Talk:Foreskin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Erect penis

I might be wrong, but I believe showing a photograph of an erect penis constitutes pornography. It's stupid, I know, but as a UK medical student we are told that in case presentations and reports although it is ok to show photographs of vaginas or flaccid penises, showing a photograph of an erect penis (as opposed to a drawing/diagram) constitutes pornography and these pictures must go through several stages of verification before inclusion in reports, especially if they are going to be available online. In these cases it is always preferable to use a diagram/drawing. As such the picture (right) should maybe be removed. Just a thought.

I agree with you in principle, but see the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. Tbmurray (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, that's so 19th century. It's also probably sexist in that I bet they can show pictures of aroused vulvas (though admittedly, the difference is not as obvious on camera for a vulva as it is for a penis). Also, as a UK medical student (aren't they called "medics" over there?), shouldn't you know by now that the vagina is the interior anatomy, the "tunnel" of the reproductive tract, and that the vulva is the term for the exterior anatomy, including the labia majora & minora, clitoris, etc.?--Prepuce4Life (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Out of context statement

The sentence "The World Health Organisation states that there is little evidence for diminished sexual function, adding that studies have been inconsistent" just makes no sense in its paragraph. Diminished relative to what? It seems to suggest that having a foreskin produces a diminished sexual response. Either it should be clarified or removed.Wandooi (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree

someone without a foreskin has no way of comparing his experience. there are many other functions of the foreskin and benefits not mentioned nor detailed even on this page - yet. when i added the site containing the list as an external link to w. "circumcision" page... the fact is now the link is gone. (can you guess why?) i will cut and paste them here with ref and let you experienced wikis insert the supportable claims Tectaal (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC) i found the info from the site cirp which someone bashes on the circumcision talk page... so I quoted original sources:

"The functions of a foreskin:

1. protection 1.1 moist thus soft and sensitive 1.2 warm 1.3 clean and proper ph level

2. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.

3. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface. G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.<\ref>

4. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection. ref>P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.</ref>

5. It [the foreskin] contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.

6. Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing. i would copy them with references to the circumcision page but somehow suspect it is a waste of time "could it be possible someone wants to hide information?"Tectaal (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this addition, for the following reasons:

1. "It [the foreskin] contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis." - this is not supported by the cited source (Z. Halata and B. L. Munger, "The Neuroanatomical Basis for the Protopathic Sensibility of the Human Glans Penis," Brain Research 371 (1986): 205-230), which does not, as far as I'm aware, even mention the innervation of the foreskin.
2. "Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal ..." is sourced to an unreliable source: an argumentative essay in a non-peer reviewed magazine (Fleiss, P. The case against circumcision. Mothering Magazine (Santa Fe). Winter 1997). See WP:MEDRS for appropriate sourcing requirements in the context of this article.
3. "Other functions of a foreskin: 1. protection 1.1 moist thus soft and sensitive 1.2 warm 1.3 clean and proper ph level" - again, this cites an unreliable source. Even if a reliable source could be found for these claims (which is doubtful), it would need editing so that it is in the form of prose.
4. "Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme." - the cited source (A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901) says nothing of the sort
5. "Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface." - actually, the cited source (G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43) reports almost the opposite: that the prepuce contains fewer of these cells than might be expected.
6. "Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infection." - in the foreskin of the cow, perhaps, but that isn't the subject (P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202)
7. "It [the foreskin] contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis." - this is a duplicate, see first point.

Jakew (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(the following comment has been moved by Jakew) even those circumcised who wish to normatise their condition that is no excuse to conceal information from the public. the page itself is denied public access in Israel can you guess why? hint: what is "normal" in israel?Tectaal (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) sorry jakew but when there is a convergence of many medical proffesionals they verify each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tectaal (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I revised the article again so people can make informed choices with awareness of other medical views. dear jakew this is not the middle so please be polite. the information is based on doctors and medical journals with a convergance of verification. hiding the information is always bad and prevents informed decisions of alternative medical views.

thanx Tectaal (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be identical to your earlier edit, and hence the above problems still apply. Consequently your changes will again be reverted in due course. Reliable sources must be supplied to allow the reader to verify claims; those sources must make the claims attributed to them. That is Wikipedia policy. Jakew (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

the sources have been publishedTectaal (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the sources have been published. However, not all of them meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliability (see WP:MEDRS in particular but also WP:V and WP:RS). Fleiss' article in Mothering magazine is not a peer-reviewed article and hence is insufficiently reliable. Jakew (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to actually check the sources myself right now, but I will make a couple of points:

• Despite my obvious anti-circ bias, this section really sounds like a bunch of quacks screaming that they're being squelched because someone is disputing their claims.
• The argument seems to be:
  • Tectaal: They're trying to keep me from saying this...
  • Jakew: Your sources don't actually make the claims you say they do.
  • Tectaal: It's important to have a diversity of ideas [note, this doesn't address Jakew's claim at all, and is a diversion]
  • Jakew: Difference of opinion is one thing, but non-peer-reviewed sources shouldn't be used as evidence to support scientific facts, not to mention the fact that the ones you include don't actually make the claims you say they do.
  • Tectaal: You're just trying to oppress me.
  • ...this could go on forever...
• Tectaal, I'm totally on your side, but we must be sure to not fabricate evidence or twist evidence to support our claims. We've got to get the facts right or we're just as guilty as the pro-circ lobby is of making unjustifiable claims and generalizations. Such chicanery has no place on wikipedia.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Latest addition to 'functions'

Tbmurray (talk · contribs) has added the following to the 'functions' section:

• Some other organisations have stated more explicitly the functions of the foreskin. For example, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that the foreskin "exists to protect the glans" and that it is a "primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."

There are three major problems with this addition:

• It is redundant. Both of these claims (that the foreskin protects the glans, and that it contains the most sensitive areas of the penis) are already documented in the "other" and "sexual" subsections, respectively.
• It is a misrepresentation. The RACP is an organisation, not "some other organisations".
• Most importantly, it violates WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to one viewpoint about the foreskin's functions. The introduction to the section should give an overview of the subject, including controversies. The current (single-paragraph) introduction to the section does this very well. Unfortunately, adding this new paragraph introduces imbalance by giving a great deal of prominence to one set of claims. Instead of providing a neutral overview, the introduction thus consists of a neutral overview plus the RACP's viewpoint.

