Talk:Foreskin

Infographics "Anatomy and function of the foreskin"

The infographics "Anatomy and function of the foreskin" was removed from this article on 18th October 2022. As the reason to do so the Wikipedian writes: "dubious / unnecessary content removal". This claim is not justified. The illustration visualizes valuable information on the foreskin that is of high relevance to readers of WIKIPEDIA. It has been designed by a professional scientific illustrator and clearly improves the article. Being a medical doctor myself I can see no "dubious or unnecessary content" here. I have put this valuable contribution back in place and ask to discuss this issue first before removing it again. Guido4 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if in addition we can provide Wikilinks to the articles Ridged band and Preputial mucosa either from the diagram or the text, as the are necessary related articles.Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The majority of the graphic isn't objectionable, @Guido4:. The issues relate to the the statements "function of the foreskin" and "ridged band". The claims of Taylor et al., 1996 are rejected by a significant percentage of major medical associations and several notable metastudies. (As mentioned above.)KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC) The other graphic (By you? If so, thanks.) — showing the time of preputial seperation — is an objective improvement for the article and replaced it. (Although Øster, 1968 in now considered an overestimate - e.g. it underestimates the median, normative time of separation, estimating it several years before it actually occurs - by most researchers. I feel like context might be beneficial there.) KlayCax (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@KlayCax: There are arguments on both sides about Taylor and we need to show that. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450466/ To rely exclusively on arguments presented by Cox, Krieger and Morris is to rely on authors with a vested interest - there must by a WP|VestedInterest policy somewhere. The paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4498824/ is about circumcision - it's in the title. Biased, fringe source imo - not anatomy but a meta-study of less importance than the anatomical paper I cite. Secondly we are being extremely selective in our summary - genital end bulbs and free nerve ending may in fact be more significant than Meissner's corpuscles - "Malkoc et al. showed that free, nonbranched, nerve endings were least common in the proximal region (outer layer) of the prepuce and most common in the distal region (inner layer) [13]. " - just one example that shows that the discussion of 'function' is incomplete without a more accurate summation and further sources. I'm willing to work on this. Thelisteninghand (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The AAP, CDC, & WHO are the only medical organizations I've seen reject sensitivity is diminished, must we be reminded that 2 of those have a vested interested interest in keeping Circumcision common? Gastropod Gaming (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Guido4, I wanted to clarify that the infographics was not removed by me and my "dubious/ unnecessary" comment was refering to other edits, for which we had several discussions here. KlayCax removed the illustration because of two or three reasons: it mentions "function", "ridged band" and maybe the circumcision images, because there was a general consensus not to make this article about circumcision.

However, as @KlayCax mentions, except for these small issues the infographic as a whole has nothing wrong. I also think that an illustration can always be helpful, especially in anatomy articles and I'd like to see yours in this article. My suggestion would be a compromisation: if Guido4 could make small adjustents to the illustration to align with KlayCax's objections, we could bring it back in the article. Piccco (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The word 'function' shouldn't be a problem, the article says the prepuce protects the glans. We definitely need a diagram.Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple major medical organizations deny the statement the prepuce protects the glans. Again, that introduces WP: NPOV issues.KlayCax (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I am quoting this article.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

At least among the 46 countries in Europe and their numerous medical associations not a single one has issued a claim that the "prepuce does not protect the glans". Furthermore it is normally not the work area of medical associations to claim or deny functions of body parts. On the other hand every anatomy book that I know as a medical doctor states that protecting the glans is what the foreskin does. Guido4 (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello Piccco, sorry for mixing your comment on another edit with KlayCax deletion of the infographics. Guido4 (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello @KlayCax, please let me first point out that you have removed the infographic twice, although after the first time you deleted it I opened this discussion and asked you to discuss first before removing it again, which you obviously did not comply with.

Please find here my point-by-point response:

1. The title "function of the foreskin" in the infographics relates to the movement of the skin forth and back, and as this function undoubtedly exists, there can't be any discussion that the word "function" should not be used.

2. To my knowledge as a medical doctor there is no medical association that has denied the existence of the ridged band. Furthermore medical associations normally do not give official statements on the existence or non-existence of anatomical structures as this is not their field of work. The references named above neither claim nor proof the non-existence of the ridged band.

Still I can see your point that the existence of the ridged band has been debated by anatomists. So I suggest that this does not order the infographic to be deleted, but that this debate should be stated in the text. However the ridged band should be depicted so that the reader can follow which anatomical region the debate is about.

3. As the fact of circumcision is mentioned in the foreskin article, I can see no reason why it should have to be excluded from the graphics. The illustration simply gives a representation of the anatomical result of the procedure, so just depicting it in the context of the anatomy does not discuss any aspects of it in one direction or another.

4. The infographics contributes a lot information to the article. It has been designed by two medical doctors and a professional illustrator pro bono for WIKIPEDIA. I can see no valid argument why we should withhold this informative visualization from the readers. Guido4 (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

As no more new and valid arguments are coming on this issue, I'll put the illustration back to its former place. To meet the concerns stated above, I have added a sentence that the existence of the ridged band has been questioned. If anyone feels like removing the illustration again, please refrain from doing so and discuss it here first. Guido4 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I see @Guido4:'s graphic didn't last yet again. Reading the reasons in the summary I think that could have sorted out here. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion on this infographic was archived automatically on 18 March 2023 (Archive 5). I reactivated this thread.

We have uploaded a new version of this illustration. This version should meet the criteria stated before:

1. "function" removed from title,

2. panel "circumcision result" removed,

3. label "ridged band" removed and replaced by "mucocutaneous junction".

