Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2

Archive 1

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Sourcing is too old and out-of-date per WP:MEDRS

This is yet another foreskin-related article with sourcing that is largely very old and out-of-date per WP:MEDRS.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.

Year	Source
undated	<ref name="Cantu">Cantu Jr. S. {{eMedicine|emerg|423|Phimosis and paraphimosis}}</ref>
undated	<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phimosis Entry "phimosis"] in ''[http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary]''.</ref>
1944	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Laymon CW, Freeman C |title=Relationship of Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans to Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus |journal=Arch Dermat Syph |volume=49 |issue= |pages=57–9 |year=1944 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/BXO/laymon1/}}</ref>
1949	<ref name="Gairdner1949">{{cite journal |author=Gairdner D |title=The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision |journal=Br Med J |volume=2 |issue=4642 |pages=1433–1437 |year=1949 |pmid=15408299 |pmc=2051968 |doi= 10.1136/bmj.2.4642.1433|url=}}</ref>
1949	<ref name="Wright1949">{{cite journal |author=J.E. Wright |title=Further to 'the further fate of the foreskin' |journal=The Medical Journal of Australia |volume=160 |issue= 3|pages= 134–5|month = february |year=1949 |pmid=8295581 |doi= |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/}}</ref>
1968	<ref name="Oster1968">{{cite journal |author=Oster J |title=Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys |journal=Arch. Dis. Child. |volume=43 |issue=228 |pages=200–203 |year=1968 |pmid=5689532 |pmc=2019851 |doi= 10.1136/adc.43.228.200|url=}}</ref>
1981	<ref name="Ohjimi1981">{{cite journal |author=Ohjimi T, Ohjimi H |title=Special surgical techniques for relief of phimosis |journal=J Dermatol Surg Oncol |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=326–30 |year=1981 |pmid=7240535 |doi= |url=}}</ref>
1989	<ref name="Rickwood1989">{{cite journal |author=Rickwood AM, Walker J |title=Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence? |journal=Ann R Coll Surg Engl |volume=71 |issue=5 |pages=275–7 |year=1989 |pmid=2802472 |pmc=2499015 |doi= |url=|quote= Authors review English referral statistics and suggest phimosis is overdiagnosed, especially in boys under 5 years, because of confusion with developmentally nonretractile foreskin.}}</ref>
1989	<ref>''[[OED]]'' 2nd edition, 1989 as {{IPA|/faɪ'məʊsɪs/}}.</ref>
1991	<ref name="Beauge1991">{{cite journal | last = Beaugé | first = Michel | year = 1991 | month = | title = Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents | journal = Faculty of Medicine, Saint-Antoine University | url = http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/beauge/}}</ref>
1991	<ref name="Ying1991">{{cite journal |author=He Y, Zhou XH |title=Balloon dilation treatment of phimosis in boys. Report of 512 cases |journal=Chin. Med. J. |volume=104 |issue=6 |pages=491–3 |year=1991 |pmid=1874025 |doi= |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/he-zhou/}}</ref>
1994	<ref name="Cuckow1994">{{cite journal |author=Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand PD |title=Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision |journal=J. Pediatr. Surg. |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=561–563 |year=1994 |pmid=8014816 |doi= 10.1016/0022-3468(94)90092-2|url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0022-3468(94)90092-2}}<!-- http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/cuckow/ --></ref>
1994	<ref name="Wright1994">{{cite journal |author=J.E. Wright |title=Further to 'the further fate of the foreskin' |journal=The Medical Journal of Australia |volume=160 |issue= 3|pages= 134–5|month = february |year=1994 |pmid=8295581 |doi= |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/}}</ref>
1996	<ref name="Kabaya1996">{{cite journal | last =Kabaya | first =Hiroyuki | coauthors =Hiromi Tamura,Seiichi Kitajima, Yoshiyuki Fujiwara, Tetsuo Kato, Tetsuro Kato | year =1996 | month=November | title=Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys | journal= Journal of urology | volume=156 | issue=5|pages=1813–1815 | url=http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/kayaba/ | pmid=8863623 | doi =10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65544-7}}</ref>