For these reasons, I shall again revert the addition. Jakew (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Terminology proposal: "intact"

There's been ongoing edit warring over the use of the term "intact", so I'm going to step out on a limb with an opinion and proposal.
I don't view "intact" as a POV term; its most basic definition is "unaltered", and various reliable sources use it in place of "uncircumcised" (including one cited by the article); see example searches "intact foreskin" site:nih.gov and "uncircumcised foreskin" site:nih.gov. That said, as with WP:ENGVAR situations, existing text should (must) not be edited to change the term, which would suggest a preference, so I support Jakew's reversions - only not for his stated reason. However, "intact" should be a valid option for newly-written text. AV3000 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. "Intact" is inherently non-neutral, having connotations of undamaged, unimpaired, etc ("Remaining sound, entire, or uninjured; not impaired in any way."[1]). Additionally, it is imprecise: consider, for example, whether a penis that has had a glansectomy but which has a foreskin is intact. As less extreme examples, what about a penis that has been tattooed or pierced? By some definitions, a tattooed penis is not intact, but it is uncircumcised. Hence if a source refers to (as an illustrative example) 30 uncircumcised men, we cannot claim that these are 30 men with intact penises — we can verify that they have foreskins, but we can't verify that they're intact. I would suggest that the term "intact" is justified if and only if the cited source uses it. Jakew (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of my opinion on the words "uncircumcised" and "intact", I think "uncircumcised" is probably a more common term and we should probably stick to that. –anemoneprojectors– 12:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jakew, don't be rediculous. All boys are born intact. 90% of the World's men do not call themselves "uncircumcised" as if circumcised were the norm. It is not. Get with the program.

While I'm totally with you, whoever you are, you should at least get your figures accurate. Between 1/6 and 1/3 of the world's men are circumcised (it's also fair to say that this was not a consensual surgery for the vast majority of them and that it also was not therapeutic, but elective). So it's more like 67%-83% of men who could actually correctly call themselves "uncircumcised." Many of them who speak English would probably call themselves "uncircumcised" simply out of ignorance. Nonetheless, I reject the term. --Prepuce4Life (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

We should not use the term "uncircumcised" simply because it may be the most common term for an intact penis. That amounts to an Argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. You could perhaps argue for it simply for pragmatic reasons, but such arguments are best left to the Simple English version of the page, which prioritizes ease of communication with a low-literacy audience over technical accuracy and bias.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no totally neutral term. A perfectly neutral terminology would have to totally unrelated words with no positive or negative connotations that did not reference each other. For example, one could be "i" and the other could be 42 (forgive the HHG reference). If I had my druthers, the terms would be something like "intact" and "ritualistically mutilated," but I realize that's totally outrageous (though technically true in the vast majority of cases). I don't think I'm incorrect in thinking that "circumcised" is a generally neutral term that is widely understood and not offensive to those to whom the term applies. While "uncircumcised" is neutral in the sense that in many places it doesn't have nearly as strongly a negative connotation as "mutilated" does, it certainly is used in the media in the US in a highly derogatory way and thus for many readers of English wikipedia, should be considered a non-neutral, loaded word. It is also a term rejected by many of the people to whom the word applies. Many of them prefer the term "intact." This term also, does not inherently refer to circumcision or imply that circumcised penises are normatively deficient. Sure, it may imply that they are literally not whole, but they aren't. Circumcised penises are penises that have had a specific part of them removed. Thus, they are not "whole" (in a literal, not normative sense) relative to their prior state, and therefore, by definition, not intact. Until someone has a better suggestion for a term, I think that "intact" should be wikipedia's term of choice when referring to penises that have not had their foreskins wholly or partially removed.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not using "intact", partly because it's imprecise, and partly because it's non-neutral. See above. Jakew (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Prepuce has a good point, though; uncircumcised is at least as non-neutral as intact is. Perhaps another word can be found that is both precise and reasonably neutral. Abidagus (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncircumcised is the standard terminology used in both common parlance and medical studies; it is both neutral and accurate. "Intact" is imprecise and misleading terminology promoted by activists. There have been a number of discussions on this topic, and the consensus has always been to stick with uncircumcised. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And I imagine that that is because a larger percentage of English contributors are American meaning that when put down to a vote they will be biased in favour of such a term. "Uncircumcised" is no more neutral than "intact" and the former suggests negativity in its structure which misleads the reader regardless of it being the "generally accepted term". A better term should be used, whether it be something like "default"; the latter of which I like because it lacks any bias. It simply describes the pre-set form of the penis and suggests nothing negative or favourable towards it. Of course I 99.9% doubt that my point will be listened to because I am new, not well versed in Wiki etiquette and subsequently will have older/more influential members instantly negating what I say and bringing it down to "what's been agreed on in the past". Not even sure why I wrote this to be honest. EuroMIX (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

True neutrality would be simply "penis", or "penis not circumcised". The prefix "un" leads us to believe there is some UNfinished business that needs to be taken care of and thats certainly not neutral. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There's very little point in having that discussion again, Gary. Jakew (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Current image caption

Instead of "A penis with a relatively short foreskin partially covering the glans" wouldn't "A penis with a partially retracted foreskin" be more accurate? –anemoneprojectors– 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

That is probably a better caption. Having looked at it more closely the foreskin has probably just been retracted a bit, rather than being short. I personally wouldn't object you changing the caption :-) Tbmurray (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No argument from me. That would be much more concise. Jakew (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I just looked at it more closely and realised it was slightly pulled back. I shall change it. –anemoneprojectors– 22:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of animated GIF?