Any further objections @Thelisteninghand, @KlayCax, and @Piccco? DocBrinkmann (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like I was the one who suggested that those issues be fixed in order to avoid concerns, so i guess it's okay if you did. Piccco (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you using the excuse of not mentioning circumcision when you do mention circumcision in this article? What a hypocrite!!! 142.169.18.183 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

DocBrinkmann (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @DocBrinkmann:. I'd be open to it. Where's the link to the new version? KlayCax (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey @KlayCax, sorry for the late reply, here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foreskin_Anatomy_WIKI-EN.jpg

Are you also ok with this version @Thelisteninghand and @Piccco? Guido4 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, no objections have been raised, so the new version of the illustration meets the criteria that have been stated in the discussion above. I'll insert the illustration then. As always please stick to the rules and don't revert anything before it has been agreed on a new consensus. Guido4 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks odd. What is source mapping sensitivity of different porions of the foreskin to left and right sides of the palm of the hand? Bon courage (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that don't revert anything before it has been agreed on a new consensus is not in any way a rule. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Lack of topic

You need to add the functions of foreskin because it has functions are you are acting as if it doesn’t, this is no longer neutral informations with facts but more propaganda. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

News studies show that circumcision does not reduce the hiv and even increase it due to the false feelings of protection.

Can’t imagine all the other studies less vigorous than the hiv ones who’s now demonstrated wrong, more studies should be done and stop with the biased ones in favour of circumcision and be neutral instead.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00809-6

http://fr.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-84

http://fr.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

http://fr.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-85

http://fr.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Circoncision#cite_note-86 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

And foreskin obviously has some functions as the glans is a mucous and all mucous are supposed to stay hydrated and smooth, it is obviously easier for sexual activities such as masturbation because the foreskin is a Mobile skin and avoid a lot of frictions, many circumcised men use lube to reduce all that friction the lack of skin circumcision create. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Any WP:BMI needs WP:MEDRS. French Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Bon courage (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Why? There’s studies sited and they are good enough to be accepted by Wikipedia, that’s just deny at this point or just admit you’re a bad source 104.163.174.55 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this WP:BMI? Does it fit the WP:MEDRS?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34564796/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34551593/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20168206/

if Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source you’re admitting you are yourself not a reliable source. As Wikipedia is supposed to delete unreliable sources. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What? I am not Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not "delete" unreliable sources from reality, it just does not cite them. All your sources are unreliable. Bon courage (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This version of Wikipedia page doesn’t sound neutral but pro-circumcision, we don’t talk about the cons of circumcision but only pro, and the whole article lacks subject such as the prevalence of circumcision worldwide, and the fact circumcision does not remove function is obviously wrong since circumcision obviously make the penis head less colourful keratinized and the lack of skin and no mobile skin anymore make masturbation more difficult , the whole article is in short just saying that circumcision is good and health and we ensure it has ABSOLUTELY no effects ans this page is actually just saying it is a completely useless piece of skin and provide useless information such as structure and nothing eles, which sound more of an opinion than neutral informations.

If the French Wikipedia is wrong maybe y’all should discuss and remove this misinformation. 104.163.174.55 (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE on Wikipedia - this site reflects the reliable sources. When they have a positive (or negative) view in aggregate, so will the Wikipedia article. And we do follow the reliable sources, not what is 'obviously wrong' in your opinion. The French language Wikipedia is a separate project with different editors and policies. What goes on there has no bearing on what goes on here, or vice versa. MrOllie (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Also this is the English Wikipedia. What happens on the French one is none of our business. Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Do I do falsebalance? I’m not a dumb conspiracy, those are things we can all observe at least apparence change on the penis outside of the lack of skin such as scar and keratinization, I’m not asking to put it on wiki but if you have access to millions of examples in front of your own eyes that’s more than deny, you dare comparing me to those extremely dense conspiracy idiots flatearther, what is obvious is not an opinion, that’s literally like asking for studies to prove that birds exist 104.163.174.55 (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Why I would do falsebalance when that’s the only dumb shit I’m against in this world? 104.163.174.55 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh YOU don’t do falsebalance? My bad LOL

I don’t either as I’m against that 104.163.174.55 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Unfortunately, other-siding the high-quality sources we cite with the poor-quality ones you have proposed would have had that effect. Glad we've moved on. Bon courage (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

So you’re saying the French wiki is falsebalance and poor quality? 104.163.174.55 (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have zero interest in the French wiki. Different site; different rules. Bon courage (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I use the most reliable source as possible and a supposedly neutral article to inform myself, even some genuine doctors sites will say things such as foreskin functions or that circumcision does not protect against STDs, not saying my opinion but mentioning the fact that not all doctors will says the same, if I was doing false balances on purpose or was one of those conspiracy idiots instead of hanging out on websites who supposedly check their sources and are supposedly neutral I would be on intactivists websites and other dubious shits and content to just blindly believe them.

The reason I mentioned those here is to quickly and easily test their reliability, if I was a conspiracy idiot I would just content to take those infos without seeking criticisms nor testing reliability.

Saying that I do false balances is extremely insulting! 142.169.18.183 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s not false balance. I too am extremely troubled by the clear pro-circumcision bias on this and the Circumcision article page, maintained by you and one or two other users.

Please see the following dissenting articles:

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/

"This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population."

• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/

"The glans (tip) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce (foreskin) is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis." 136.55.168.45 (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDRS. Old primary sources are useless. Science has moved on and I suggest you do too. Bon courage (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)