1996	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Edwards S |title=Balanitis and balanoposthitis: a review |journal=Genitourin Med |volume=72 |issue=3 |pages=155–9 |year=1996 |month=June |pmid=8707315 |pmc=1195642 |doi= |url=}}</ref>
1997	<ref name="Beauge1997">{{cite journal |author=Beaugé M |title=The causes of adolescent phimosis |journal=Br J Sex Med |volume=26 |issue=Sept/Oct |pages= |year=1997 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/beauge2/}}</ref>
1997	<ref name="Imamaura1997">{{cite journal |author=Imamura E |title=Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan |journal=Acta Paediatr Jpn |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=403–5 |year=1997 |pmid=9316279 |doi= |url=}} A study of phimosis prevalence in over 4,500 Japanese children reporting that over a third of uncircumcised had a nonretractile foreskin by age 3 years.</ref>
1998	<ref name="vanHowe1998">{{cite journal |author=Van Howe RS |title=Cost-effective treatment of phimosis |journal=Pediatrics |volume=102 |issue=4 |pages=e43–e43 |year=1998 |pmid=9755280 |doi= 10.1542/peds.102.4.e43|url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/102/4/e43}} A review of estimated costs and complications of 3 phimosis treatments (topical steroids, praeputioplasty, and surgical circumcision). The review concludes that topical steroids should be tried first, and praeputioplasty has advantages over surgical circumcision. This article also provides a good discussion of the difficulty distinguishing pathological from physiological phimosis in young children and alleges inflation of phimosis statistics for purposes of securing insurance coverage for post-neonatal circumcision in the United States.</ref>
1999	<ref name="Chu1999">{{cite journal |author=Chu CC, Chen KC, Diau GY |title=Topical steroid treatment of phimosis in boys |journal=J. Urol. |volume=162 |issue=3 Pt 1 |pages=861–863 |year=1999 |pmid=10458396 |doi= 10.1097/00005392-199909010-00078|url=}}</ref>
1999	<ref name="circumstition1">{{cite book |author=Hodges FM |chapter=The history of phimosis from antiquity to the present |editor=Milos, Marilyn Fayre; Denniston, George C.; Hodges, Frederick Mansfield |title=Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice |publisher=Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers |location=New York |year=1999 |pages=37–62 |isbn=0-306-46131-5 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate= |url=http://www.circumstitions.com/Absurd.html#assassin}}</ref>
1999	<ref name="Shankar1999">{{cite journal |author=Shankar KR, Rickwood AM |title=The incidence of phimosis in boys |journal=BJU Int. |volume=84 |issue=1 |pages=101–102 |year=1999 |pmid=10444134 |doi= 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00147.x|url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/openurl?genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=1464-4096&date=1999&volume=84&issue=1&spage=101}} This study gives a low incidence of pathological phimosis (0.6% of uncircumcised boys by age 15 years) by asserting that [[balanitis xerotica obliterans]] is the only indisputable type of pathological phimosis and anything else should be assumed "physiological". Restrictiveness of definition and circularity of reasoning have been criticized.</ref>
2000	<ref name="Saxena2000">{{cite journal |author=Saxena AK, Schaarschmidt K, Reich A, Willital GH |title=Non-retractile foreskin: a single center 13-year experience |journal=Int Surg |volume=85 |issue=2 |pages=180–3 |year=2000 |pmid=11071339 |doi= |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/saxena1/}}</ref>
2001	<ref name="Berdue2001">{{cite journal |author=Berdeu D, Sauze L, Ha-Vinh P, Blum-Boisgard C |title=Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medicinal approaches and their economic effect |journal=BJU Int. |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=239–244 |year=2001 |pmid=11167650 |doi= 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02033.x|url=http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/openurl?genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=1464-4096&date=2001&volume=87&issue=3&spage=239}}<!-- http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/berdeu1/ --></ref>