Would the community support or object to the addition of an animated GIF to this article depicting a common masturbation technique? The one in question (right) demonstrates how the foreskin may be used in a regular masturbation technique. I believe this may be useful in showing readers of the article how the foreskin can play a role in masturbation. I am sure there are some visitors to this article that are curious about how uncircumcised males can use the foreskin while masturbating. Tbmurray (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not censored, I'm inclined to view this as rather gratuitous in this article. Readers visiting say, masturbation might reasonably expect to find such an image, but here I think it might be rather too much. Jakew (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jakew –anemoneprojectors– 10:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you all are coming from, but I wonder if this animation might help to demonstrate how the foreskin retracts--I think that's something that's not often explained well.--Mattmatt1987 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the current illustrations are sufficient. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's remember that wikipedia is not censored (see the banner at the top of this page). We should only label content as "gratuitous" (an incredibly loaded word that should probably be avoided) with great reservation. I would argue that to NOT include it would be to implicitly bias the article in favor of circumcision (of course I think it already is with all the references to circumcision).--Prepuce4Life (talk) 06:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate. Though it's not the best video (or animated GIF, if you prefer), it is the only way to really show the actual functioning of a foreskin. I don't think this GIF is gratuitous. It does not show ejaculation or any other unnecessary but related sexual events. People who have never seen a foreskin cannot get a good idea of how it actually moves and glides over the glans during masturbation & other sexual acts through pictures alone. This is especially important because in the United States, the largest English-speaking nation, there is a general ignorance about the foreskin. There also aren't very many easily accessible alternatives for people interested. Even most pornography either has circumcised actors or does not depict the gliding motion in a way that is easy to see. It's also unlikely that prudish people are going to stumble across the page and be seriously offended by the animated GIF but not offended in the slightest by other pics on the page.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Description misleading?

"In 2009, Schober et al reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were not circumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus."
This sentence confuses me a little: only 11 of the 81 men in the study (less than 9%) had a foreskin, so its no wonder that the foreskin was ranked so far down in 7th place — because over 90% of the subjects didn't even have one! This strikes me as being very misleading and I'd strongly support removing the sentence for the aforementioned reasons. --TBM10 (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. The subjects were asked to rate each area on a Likert scale. The scores were then averaged and sorted into order by the researchers. Those who didn't have a foreskin simply didn't supply scores for that body part, so they wouldn't affect the average. The fact that there were relatively few uncircumcised men would decrease precision, but it wouldn't bias the results as you describe. There may be an argument for rephrasing, but I can't see justification for removing the sentence. Jakew (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi...I agree that the inclusion of this study and the conclusions drawn from it are misleading in the context of this article. If you read the paper itself, the authors make several references to the low number of intact men in the samples; they did not use the data to draw conclusions about the differences between intact men and men without foreskins. Specifically:

"Only six men were uncircumcised and therefore foreskin-related items were excluded from reliability analysis."

"Note that, because there were few (11) uncircumcised men in this sample, ‘area A/foreskin’ was excluded from statistical analysis, but for comparison purposes included in the Fig. 2B–E)."

Also, the paraphrase of the article cuts off important goodies; the actual text continues:

Ranked by degree of ‘sexual pleasure’ (Table 1), the area ‘underside of the glans’ was highest, followed by ‘underside of the penile shaft’, ‘upper side of the glans’, ‘left and right sides of the glans’, ‘one or both sides of the penis’, ‘upper side of the penile shaft’ ‘(foreskin)’,skin between the scrotum and anus’, ‘back side of the scrotum’, ‘front side of the scrotum’, and ‘around anus’, but not all pair differences were significant."

If you know anything about statistics, you know what this means: for several items, they didn't have a large enough sample to tell whether the data reflect an actual difference in self-reported sexual pleasure or sampling error.

Even using this study to talk about differences between genital areas is problematic; the authors themselves used the data only to develop a scale for distinguishing between erogenous and non-erogenous tissue, and gave several warnings that the data did not particularly support differences between different genital areas. [redacted per per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 20:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding an additional sentence noting the caveats mentioned by the authors. Something like the following, for example:

• In 2009, Schober et al reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus. Owing to the fact that only a small number of men were uncircumcised, however, the foreskin was not included in statistical analyses.[12] Jakew (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems awfully misleading and inappropriate; the study was not designed to differentiate between genital areas of differing sensitivity, and the authors made specific mention to this fact in several different ways.

Its inclusion is used to imply that the study provides evidence that the foreskin is less sensitive or less erogenous than other genital areas - yet the study authors themselves state that the study provides no such evidence.

Furthermore, to include the study as evidence for a difference between the foreskin and another genital area with a disclaimer that the statistics didn't pan out is extremely dishonest, and will mislead those who are not educated in the sciences. Without the statistics, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever; there is no way to distinguish a true population difference from noise. Abidagus (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. First, the study was designed to differentiate between areas, as is specified in the abstract ("Objective: To assess the perceptions of healthy men of their genital anatomy and sexual sensitivity, along with the re–test reliability of these ratings [...] Conclusion: The SAGASF-M discriminates reasonably well between various genital and nongenital areas in terms of erotic sensitivity") and in the body of the article ("The SAGASF-M is a self-reported questionnaire designed to obtain a man’s perception of what his genitals look like, to map his experience of sexual pleasure, orgasm intensity, orgasm effort, and discomfort/pain across specific areas of his genital region"). Secondly, your complaint that it is "extremely dishonest" is rather extraordinary given that the authors themselves present the rank order in their abstract, qualifying this re significance only in the body of the article. Acceptance of your argument would imply that the authors misrepresented their own study! Jakew (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I actually misread that pretty badly; amazing what a dropped word can do to the meaning of a sentence. The study was designed to discriminate between different genital areas, and the authors concluded that their instrument successfully did so.

Still, it is not true that the authors presented their rank order in the abstract without qualification; the abstract rank order reads:

Ranked by degree of 'sexual pleasure', the area 'underside of the glans' was highest, followed by ... 'front side of the scrotum', and 'around anus', but not all pair differences were significant. The rank order was similar for 'orgasm intensity', but less similar and with fewer significant pair differences for 'orgasm effort'.

