Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2

Sourcing is too old and out-of-date per WP:MEDRS
This is yet another foreskin-related article with sourcing that is largely very old and out-of-date per WP:MEDRS. The old sources, especially the primary-source studies supporting medical or monetary (cost-effectiveness) claims need to be removed and up-to-date reliable secondary sources need to be used instead. Anything over 10 years old supporting medical claims really needs to be removed wholesale, and that is still being very liberal with the WP:MEDRS guideline.

01:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Zad, you think medical knowledge has a total turnover every decade? For long established facts your proposal just means finding a secondary source that quotes a fact, creating an ever-lengthening trail away from a citation of a primary source. If new research disproves a "fact" or better supports it, by all means replace the reference. Otherwise this is just stupid. alteripse (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition
The definition n the lead section is being changed to:

"a condition where, in individuals with penises, the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans penis."

Instead of the more simple:

"a condition in males, where the foreskin cannot be fully ..."

The reason to qualify this definition with gender is that clitoral phimosis is then discussed in the next sentence. I feel this change adds unnecessary length to the lead section, which should be clear and simple. It also may constitute OR to derive this definition without a source. The appropriate place to mention this might be somewhere not in the lead section of the article, and if a supporting source can be found.

An alternative wording might be:

"a condition where the foreskin cannot be fully retracted over the glans penis."

which avoids mention of the disputed wording completely.

Note also that if you make a change to an article and it gets reverted, this indicates that it is a controversial change and the next stage is to discuss the edit on the talkpage instead of restoring the edit (see image). Lesion ( talk ) 16:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See this discussion section at WP:MED for my view on this matter and those like it. Like I stated there (only a piece of what I stated there about this): "While I understand where transgender and/or intersex people are coming from on this matter, it is most assuredly WP:Undue weight to state "individuals with penises" instead of "men" or "males," or "people" instead of "men" or "males." Secondly, sources on this matter do not state "individuals with penises" or simply "people"; thus the addition is WP:Unsourced. The sources state "men" or "males" (or even "boys"). Thirdly, the word people could include anyone. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we must not be wording our articles to reflect the very uncommon wording that Lesion's edits have undone. In writing medical content reflect the wording found widely used in the overwhelming majority of reliable sources.  Like Flyer I understand the motivation behind the wording changes proposed but because it is rarely found in the writing of reliable sourcing we should not use it.  However I like Lesion's alternative wording proposed above and wouldn't have any problem with its use here.   17:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

'Simplistic Speculation'
'At the time, this led to the simplistic speculation that Guiteau's murderous behavior was due to phimosis-induced insanity' - This was not really a new idea, so it wasn't really 'speculation', it was based on a very common notion in psychiatry at that time, but one which was based on pseudo-science. To call this 'speculation' is like calling 'alchemy' or the theory of the 'humors' speculation. When these types of theories get codified and spread around a quasi-scientific community, they cease to be speculation and attain the level of pseudo-science. For this reason, I feel that the word 'simplistic' is also inappropriate here. I have no doubt that the psychiatric notions upon which this idea was founded were anything but simple - they were full fledged pseudo-scientific theories, much like the theory of 'epicycles'. Comiscuous (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Content
Beaugé treated several hundred adolescents with unusual masturbation habits and techniques, such as thrusting against the bed or rubbing the foreskin forward. He advised them to masturbate by lightly grasping the shaft of the penis and pulling it back and forth. Retraction of the foreskin was generally achieved after four weeks and he stated that he never had to refer one for surgery.

and

Beaugé noted that unusual masturbation practices, such as thrusting against the bed or rubbing the foreskin forward may cause phimosis. Patients are advised to stop exacerbating masturbation techniques and are encouraged to masturbate by moving the foreskin up and down so as to mimic more closely the action of sexual intercourse. After giving this advice Beaugé noted not once did he have to recommend circumcision.

The two sources supporting the content are hosted at a well known advocacy site.