2002	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Buechner SA |title=Common skin disorders of the penis |journal=BJU Int. |volume=90 |issue=5 |pages=498–506 |year=2002 |month=September |pmid=12175386 |doi= 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02962.x|url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/resolve/openurl?genre=article&sid=nlm:pubmed&issn=1464-4096&date=2002&volume=90&issue=5&spage=498}}</ref>
2002	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Munarriz R, Talakoub L, Kuohung W, ''et al.'' |title=The prevalence of phimosis of the clitoris in women presenting to the sexual dysfunction clinic: lack of correlation to disorders of desire, arousal and orgasm |journal=J Sex Marital Ther |volume=28 |issue=Suppl 1|pages=181–5 |year=2002 |pmid=11898701 |doi=10.1080/00926230252851302 |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00926230252851302?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed}}</ref>
2003	<ref name="Dewan2003">{{cite journal |author=Dewan PA |title=Treating phimosis |journal=Med. J. Aust. |volume=178 |issue=4 |pages=148–50 |year=2003 |pmid=12580737 |doi= |url=http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/dew10610_fm.html}}</ref>
2003	<ref name="Hill2003">{{cite journal |author=George Hill |title=Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys |journal=The Medical Journal of Australia |volume=178 |issue=11 |pages=587; author reply 589–90 |year=2003 |pmid=12765511 |pmc= |doi= |url=http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_11_020603/matters_arising_020603-1.html}}</ref>
2003	<ref name="huntley2003">{{cite journal |author=Huntley JS, Bourne MC, Munro FD, Wilson-Storey D |title=Troubles with the foreskin: one hundred consecutive referrals to paediatric surgeons |journal=J R Soc Med |volume=96 |issue=9 |pages=449–451 |year=2003 |month=September |pmid=12949201 |pmc=539600 |doi= 10.1258/jrsm.96.9.449|url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12949201}}</ref>
2003	<ref name="Spilsbury2003">{{cite journal |author=Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Wisniewski ZS, Holman CD |title=Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys |journal=Med. J. Aust. |volume=178 |issue=4 |pages=155–8 |year=2003 |pmid=12580740 |doi= |url=http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/spi10278_fm.html}}. Recent Australian statistics with good discussion of ascertainment problems arising from surgical statistics.</ref>
2004	<ref name="Babu2004">{{cite journal |author=Babu R, Harrison SK, Hutton KA |title=Ballooning of the foreskin and physiological phimosis: is there any objective evidence of obstructed voiding? |journal=BJU Int. |volume=94 |issue=3 |pages=384–387 |year=2004 |pmid=15291873 |doi=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04935.x |url=}}</ref>
2005	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Bolla G, Sartore G, Longo L, Rossi C |title=[The sclero-atrophic lichen as principal cause of acquired phimosis in pediatric age] |language=Italian |journal=Pediatr Med Chir |volume=27 |issue=3–4 |pages=91–3 |year=2005 |pmid=16910457 |doi= |url=}}</ref>
2005	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Daling JR |title=Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and smoking in in situ and invasive disease |journal=Int. J. Cancer |volume=116 |issue=4 |pages=606–616 |year=2005 |month=September |pmid=15825185 |doi=10.1002/ijc.21009 |url= |author-separator=, |author2=Madeleine MM |author3=Johnson LG |display-authors=3 |last4=Schwartz |first4=Stephen M. |last5=Shera |first5=Katherine A. |last6=Wurscher |first6=Michelle A. |last7=Carter |first7=Joseph J. |last8=Porter |first8=Peggy L. |last9=Galloway |first9=Denise A.}}</ref>
2005	<ref>{{vcite journal | author= Thorvaldsen MA, Meyhoff H. | title= Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose? | journal= Ugeskr Læger | date= 2005 | volume= 167 | issue= 16 | pages= 1852-62 | url= http://www.ugeskriftet.dk/LF/UFL/2005/17/pdf/VP44785.pdf | doi= | pmid= | pmc= }}</ref>
2006	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Steadman B, Ellsworth P |title=To circ or not to circ: indications, risks, and alternatives to circumcision in the pediatric population with phimosis |journal=Urol Nurs |volume=26 |issue=3 |pages=181–94 |year=2006 |month=June |pmid=16800325 |doi= |url=}}</ref>