This alone makes it extremely misleading to quote the study as evidence of differences between the foreskin and other genital areas. In what way does a non-finding - a difference between samples without statistical significance - provide evidence for a population difference? The authors do not claim that in their paper - they repeatedly disclaim the notion that their data provide such evidence. Abidagus (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear you've misunderstood. Since the foreskin was excluded from statistical analyses, the fact that some pair differences were non-significant is a moot point (in the context of this article) — the pairs cannot include the foreskin. So it is an error to claim that the result was "without statistical significance"; significance is unknown since it was not tested. This is, indubitably, a weakness of the study, and hopefully future studies will include an adequate number of uncircumcised men, such that there is sufficient power to test for a difference. In the meantime, however, this is the only study of the relative erogenous sensitivity by genital area, and hence provides valuable (if far from perfect) information. Jakew (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so there are a couple of claims here.

First is that statistical significance of the foreskin items is unknown - and that this means the study provides useful information about the sensitivity of the foreskin relative to other genital areas.

If the other items - whose sample sizes were upward 8 times that of the foreskin items - were not all statistically significant, how could the foreskin items possibly be? Look at Table 1 in the paper; the effect size would have to be ridiculously large. If it had been significant, they would have reported this.

Even if the significance were unknown, this would be a non-finding; it would not support the conclusion implied in this wiki article. Science requires actual data to support conclusions; without data, there is no scientific evidence. Without knowing the statistical significance, the sample data are evidence only of the state of the sample; they have no relevance whatsoever to the population at large. This is especially true given the convenience sampling method used.

To say that the self-reported genital sensitivities of ten intact men from one hospital in the eastern United States provide valuable information about the actual genital sensitivity of the rest of the human race is...not quite right and, again, extremely misleading. Actual, conclusive results are necessary to derive meaningful conclusions from this research methodology - which is why the authors were very careful not make the claims implied in this wiki article.

The second claim is that this is the only study that has ever investigated the relative sensitivity of different parts of the male human genitalia. You know that this is not true; Sorrels et. al 2007 (cite 12), on which you have commented, directly addresses this issue.

Abidagus (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

First, it's simply wrong to claim that "If it had been significant, they would have reported this", since they clearly state that the foreskin was excluded from analysis; ie., they never tested whether it was significant. Second, while I agree that it would be nice to know the results of statistical testing, I do not agree that the information as it stands is valueless. Fortunately, however, there's no need for us to debate the point (and, indeed, it would be rather pointless as it's essentially original research): we can include the information and the fact that significance was not tested and let the reader decide for him/herself.

Finally, I do not appreciate being misquoted and then accused of dishonesty. I stated that this is the "only study of the relative erogenous sensitivity by genital area" (emph added), and indeed it is. Sorrells et al did not test erogenous sensitivity; they tested the ability to detect lightest touch as applied using a filament, which is not the same thing at all. Jakew (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly; sorry about that :). To be honest, I didn't think to differentiate the two so sharply.

But, it is not original research to say that using a non-result (i.e. a non-significant sample difference or unreported sample difference) is misleading and ascientific.

"The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists." (from WP:NOR)

Countless introductory statistics and research methods textbooks attest to this fact; it is in no way my personal assertion. For a nice review paper, check out Nickerson's 2000 paper "Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: A Review of an Old and

Continuing Controversy." That non-significant findings are non-findings is common knowledge in science and is widely published in introductory texts.

That the foreskin items were almost certainly non-significant or else had a massive effect size that would have been reported can be easily inferred from a cursory overview of the math behind t-tests - which is also widely published in reputable sources. Though, we can drop that as preferred as it's complex and unnecessary.

I would not [and did not] say that the data from the study are valueless in considering the sensitivity of the foreskin relative to other areas of the male genitalia; it is, however, not quite right to call it valuable data and publish it on Wikipedia as data supporting the conclusion that the foreskin one of the least sensitive genital areas.

To do so goes against the basic methodology of science and the presentation of scientific findings (which, again, are widely published in reputable sources which I will gladly supply as necessary) - which is precisely why the authors of the study repeatedly disclaimed that the data supported any such finding.

Abidagus (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted.

Actually, it is original research to state that a particular result or (if your wish) non-result is misleading, unless you have a source that specifically comments on that result or non-result. See the WP:SYNTH section of that policy. I think that's probably for the best, as we clearly occupy diametrically opposed positions, and could otherwise argue ad infinitum. Jakew (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...not sure where to go with that. It is a clearly misleading citation that distorts the results of the cited source yet, I cannot seem to cite a Wikipedia policy that would support its removal.

I must say - I do appreciate the rapid education I've been receiving in WP policy and etiquette. Let me check back on this in a few.

Abidagus (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We generally do not remove sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS simply because Wikipedia editors object to their contents or contest their accuracy. To contest the accuracy of a WP:RS you'd need another WP:RS that specifically and explicitly contradicts the first. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...while the source is reliable in the sense that the cited finding is true (those 11 men did, on average, rank their foreskin's 7th in sexual pleasure among all genital areas), there is definitely a problem with the way it is cited - which implies that this is a finding that can be expected to generalize to other populations in a useful way (a claim which the study authors explicitly did not to make). I can't imagine that that adds value for the reader, yet I can't seem to argue against its inclusion.

Isn't there some policy about not using a source to imply conclusions that the source itself does not support? Abidagus (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the use of this source to support a claim about the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin relative to other genital areas does go against a wp policey; it violates WP:RS! o_O

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

While the paraphrase of the source is technically accurate, it is used to imply support of a claim the authors specifically state is not supported by their study (that the foreskin is less erogenous than other areas of the penis). Abidagus (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't make that claim, though. Jakew (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? What other claim could the paraphrase possibly imply? Abidagus (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article says basically the same thing as the abstract of the study. Jakew (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it says it right after a citation of evidence that the foreskin is highly sensitive - implying that the study provides evidence to the contrary, which the study authors deny.

