Jump to content

Talk:Foreskin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 22 October 2017 (Undid revision 806515044 by Annalie111999f (talk) sock is now blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Video to illustrate the article

Commons has a good video that shows the forskin.

. Maybe this can be used in the article? Alice2Alice (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Foreskin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreskin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sugarcube73, do note that anatomy is a branch of medicine, which is why there is an Anatomy section at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

What disorganization are you referring to? Also see WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Collapsed WP:Sock portion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Antron199 (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreskin&oldid=806529632"