2007	<ref name="mcgregor2007">{{cite journal |author=McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP |title=Pathologic and physiologic phimosis: approach to the phimotic foreskin |journal=Can Fam Physician |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=445–8 |year=2007 |month=March |pmid=17872680 |pmc=1949079 |doi= |url=http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17872680}}</ref>
2007	<ref name=AAP>{{cite web |url=http://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/baby/bathing-skin-care/Pages/Care-for-an-Uncircumcised-Penis.aspx |title= Care of the Uncircumcised Penis |work= Guide for parents |publisher= American Academy of Pediatrics |date=September 2007}}</ref>
2007	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Zampieri N, Corroppolo M, Zuin V, Bianchi S, Camoglio FS |title=Phimosis and topical steroids: new clinical findings |journal=Pediatr. Surg. Int. |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=331–5 |year=2007 |month=April |pmid=17308904 |doi=10.1007/s00383-007-1878-x |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/dr6273tq2xjv74j7/?p=4fb1f517893841ce864d458f84d180da&pi=0}}</ref>
2008	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Esposito C, Centonze A, Alicchio F, Savanelli A, Settimi A |title=Topical steroid application versus circumcision in pediatric patients with phimosis: a prospective randomized placebo controlled clinical trial |journal=World J Urol |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=187–90 |year=2008 |month=April |pmid=18157674 |doi=10.1007/s00345-007-0231-2 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/14844u402164w261/?p=3bc89d1b5b1f403dbdef113912497296&pi=12}}</ref>
2008	<ref>{{cite journal |author=Minagawa T, Murata Y |title=[A case of urinary retention caused by true phimosis] |language=Japanese |journal=Hinyokika Kiyo |volume=54 |issue=6 |pages=427–9 |year=2008 |month=June |pmid=18634440 |doi= |url=}}</ref>
2008	<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bromage |first=Stephen J. |authorlink= |coauthors=Anne Crump and Ian Pearce |year= 2008|month= |title=Phimosis as a presenting feature of diabetes |journal=BJU International |volume=101 |issue=3 |pages=338–340 |doi=10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07274.x |url=http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508219/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 |accessdate= |quote= |pmid=18005214 }}</ref>
2010	<ref name="emedicine-ghory-treatment">{{cite web |author=Hina Z Ghory; Rahul Sharma |title=Phimosis and Paraphimosis |url=http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/777539-treatment |date=April 28, 2010 |publisher=eMedicine |quote=An initial attempt at medical intervention has been shown to reduce costs by 27.3% in comparison with primary circumcision as a treatment of phimosis in infants and children.}}</ref> No longer needed for the purpose it was being used for, but still could be useful elsewhere.
2010	<ref name="nobre-cost">{{cite journal |journal=International Braz J Urol |year=2010 |month=January |last1=Nobre |volume=36 |issue=1 |first1=YD |pmid=20202239 |pages=75–85 |last2=Freitas |first2=RG |last3=Felizardo |first3=MJ |last4=Ortiz |first4=V |last5=MacEdo Jr |first5=A |title=To circ or not to circ: clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes of a prospective trial of topical steroid versus primary circumcision |url=http://www.brazjurol.com.br/january_february_2010/Nobre_75_85.htm |doi=10.1590/S1677-553820100000100012 |quote=As a first-line treatment for [pathologic] phimosis, topical corticosteroid administration reduced costs by 27.3% in comparison with circumcision, even when we included the costs of the circumcisions eventually performed in the clinical treatment group.}}</ref>
2011	<ref> Reddy S, Jain Viral, Dubey Manish, Deshpande Pankaj, Singal AK. Local steroid therapy as the first-line treatment for boys with symptomatic phimosis - a long-term prospective study. Acta Paediatr. 2011 Nov 21. {{doi|10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02534}} http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22103624 </ref>
2012	<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/handouts/circumcision |title= Caring for an uncircumcised penis |work= Information for parents |publisher= Canadian Paediatric Society |date=July 2012}}</ref>