Is there any other claim supported by the paraphrase? If not, we have two reasons to remove it; it either implies a false claim or serves no purpose. Abidagus (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Readers can interpret it however they wish — the study certainly seems to cast doubt on the claim that the foreskin is the most erogenous part of the penis. Jakew (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Do the authors claim that, or is it original research? Abidagus (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As I thought I indicated, it's one of a number of possible interpretations that the reader may make. Jakew (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Older image now in Gallery.

There was much discussion about which image should be the main image for this page. People felt the older image wasn't somehow representative of an average foreskin. I am not sure what the "average" foreskin looks like, but I am sure the older image was not abnormal or nonrepresentative of a "normal" foreskin. I do not mind which picture is chosen for the main photo for the article; but, to simply not place the older image in the gallery is almost akin to stating the image is somehow "abnormal", which it is not. Foreskin length varies from person to person, and there is no such thing as forskin that is "too long". It may be unaesthetically pleasing for some person looking at the article, but it is not in any way "abnormal".

I have placed it in the gallery as an illustration that all foreskins vary in length from individual to individual, which I think is important to people to know. I hope noone has any objections. ExRat (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good addition. I'm sure nobody else will mind. I know some images were removed from the gallery but this one is ok. –anemoneprojectors– 09:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems a useful addition and an image of high quality. I've also added an image of a short foreskin for comparable reasons. I think this is enough images now, though. --TBM10 (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Circumcision

The description of circumcision leads readers to believe that it is a procedure that is elective to the individual when in fact this is rarely the case. I have added "Almost always imposed upon children under the age of consent." to represent that it is most often inflicted upon people without their consent when they are at a point in their lives when they are most vulnerable to being indoctrinated into believing that amputation of normal, healthy, functional body parts is acceptable only if the victim is born male while simultaneously using language that follows a neutral point of view that wikipedia claims to (although clearly fails to abide to) desire. Drealgrin (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the rather soapboxy addition, as it is unnecessary and POV to say that it is "imposed". Furthermore, the age at which it occurs depends on the society: in the US it is generally done at birth; in Muslim societies sometimes later; in certain African tribes in (and as a mark of) early adulthood. There's only the briefest mention of circumcision here; this isn't the place. Jakew (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated before, it is a very minimalist addition to clarify to those unfamiliar with the practice. It is in no way a POV to say it is imposed upon an infant or child and this is very apparent to anyone that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.193.90 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with this view - that it would be well to indicate in a word or two that the procedure is rarely elective and voluntary - but disagree that "imposed" is an appropriate word to use. Whether it is POV (I think it may be), it will definitely come across that way to many. Let's come up with a more elegant way of saying this and then incorporate it. [redacted per per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 20:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:ShortForeskin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:ShortForeskin.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Winkelmann Sentence

Here is the sentence I'm referring to: "However, Winkelmann has noted that the literature on the subject is conflicting, and the descriptions of the receptors found do not agree; he argues that the structures are not Meissner's corpuscles"

I recently removed this sentence, but the edit has been reverted, so I'll try to give a better explanation for my edit, and get feedback. The sentence is misleading because the way it's worded suggests that Winkelmann was referring to all the literature on Meissner's corpuscles cited in this Wikipedia article, but that's not possible. The statements from Winkelmann are from 1956, so it's not possible that the conflicting literature he mentioned included more recent research by Cold & Taylor (1999), Haiyang (2005), or Dong (2007).

Initially I was going to reword the sentence so that it was clear that Winkelmann was referring to the literature available in 1956, but when it's qualified that way, it clearly doesn't add any value to this article, so I removed the sentence all together. I still think deletion is the way to go, but I'm open to suggestions. Kyledueck (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the problem. Winkelmann described the literature at the time as conflicting; since the literature now is a superset of what it was then, his comments surely still tell us something useful about it? Jakew (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - if the literature from 1893-1956 is conflicting, that means that the literature from 1893-2011 would have to be conflicting as well. Very true, but there is a big difference between the data in 1893-1956 being in conflict, vs. the data from 1956-2011 being in conflict, and at the moment the reader is not made aware which subset of literature is being questioned by Winkelmann. Since Winkelmann could not be questioning the more current literature, we need to make that clear in the article. But then the question becomes: is it useful or noteworthy to inform the reader that the literature from 1893-1956 is in conflict, when the more recent data is not? Kyledueck (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that any sources tell us that recent data are not conflicting, so your question may be moot. Regardless, I see no reason why we can't amend the article to note the date of Winkelmann's statement; how about "... Winkelmann noted in 1956 that..."? Jakew (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Literature on one particular subject is not considered to be in conflict by default, so unless there is a recent reliable source stating that the more recent literature is conflicting, my previous question is valid, and should be addressed. Kyledueck (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Kyle, there is already a reliable source stating that the literature is conflicting, so in the absence of a reliable source asserting that a subset of it is not we cannot make that assumption. Jakew (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point, we should not assume that the recent literature is or is not in conflict unless a recent reliable source makes a statement about it. I'll rephrase my question. Let's say that we change the Winkelmann statements to be more accurate, such as: "However, Winkelmann noted in 1956 that the literature on the subject was conflicting, and the descriptions of the receptors found did not agree; he argued that the structures noted by Bazett et al (1932) were not Meissner's corpuscles." Would this still have value for readers? If it says nothing about the recent data, why is it worth including at all? Kyledueck (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be informative, first of all because it says something useful about the significant fraction of the literature that was published prior to 1956, and partly because it may raise legitimate questions about the ease and reliability of identifying these receptors. Incidentally, I think it would be misleading to insert "... noted by Bazett et al (1932) were ..." as you indicate; if you read Winkelmann's paper it is clear that he is arguing that the structures described in the literature as a whole are not Meissner's corpuscles. Bazett et al was merely a specific example. Jakew (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my questions Jake. After looking at the available research a bit more, my opinion has changed on the relevance of Winkelmann's statements. The main problem I have is with the age - his comments do not seem relevant given that they are over 50 years old. However, I'm finding that there's not much recent data available on the subject (at least that I've been able to find), so perhaps dismissing his comments on the basis of age isn't fair given that the body of data as a whole is quite small.

