavior. Prcc27 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . What aspects of the paragraph did you find problematic? It's all relevant to the history portion of the article. KlayCax (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a minefield if 'history' is taken seriously. Body parts, I would argue, have evolution not history but they can have cultural significance - which is beyond ancient Greece. To get this article out of C rating needs attention to biology -a diagram etc etc. I think the page should just be about anatomy and this 'history' section should be deleted for that reason. Otherwise we are challenged - I think this page should perhaps be compared to Vulva. I agree with the suggestion comes to, deletion is the best option. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The status quo is fine per WP:ANATMOS. Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . Articles such as clitoris and vulva have substantial portions dedicated to cultural norms.
 * It's entirely within the bounds of WP: Due to have three or four paragraphs about it. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. KlayCax (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to anything - I am agreeing with your proposal to delete this silly section. There is no 'history' - there is 'cultural and societal' - which there was a consensus to leave to other pages for reasons you have stated. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Re Sexual practices The prepuce is part of the male reproductive organs. This section is obviously redundant and should also be deleted. Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it is not redundant. This section is about docking, which the foreskin plays a disproportionate role in, compared to other sexual practices. Prcc27 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As @Prcc27 said, a history subsection -the way a certain body part was viewed by cultures throughout history- is suggested by WP:ANATMOS for anatomy articles and complete removal of that section would impact the overall quality of the article. @Thelisteninghand, indeed, this article needs more attention on biology, which is something I've worked on.
 * @KlayCax, I think Prcc27 objected to you adding content (mainly about circumcision) without first discussing them with other users.
 * In my opinion, the answer to whether this section can be expanded or not -and what this expansion can include- needs be the result of discussion between the users so that everyone will be satisfied to a certain extent. Our ultimate goal should be the article's quality Piccco (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Common knowledge v en.wikipedia
I assert that there is certain Common knowledge about the prepuce. This includes certain facts about touch, sensitivity and sexual practices (intercourse, masturbation) that everyone with a prepuce knows personally and which science supports. The rest of the world is where I live, not this wiki.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prépuce https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penisvorhaut https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepuzio

A world that doesn't need to cite Cox, Krieger and Morris every single time the prepuce is mentioned.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's truly common knowledge, should be a cinch to find a reliable source with it in. We wouldn't want to amplify popular misconceptions instead. Bon courage (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Rare penile cancer
Shouldn’t we mention that penile cancer is rare, same as what we do on the Circumcision article? KlayCax reverted me saying “penile cancer isn't rare in South America and Asia. Again, more Anglo-American centrism”. However, even though it is more common in the developing world, it is still rare, even in those regions of the world. Prcc27 (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Penile cancer isn't uniformly rare across the world: That's why I attempted to remove it from the circumcision article as well. The statement's incorrect. KlayCax (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Tagging . KlayCax (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure if that source is MEDRS compliant, but even assuming it is— “relatively common” . Penile cancer is not common anywhere, but it is *relatively* common, when you compare areas with extremely rare prevalence to regions where it is rare, but not extremely rare. “Relatively” is the keyword here.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Penile cancer is one of the most common cancer types among men in some South American countries. There's a significant amount of MERDS-compliant sourcing which: 1.) Describes it as "common" in areas of the world 2.) States that is one of the most common cancer types in parts of the world. KlayCax (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not to mine Google scholar for quotes related to this — I haven't personally read these works beyond the quotes listed — but a quick search of "penile cancer" and "common" showcases at least five MERDS-compliant sources which describe it as common in various areas of the world. The vast majority describe it as common in many undeveloped areas of the world.


 * Kandeel (2007) in p.99 of Male Sexual Dysfunction: Pathophysiology and Treatment (ISBN: 9781420015089; published by CRC Press)




 * Damjanov (2009) in p.335 of Pathology Secrets: (ISBN: 9780323074742; published by Elsevier Health Sciences)




 * And so on and so forth. At the very best, prefacing it with "rare" is a very subjective (and heavily Western-centric) statement. KlayCax (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess, that issue could be solved by simply adding something like: "which is rare in developed countries" right next to penile cancer. Piccco (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That could work. Prcc27 (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Would be odd to add any kind of qualifier, whether it be "rare", "incurable", "notoriously painful" or whatever. If people want to read about penile cancer they can click the link. Looks like POV-pushing to suggest "not really a problem for us Westerners yo!" Bon courage (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, when I said 'developed' I didn't mean to use it as a technical term (developed≠developing), but rather as a characterization of a country that can grant a decent quality of life for its citizens. In any case, this is a minor edit, so I don't have a stong opinion about it. Piccco (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on repeated citations
Should the sections 'structure', 'function' and 'evolution' all conclude with citations to the same authors? Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , you're going to want to provide at least a little more context than that if you hope for any realistically helpful amount of engagement from FRS respondents. Even having looked at the article as it stands now and done some degree of review of the discussions above, it's not altogether clear to me which sources you are referring to and why you do or do not support this approach. A straight-forward, short, and neutral prompt is a positive for an RfC, this is true, but you've gone to an extreme here that obtusely vague.  That said, here's what can be said on the basis of the input you have requested, lacking further specifics here: there is neither a particularly strong reason to oppose the same author (or same specific citation) being listed as the final source in any number of sections, if it just so happens that these are the best sources to support the final statements of multiple sections.  There is absolutely no problem with that.  However, here is also no particular reason to seek that kind of harmonization either, and statistically speaking, it would tend to be unlikely that that last state of any given three sections would be the same author, unless it was a small and relatively lightly cited article.


 * But it all comes down to the suitability of the sources under WP:V and WP:WEIGHT, and has nothing to do with how many times the author has already been cited in the article, whether capping sections or not. However, looking at the current version of the article, this is not the situation that exists for the three sections you cite.  So, again, highly confusing as to just what you are asking here, what sources we are talking about, and why you do or do not support their utilization. Remember, even as the OP, you are also allowed to !vote or place an additional comment yourself after providing the neutral RfC prompt, if you want to advocate for one position or another. SnowRise let's rap 23:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Speedy close per WP:RFCBEFORE — As mentioned by : an ongoing conversation just started a day ago, is ongoing, and there's no need to invoke a RfC at this time. The discussion will be resolved much faster without an unnecessary RfC process. At the very least: a RfC shouldn't be conducted at this time. KlayCax (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Close as invalid. In spite of the advice above on this Talk Page, this is a confusing and vague question with questionable relevance to consensus forming. Bon courage (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per above, I'm pulling this RfC. You are encouraged to continue discussion, just not as a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC. If you need outside input, drop a note on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, inviting them to participate here. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all and apols if some found it an inconvenience. (please remember my edits and discussion here go back 18 months) I find the comment above very constructive in regard to the words about 'harmonisation'. It is 'unlikely' I think, that Cox, Krieger, Morris be the best source to conclude each of the sections. I'm making further notes for discussion under 'Meissners Index'.Thelisteninghand (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)