Zad68 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. Zad68 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

Extended 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 [1] 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)

external links

I disagree with the recent edits removing helpful links. None of the links are controversial. They are the best available websites that reflect current scientific consensus. It seems these links were removed in bad faith by pro-circumcision advocates. Please take your advocacy elsewhere - wikipedia is not the place for this. Tremello (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Tremello, the external links that were removed per WP:ELNO were:

• [2] This from the anonymously-published anti-circumcision advocacy website CIRP
• [3] This other one also from the anonymously-published anti-circumcision advocacy website CIRP
• [4] This from an anonymously-published anti-circumcision advocacy website (front page says "This site is against a full Circumcision on infants")
• [http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184] This anonymous Internet chat forum
• [5] This website of the anti-circumcision advocacy group NORM-UK
• [6] This broken, incomplete anonymous website
• [7] This page that does not mention 'phimosis' on it anywhere.

The Wikipedia content guideline WP:ELNO says that an external link should be avoided if "it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" (meaning, the link needs to be an WP:FA-quality source), "chat or discussion forums/groups", "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites", "sites that are not reliably functional and/or not likely to continue being functional" and "sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject".

You, Tremello, are characterizing these links as "helpful", "[un]controvserial" and "the best available websites that reflect current scientific consensus". That being the case, you really need to spend some time considering whether you can edit within Wikipedia's content guidelines in this area. If you have any inkling that any of the above links meet with Wikipedia's content guidelines I'd be happy to explain to you further in specific detail here, or discuss it in a wider forum such as WP:RSN. Zad68 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that they are anti-circumcision. Stop taking the high horse Zad and assuming you know more about editing Wikipedia than I do. You don't. You never assume good faith. I have good mind to make a complaint about you. I do not need any explanation from you - so stop being condescending.

The salient point is that they are helpful links. That is the most important issue. If you do not understand that, then maybe it is you who needs to take a break from editing articles. Regarding the forum. It is the only forum devoted to phimosis on the web. So it is a unique source. I frequent it sometimes and the webmaster once said it gets thousands of hits a day. Doc James made an idiotic mistake by removing it - he has a habit of doing things like that. Yes, the care for intact children link doesn't mention the word phimosis but it is about when the foreskin retracts - namely physiological phimosis. Are you stupid or something? You 2 obviously don't much about the topic. I'd advise, before wading in, you take caution that you aren't making yourself look stupid by knowing nothing about the topic.

Phimosis.com can be removed as it seems to be a commercial site.

The cirp website does not contain any material that disagrees with current scientific consensus. Therefore it should stay.

The male initiation website is an interesting site - probably the only site on the web exclusively about phimosis. Tremello (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have notified Doc about your comments regarding him here, so that he is aware of them and may respond if he wishes.

Regarding what you feel are "condescending" comments from me, I can only respond to what's in front of me. If you're making justifications for content that are significantly out of line with the plain statements in the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I am obliged to point out that gap. If you repeatedly make the same basic errors, I will repeatedly point them out. I already anticipated that you might not take just my word on it so that is why in my original response I offered the idea of taking it to a wider forum such as WP:RSN. Regarding your justifications that you (personally) find the links "helpful" and you personally enjoy using them, this is where I am again obliged to point out that your justifications are still not in line with content policy and guideline. Zad68 15:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNO is fairly clear that Network54 Forum is not a suitable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the main themes of that guideline is "common sense" if you read the lede. In your eagerness to follow Wikipedia rules you have lost common sense.

In the "What to link" section, they list 3 criteria:

Is the site content accessible to the reader?

Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?

The links fulfil all criteria. In particular, the links you deleted fulfil the second criteria - in that they are useful, factual, tasteful and informative.

In the "What can normally be linked" section they also fulfil the criteria : "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues".

In the "Links normally to be avoided" section, I don't see that it doesn't fulfil any of the criteria.

Doc seems only opposed to the network54 forum. He seems fine with the other links. I have given my reasons why the forum is a good link. Once again Doc doesn't seem to have read them or addressed them. Tremello (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course you stop quoting WP:EL's What to link paragraph juuuust before the sentence that reads, "Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines", and one of those guidelines is WP:ELNO; I already brought to your attention how the links fail WP:ELNO.