So, let's discuss the wording of the statement to be included. I suggest:

"However, Winkelmann noted in 1956 that the literature on the subject was conflicting, and the descriptions of the receptors found did not agree. He also suggested that the structures noted by Bazett et al (1932) were probably not Meissner's corpuscles."

You have mentioned that you disagree with including Bazett et al specifically, but that is exactly what Winkelmann said. He says nothing about "for example" or "the structures described in the literature as a whole are not Meissner's corpuscles." Here is Winkelmann's direct quote: "One is constrained to view the body described by Bazett el al as probably not a Meissner corpuscle." He notes that the descriptions of Meissner's Corpuscles differ between Dogiel, Ohmori, and Bazett, but the only time he suggests that the structures were not Meissner's corpuscles was in relation to Bazett, so that's all that can be included in this article without misrepresenting the source. He also includes the word "probably," and so shall we.

As an aside, I also think that this article would benefit by expanding the notes on Meissner's corpuscles into a more comprehensive "Innervation of the Foreskin" section, which would make Winkelmann's comments a bit more clear, and give appropriate weight to all sources. I intend to do this myself when I have enough time to properly research the subject. kyledueck (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, singling out Bazett as you propose would be misleading, as it would make it seem as though Winkelmann only disputed Bazett's report. Winkelmann clearly questions other reports of Meissner's corpuscles, as is evident from passages such as "Meissner corpuscles have been found by Dogiel, Ohmori, and Bazett, but the several descriptions do not agree. [...] In the literature are many references to similar end organs which have been termed small Meissner corpuscles and small Krause endbulbs. Actually there is no truly distinguishing feature. This ending resembles the nonencapulated body described by Bazett et al (1935) as serving the function of touch in the prepuce. The simple term, papillary nerve, is a descriptive and accurate one which hoes not indicate physiologic specificity, and it has therefore been used here. [...] Workers have great trouble distinguishing this body. It has been described as resembling papillary nerve, the Meissner corpuscle, the genital corpuscle and finally because of the picture in other mammals, it has been confused with the Golgi-Mazzoni body and the Vater-Pacini corpuscle." Jakew (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In the text that you quoted, Winkelmann is saying that it's not clear what type of nerve structures have been reported by the other authors, so he uses a less specific term, papillary nerve, to represent multiple types. This is not the same as claiming that the structures are not Meissner's corpuscles, so we cannot paraphrase his comments as such. kyledueck (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay then, let's say something like "... expresses doubts about whether the structures are Meissner's corpuscles". Do you see any problems with that? Jakew (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to backtrack Jake, but I just realized why Winkelmann's comments sound so contradictory to other evidence: he was only discussing the cutaneous region (outer foreskin). I'm not sure how I missed that before... it's right in the title of his document. Since his research is not in conflict with the other modern evidence (which deals mostly with the inner mucosa), why not just say: "However, Winkelmann found no Meissner's corpuscles in the cutaneous region of the foreskin." kyledueck (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're correct, Kyle. "Cutaneous" literally means "of the skin", so it is in a sense legitimate to use it to refer to the inner surface of the prepuce, which (being mucous membrane) is a kind of skin. On the other hand, mucous tissue is sometimes contrasted with cutaneous tissue. Winkelmann may have intended to specify the superficial innervation of the surface of the prepuce, as opposed to that of deeper tissues, or he may have intended to mean that of the outer surface specifically. It is difficult to be certain; however we do know that Winkelmann refers on at least two occasions to the inner surface of the prepuce, which is inconsistent with a paper restricted to only the external surface.

In any event, it is difficult to escape the fact that Winkelmann disputes claims of Meissner's corpuscles somewhere in the prepuce. To merely note that he found no Meissner's corpuscles, as you propose, would fail to inform readers of the conflict between sources, which is arguably more interesting than the findings of one specific paper. (As an aside, I wonder if the findings of Haiyang et al might be relevant: they reported finding no Meissner's corpuscles in 18/44 (41%) of specimens. OR, of course, but interesting to speculate.) Jakew (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between skin and mucosa, and someone who wrote a paper in the Journal of Dermatology would know the difference, especially when they put the word "cutaneous" right in the title of the document. Read more about the mucosa and cutaneous tissues, and the names for the various layers. If Winkelmann was describing mucosa, he would have used words such as mucosa, or submucosa. Instead he uses the words dermis, subepidermal, subcutaneous - these terms describe only cutaneous tissue; none of these areas are present in mucosa.

The edit that I have recently proposed is simple and to the point. It is a fair representation of the source, it fits well with the rest of the article, it doesn't give too much weight to one source, and I like it just the way it is. I'm open to suggestions though. If you think we need to add something that states that there's a conflict, what do you suggest specifically? kyledueck (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, there is enough ambiguity that we cannot be certain of Winkelmann's intent. Returning to the article, I suggested above that we change "he argues that the structures are not Meissner's corpuscles" to "he expresses doubts about whether the structures are Meissner's corpuscles", which would, I believe, address the concerns you raised. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that Winkelmann's comments are ambiguous, but I don't think that I'll be able to prove that conclusively myself, so I'll drop the issue for now. The edit that you've suggested is an improvement over what's currently there, so I'll add it in. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this problem with me. kyledueck (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello all,

The Winkelmann cite from 1956 is completely irrelevant to this article, whose purpose is to reflect the current understanding of its subject; it need not provide a literature review spanning 70 years. We have three cites that detail the presence of Meisner's corpuscles in the human foreskin; these come from two sets of authors, both published in the last couple of decades in highly reputable peer reviewed journals.

The Winkelmann (1956) paper in no way refutes any of the above citations and, unless I missed something important, is completely irrelevant. Its inclusion can only confuse the reader.

I will edit it out in a few days unless someone chimes in with some gem from the Winkelmann paper that I missed; so far as I can tell, it only reflects that in 1956, he didn't have enough evidence to tell what he was looking it.