Neither appears to be pubmed indexed. The also are from the 1990s. Neither are reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * they are non-MEDRS compliant (in being dated, primary source,)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

structure
User:Tremello, these edits broke with WP:MEDMOS which is the style guide for medicine. Please do read MEDMOS and follow the guidance there. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:Jytdog I put a lot of effort into improving that. Don't just undo my edit. I know all about the style guide so dont give me that nonsense. Tremello (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are guidelines for a reason; they are not "nonsense". You agree to follow policies and guidelines every time you edit, per the Terms of Use.  Check them.  They are all flexible but you need to justify departures from. Please do so. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didnt say they were nonsense. I said you should explain why I broke them.  I dont think I did.  You just swooped in and undid my efforts that I took hours to change.  You obviously dont understand the ethos of wikipedia.  Tremello (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You also said you aware of WP:MEDMOS and the structure you created clearly departs from it. Jytdog (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way? Tremello (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

you said you are aware of MEDMOS. But OK, I will show you.

Structure of the article you created


 * Natural development of the foreskin
 * Cause of pathological phimosis
 * Treatment
 * Severity
 * Nonsurgical
 * Surgical
 * Prognosis
 * Epidemiology
 * History

Structure prior to your edits
 * Signs and symptoms
 * Severity
 * Cause
 * Treatment
 * Nonsurgical
 * Surgical
 * Prognosis
 * Epidemiology

Structure per MEDMOS
 * Signs and symptoms
 * Causes
 * Treatment
 * Prognosis.
 * Epidemiology:
 * History:
 * Society and culture:

Former structure was much closer to MEDMOS. Your changes to the LEAD also broke the correspondence to MEDMOS in the lead. Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you keep saying this but don't explain exactly how my version is worse than the one previous. I think the most important improvement is that it is now more obvious that natural physiological phimosis is not pathological. I also added an explanation with a study that explains how the separation occurs.  Tremello (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I showed exactly how your changes departed from MEDMOS. And you are now showing that you are not discussing in good faith.  Will get further input from others. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Have restored structure per MEDMOS and have restored a bunch of references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jytdog and User:Doc James You say you showed me exactly how it departed from MEDMOS but you didn't actually. Tremello (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you need consensus for your proposed change and you currently do not have it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
File:Phimosis.jpg used to be the lead image. As seen here and here, it was changed to File:Fimosis.jpg by Doc James, and later supported by Doc James again. Doesn't the previous image better demonstrate the condition? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the previous image was better, and would support it being reinstated. The current image makes it more difficult to visualise the condition, and I believe it shows a most extreme case. The previous image should be used. --TBM10 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous image does not even look like phimosis. I bet that person can pull back their foreskin all the way. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Google Images has pictures, including colored artist illustrations, of what phimosis looks like. Some of those images look like File:Phimosis.jpg. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It also has many that look like the current image such as . I have seen a fair number of this condition. Phimosis.jpg looks to such a minor degree that IMO it is a normal variant. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Doc, you mean a normal variation of the human penis, or a normal variation of phimosis? Looking at pictures of phimosis, I think it's clear that File:Phimosis.jpg is depicting phimosis, not simply a normal variation of the human penis. That stated, it seems that the two aforementioned lead images are both good representations of phimosis, no matter which one is more represented on Google Images. If you want to stick to the current one, which it's clear that you do, I'm not going to challenge you any further on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes we of course both agree that one is phimosis. I am less convinced than you on the other. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Age that foreskin becomesr retractable.
This claim in the introduction that the foreskin usually becomes retractable by the age of three is wrong. It is probably based on erroneous information provided by Gairdner in his 1949 paper. He since been proven to be wrong. The claim is inconsistent with the rest of the article. It needs to be fixed. Sugarcube73 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sugarcube73, what sources do you have disproving this bit you removed? And are they WP:MEDRS-compliant? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref says "Most boys no longer have problems pulling their foreskin back (phimosis) by the time they reach the age of three." That means more than 50%. Yes for 99% to have resolved it takes a few more years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a more recent EN ref. No reason to replace it by an older non EN ref. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Puliamea.jpg

Reference 13
The link to reference 13 is currently broken. I wonder if there is an archive of this paper somewhere? Gavinayling (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)