But, sure, let's talk Common Sense. So, Tremello above you acknowledge that the links you're interested in having the article carry are anti-circumcision, and here you indicate that you think the links carry "neutral and accurate material." OK so you're saying that it's common sense--something that any reasonable person should be expected to agree with--that anonymous advocacy websites can be reasonably expected to provide neutral and accurate material? How would this be different from, say, using the Wikipedia article on Autism to direct readers to whale.to's "VACCINE-AUTISM LONG KNOWN AND PROVEN" website? Seems perfectly common sensical to me that wouldn't be appropriate, even if a handful of anonymous Wikipedia editors might find that website "useful."

Anyway, how about we put this link in to a page produced by UCSF's urology department, and call it a day? Zad68 04:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So you are equating opposition to circumcision for phimosis to opposition to vaccines? Even though medical professionals are opposed to circumcision for phimosis as it says in the link you provided?

Opposition to circumcision for phimosis is the consensus view in the scientific community.

I don't mind your link.

I still think the network54 forum is a good link. It is just people posting their progress after being given advice by the 2 administrators to stretch. I feel that people with phimosis will appreciate that link because it will allow them to feel like they are not alone. It gives advice specifically on how to stretch.

The cirp site seems to be down. So we can leave that aside for now.

The http://www.male-initiation.net/welcome.html link I feel is a very good quality link that provides a lot of information. Tremello (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of your reply is serious conflation. Next two are more conflation and are also factually incorrect. Glad we can at least agree on the link, I'll add it. Rest is... well, it's nice you personally like those resource for your own use. If you suffer from phimosis, I'm honestly very sorry to hear, it sounds terrible. But, we've already gone over the requirements at WP:EL. If you're still not done pursuing having the article carry links to your personal favourite anonymous advocacy websites and chat forums, we'll take it to the wider community. Zad68 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Dont know what you mean by conflation. You did equate the two.

No, what I wrote is not factually incorrect. Vast majority of doctors try to retain the foreskin from being amputated. They try other methods first.

Do not try to poison the well and use an ad hominem attack - talking about me personally and describing the links as "personal favourite anonymous advocacy websites" - in order to sway the argument.

I have stated the reasoning why you are wrong and being pedantic over nothing just because you can. There are far more pressing issues on Wikipedia than this. [http://www.network54.com/Forum/244184/thread/1403576486/last-1403577256/Love+this+site+%28my+story%29 This post ] was recently posted on the Network54 forum and it illustrates well why it is a useful link. Tremello (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you have ignored the above and restored the links anyway. I have notified WP:MEDICINE here to get more input. Zad68 12:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am here in response to a notice on WP:MED. Some of the proposed links look unorthodox. Consensus seems to be against adding them pending the establishment of consensus for adding them. They should stay off this article until and unless there is community support for putting them here. To do otherwise would be a surprising and unexpected departure from established guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, internet forums are not suitable sources to build Wikipedia content, and internet forums are not suitable external links for articles. there is pretty substantial consensus for all these things, and that is ignoring the POV-pushing nature of some of the EL in this case. 188.29.87.125 (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Sorry but who are you? If you know so much about wikipedia then why haven't you created an account? I am suspicious that canvasing might be taking place here.

Regarding your points. You say: "Wikipedia is not a forum, internet forums are not suitable sources to build Wikipedia content" Nobody is doing that. You say "internet forums are not suitable external links for articles." Firstly, only one of the links is a forum. I disagree that in this case that this forum is not a suitable link. Finally you say: "and that is ignoring the POV-pushing nature of some of the EL in this case" As I mentioned before not circumcising is the consensus view. So links advocating not circumcising are not POV pushing. Tremello (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal: WP:External links—including WP:ELNO—is a content guideline, which Wikipedia prioritizes over individual opinion. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Sorry but who are you? If you know so much about wikipedia then why haven't you created an account? I am suspicious that canvasing might be taking place here. I know WP:ELNO is a guideline. I have read it you know. I disagree that the links fail WP:ELNO Tremello (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support the removal of the external links in question until consensus is reached. And just in case you ask me: "Sorry but who are you?" I am an uninvolved editor who was asked to review this talk discussion via the Project Medicine talk page. AND if you must know, I had four boys who were not circumcised at birth, so I have a perspective that might be aligned with yours. It's the quality of those external links that are questionable NOT the topic. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:14, 17 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 [8]. 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."[9] 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:

• Puliamea.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

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)