Best wishes, [redacted per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 01:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this at length above. Please read that discussion. Jakew (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with removing the sentence entirely, and it's what I suggested at the start of this section. It's not noteworthy, and adds unnecessary confusion. kyledueck (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, WP:NPOV requires that we include "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Jakew (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is true; WP:NPOV says that. I read your entire discussion. The Winkelmann paper is not notable and, as I mentioned, is by its insignificance beyond the scope of this article.

Its inclusion can only serve to confuse the reader into thinking that there is no consensus in the scientific community regarding the presence of Meisner's corpuscles on the human foreskin; several other citations show that such a consensus exists. Why should we confuse the reader with an insignificant, ancient citation?

[redacted per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 06:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You and I seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes scientific consensus. The fact that different opinions exist within the relatively small number of studies published to date suggests to me that consensus is lacking.

Furthermore, I think you need to justify your claim that Winkelmann's paper is neither notable nor significant; claiming so without evidence is less than persuasive. The influence of a scientific paper is often revealed by the number of subsequent papers that cite it. 29 papers have cited Winkelmann. For comparison, 1 cited Haiyang et al., 2 cited Dong et al., 25 cited Dolgiel et al., 8 cited Bazett et al. (I couldn't find data for Ohmori et al). By this standard, then, Winkelmann's paper is the most significant and notable of the six sources cited in the parenthetical comment. Jakew (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...ok. Winkelmann (1956) is a review article which details the application of histological (i.e. cell staining) techniques to the investigation of nerve endings and encapsulations in human skin/mucosa. The article reviews the development of these techniques over the first half of the 20th century, and then presents an original study in which he investigated innervation of the human newborn prepuce using then modern histological staining techniques; the prepuce was chosen simply for convenience, as it was "frequently available, and it is a region of great sensitivity."

In the discussion section of the paper, Winkelmann expresses doubts about the identity of some of the vast array of encapsulated and non-encapsulated specialized nerve endings that this and other then recent studies had found in the human prepuce.

The other, recent papers, all reflect the understanding that the human prepuce contains Meissner corpuscles, but do not particularly elaborate; they generally cite past literature. "The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to

circumcision" (Taylor 2003) even cites, among others, a paper by RK Winkelmann from 1957 as evidence for that assertion. Winkelmann states: "These Meissner-form end-organs are composed of nonmyelinated fibers, and terminal expansions are absent. The parent nerve fibers appeared to arise from the subpapillary nerve nets. Figures 12, 13, and 16 demonstrate such endings in the prepuce and in perianal skin. Since these endings were not found in the prepuce of the newborn but were present in the adult, it appears that they develop principally after birth."

So, it's pretty clear that Winkelmann (1956) in no way supports the notion that there is no consensus re the presence of Meissner corpuscles in the human prepuce.

Please be more careful in the future when considering whether a particular scientific paper is appropriate for inclusion in a controversial wikipedia article.

Best wishes, [redacted per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 16:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

p.s. sorry for breaking the tables; I rarely join talk.

I fail to see why more care might be needed — nothing you've said gives me the slightest indication that Winkelmann should not have been cited. Jakew (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Um...did you read what I wrote? Winkelmann published a paper one year later in which the confusion was resolved, and the presence of Meissner corpuscle's in the human prepuce had been confirmed beyond doubt.

Please go back, read Taylor (2003) and the Winkelmann paper it cites, and then explain how Winkelmann (1956) in any way supports the notion that there is current disagreement in the scientific community re the presence of Meissner corpuscles in the human prepuce.

Best wishes, [redacted per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote. Taylor (2003) does not exist under the title you name (The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision"). You are probably thinking of Taylor's 1996 publication.

Nothing in Winkelmann's later paper contradicts his earlier critiques of authors reporting the existence of Meissner's corpuscles in the prepuce. Such criticisms include: "One is constrained to view the body described by Bazett el al as probably not a Meissner corpuscle. [...] Meissner corpuscles have been found by Dogiel, Ohmori, and Bazett, but the several descriptions do not agree. [...] In the literature are many references to similar end organs which have been termed small Meissner corpuscles and small Krause endbulbs. Actually there is no truly distinguishing feature. This ending resembles the nonencapulated body described by Bazett et al (1935) as serving the function of touch in the prepuce. The simple term, papillary nerve, is a descriptive and accurate one which hoes not indicate physiologic specificity, and it has therefore been used here. [...] Workers have great trouble distinguishing this body. It has been described as resembling papillary nerve, the Meissner corpuscle, the genital corpuscle and finally because of the picture in other mammals, it has been confused with the Golgi-Mazzoni body and the Vater-Pacini corpuscle."

So the fact that Winkelmann disputes these accounts is unchanged, as are his comments about the difficulty in distinguishing between these types of receptors. This is useful information that helps the reader to make sense of the other sources. If, as you say, Winkelmann offers an explanation to account for the different results, I've no objection to adding that to the article as well. Jakew (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad; Taylor (1999). Lets take this back to the article for a moment:

"At the end of the foreskin, there is a band of tissue called the ridged band, which, according to Cold and Taylor, contains nerve endings called Meissner's corpuscles.[2][3] (Some authors have reported the presence of these receptors in the foreskin as a whole.[4][5][6][7][8] However, Winkelmann noted in 1956 that the literature on the subject was conflicting, and the descriptions of the receptors found did not agree; he expressed doubts about whether the structures were Meissner's corpuscles.[9])"

This section is extremely misleading.

The weasel words, "according to Cold and Taylor," serve to create doubt as to whether Meissner corpuscles exist in the human prepuce. They do, there is and has long been a scientific consensus on this, and this is well established by various citations (beyond Cold & Taylor and including Winkelmann) and the above talk. Therefore, it would be best to remove these words.

The Winkelmann cite will create confusion for many readers, who will think that it questions whether Meissner corpuscles exist in the prepuce at all. What is actually points to is a comment buried in Winkelmann's discussion that questions whether they occur throughout the entire newborn prepuce.

