Talk:Foreskin restoration

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Foreskin restoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132221053700/http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/tushmet1/ to http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/tushmet1/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060815155305/http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com:80/issue/2006/06_30/3_patients_practice01_12.html to http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2006/06_30/3_patients_practice01_12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreskin restoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041011191210/http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/Grnds/tissue-expand.html to http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/Grnds/tissue-expand.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630090858/http://www.foregen.org/blog/news/2010-trial-postponed/ to http://www.foregen.org/blog/news/2010-trial-postponed/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716115526/http://www.foregen.org/projects/ to http://www.foregen.org/projects/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

A less biased 'synopsis' or 'lede'?
I proposed this modification for the synopsis:

"Foreskin restoration is a misnomer for stretching the skin of the circumcised penis to encourage growth by mitosis of new skin to partially replace functions of the foreskin. The foreskin is sometimes removed for religious or cultural reasons, often as an infant, or because of injury. Specialized tissues removed during circumcision cannot be restored. Some adult men wish to reduce negative effects of their circumcision and turn to 'foreskin restoration'. In some cases men feel their circumcisions are excessive or make erections uncomfortable. 'Restoration' can sometimes provide relief. Surgical skin grafting methods also exist."

It was removed by a Wikipedia Editor for lack of citations. This seems odd, and counter to other Wikipedia editors who have said that making statements in the synopsis that are well supported within the article are ok, and avoid overloading the synopsis with citations. In the present version there is one citation of an academic article behind a pay-wall. (Lerman & Liao) I left that citation in as best I could while cleaning up the awkward language. I wish I could see if this is a quote from Lerman & Liao, and if it is an accurate quote.

This Wikipedia article has been subjected to biased viewpoints from two sides of an argument over the propriety of circumcision and it's consequences. Bias can be very subtle, and should be avoided from either side. Full disclosure, I am unhappily circumcised, have engaged in several years of unsuccessful effort at 'restoration' or 'tugging' with several devices referenced in this article. I do wish language that minimizes the effects of circumcision and words that inspire false hope were not part of the discussion around this topic. I believe it is possible for one who has a position to pick out 'loaded words' and replace them with accurate and unbiased ones. I endeavored to remove biased words that suggest things that are not possible. I have made every effort at truth, accuracy, and avoiding bias. Perhaps I do have a blind spot for one bit of bias - '''I do not think people should be misled into believing circumcision is a thing that can ever be undone. It can't. That is true, accurate, and I don't think Wikipedia should be misleading its readers.'''

'Restoration' is a subtly biased word suggesting something that cannot be done, can be done. That is dishonest, inaccurate, and if not biased, nonsensical. It is, however, a popular way to refer to the issue. So calling it what it is and proceeding makes sense to me. I believe it was likely adopted by 'restorers' themselves. It is - from either side of the argument - a misnomer. Even if experimental efforts at cellular foreskin regeneration are successful someday, a cadaver foreskin is used as a scaffold for 'stem cells' to grow, and that cultured skin is then surgically attached. Even this is not truly 'restoration' of what was originally there. Stretching skin remnants cannot 'restore' a foreskin, or an organ. The best effect of restoration is to *simulate* some of the foreskin's function by 'stretching' skin tissues that remain. One might say this is more accurately stretching skin to 'mitigate' damage done by circumcision, but 'mitigate' is awkward, as well as a unnecessarily potentially biased. To the word 'damage', there is undeniably damage done in circumcision. True, accurate, and unbiased. The first sentence is a statement well supported within the article. I assert that 'restoration' is truly a misnomer as used in this article, that fact is made clear within the full article, and its inaccuracy is duly pointed out without bias. The synopsis should as accurately as possible condense the article, not throw words out that are 'wishful thinking'.

I added links to other Wikipedia articles to clarify and differentiate terminology such as 'skin', 'human penis', 'mitosis', 'foreskin', and 'restoration', all relevant to the article.

The discussion of 'restoration' begs the question, what happened that necessitates this attempt at 'restoration'. The statement "The foreskin is sometimes removed for religious or cultural reasons, often as an infant, or because of injury," answers this directly and I believe without bias.

The statement "Specialized tissues removed during circumcision cannot be restored" is truthful, accurate, and does not betray a bias. It is also taken nearly verbatim from the existing synopsis.

"Some adult men wish to reduce negative effects of their circumcision and turn to 'foreskin restoration.'" This sentence is truthful, accurate, and does not betray a bias.

The sentence attributed to Lerman and Liao is currently long and awkward: "Some forms of restoration involve only partial regeneration in instances of a high-cut wherein the circumcisee feels that the circumciser removed too much skin and that there is not enough skin for erections to be comfortable." If anybody has access to the textbook and can verify this language, that would be helpful. (This is not in quotation marks as it should be if it does directly quote Lerman and Liao.) The sentence as I replaced it reads this way: "In some cases men feel their circumcisions are excessive or make erections uncomfortable. 'Restoration' can sometimes provide relief." While this may not perfectly mirror Lerman and Liao, I believe it reads more easily.

"Surgical skin grafting methods also exist." is also a 'cleaned up' version of what's already in the synopsis.

Kendall Hallett (talk)


 * It's your own opinion. The lede must summarize the body, and the content of the body must conform to WP:V. In Wikipedia, sources are all. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS sourcing
To answer the question in the IP's edit summary - I am taking issue with all of the content I am deleting. That is why I am deleting it. WP:MEDRS is a firm, Wikipedia-wide requirement for content of this nature. We absolutely cannot be using vendor websites and a mis-mash of blogs and forum posts for medical content. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Quite right too. The article was full of junk and the clear-out improves things. Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Motivation
The article contains information on the historical motivation of the practice—Jews wanting to conform to gentile standards of beauty—but there is no mention of the motivation of the practice in modernity (i.e., post–World-War II). It would be prudent to include this, especially considering most of the article details the practice as done in modernity. Vex-Vectoꝛ ​​ 14:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)