This is not an article about the state of research on the newborn prepuce in 1956; it is an article about the human prepuce in general. Meissner corpuscles are present throughout the adult human prepuce; Winkelmann acknowledged this in 1957 and various citations of recent scholarly journals support this. Why should this article prominently feature a citation from Winkelmann in 1956 expressing doubts - which he himself resolved the following year - about the conclusions of then past research? [redacted per per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 16:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained why we include this material, per WP:NPOV. Jakew (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes; npov requires that we "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

How is Winkelmann's doubt regarding the identity of probable Meissner's corpuscles in the newborn prepuce - which was briefly mentioned in the discussion section of a review paper about then newly developed histological techniques of 1956 and which he resolved by 1957 - significant to an article about the current actual state of the [newborn and adult] human prepuce?

I would argue that its inclusion is biased, and that the discussion section a review paper from 1956 is an unreliable source for this type of information - as evidenced by the fact that the specific claim for which the paper was cited here was refuted by the author himself one year later. [redacted per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 17:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As I have already explained, Winkelmann's doubt is significant because it makes it clear that there is a certain amount of ambiguity and room for error involved in the identification of nerve endings; information which the reader may (or may not) decide to use when evaluating reports from other sources.

Winkelmann's hypothesis that Meissner's corpuscles develop after birth is interesting. Together with Haiyang's observation that Meissner's corpuscles are not found in all specimens, and Dong's observation that the density falls after age 20, this might form the basis of an interesting sentence or two. As noted previously, the hypothesis does not in any way refute Winkelmann's doubts about whether the corpuscles identified by other authors as Meissner's corpuscles were indeed so.

Rather than going around in circles any further, do you have any realistic proposals for restructuring the sentence(s)? Jakew (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. How about: "At the end of the foreskin, there is a band of tissue called the ridged band, which contains a variety of specialized nerve endings [cites 2, 3, maybe Winkelmann if his 1957 paper is cited alongside]. According to a study by Sorrells..."

What does everyone else think of that? [redacted per OTRS Ticket#2011110710013075]) 19:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's a realistic proposal. Jakew (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well...what I like about this option is that it could lead to a clean, concise, straightforward opening section that would provide readers with a basic description of the foreskin without bringing in unnecessarily controversial and difficult to understand scientific data.

I don't necessarily think that the material need be cut entirely; I do notice that the Description section would be much stronger - and would better serve the average reader - if we concluded the first paragraph as above and moved all material from there to the start of p2 to another section.

That way, all readers will begin with a basic, non-controversial, easy to interpret description of the foreskin's basic structure, function, and appearance. Readers with an interest and ability to dive deeper and interpret a garbled mass of conflicting, difficult to interpret scientific citations could do so in a later section as desired. :D Abidagus (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's consider the refs you propose. Winkelmann didn't mention a ridged band, so we couldn't cite him in support of a claim about it. Ref 2 just cites ref 3 regarding innervation, so we might as well just cite ref 3 ourselves.

Now, "a variety of specialized nerve endings"? Ref 3 (Taylor 1996) indicates that the ridged band is relatively rich in Meissner's corpuscles (as compared with the smooth region of mucosa), but doesn't say much, if anything, about other nerve endings. "Specialized" is also a little problematic in this context, because although it is true that all types of nerve endings are specialised, it might well be taken to mean "more specialised than most".

Finally, I think that once we're identifying particular types of nerve ending and their distribution within the prepuce, we've long lost any claim to simplicity. To be blunt, this is fairly obscure stuff, and I don't find an argument for removing some of the detail particularly persuasive.

I do agree, however, that the material could use greater clarity, and I think reframing in terms of Meissner's corpuscles (rather than a disjointed focus on both the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles) might help. Here's a rough draft of what I have in mind (it would probably work best as a paragraph by itself):

• The presence of Meissner's corpuscles (a type of nerve ending) has been reported. Their density is reportedly greater in the ridged band (a region of ridged mucosa at the tip of the foreskin) than in the larger area of smooth mucosa.[Taylor 1996] They are affected by age: they appear to develop after birth,[Winkelmann 1957] and their incidence decreases after adolescence.[Dong 2007] In some individuals, no Meissner's corpucles could be identified.[Haiyang 2005] Winkelmann has suggested that some receptors may have been wrongly identified as Meissner's corpuscles.[Winkelmann 1956] Jakew (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well...I feel like maybe you missed my point. I'm suggesting that the reader would be better served by having a description section that just provides a basic description of the foreskin - and an in-depth treatment of obscure, apparently contentious scientific literature (e.g. the distribution of different nerve endings, the sensitivity of the foreskin relative to other genital areas) in another section where it can be better addressed.

I like your reframing; it improved clarity and provides a framework by which we can simply lay out the findings in the style of scientific writing.

I completely agree that a discussion of the distribution of various types of nerve endings in the prepuce is necessarily complex.

Also, in some academic circles we use 'specialized' to differentiate free nerve endings (e.g. those that trigger pain & temperature sensations) from encapsulated endings (e.g. Meissner, Pacinian corpuscles). Come to think of it, it's not the most accurate term... Abidagus (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Jake, that proposed edit looks good to me, with the exception of the last sentence, and unnecessary word "reportedly". Winkelmann's comments in 1956 do not automatically apply to all future research on the subject, they only apply to the literature that he was discussing. Presenting it without qualifying what research was being questioned is misleading. As it's written above, it gives the reader the impression that Winkelmann was questioning current research on the subject. Given that the research he was questioning is very old (it was conducted before photomicrographs were even in regular use...), this statement isn't worth including at all. The [Winkelmann 1956] reference may apply to this statement though, iirc: "In some individuals, no Meissner's corpucles could be identified." kyledueck (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to date the Winkelmann sentence (thus qualifying its scope) but not to remove it, for reasons already explained above.

Regarding "reportedly", the reason for it is as follows. If we say that the density of Meissner's corpuscles is greater in one part of the foreskin than another, we're effectively implying that they're always present in the foreskin. That would contradict other sources (specifically those finding that Meissner's corpuscles were not present, or not in all specimens), thus violating WP:NPOV. I considered some alternatives. "If present at all, their density is greater..." is original synthesis. "Their density may be greater..." is tolerable, but implies some uncertainty which is not present in the source. "...is reportedly greater..." was the best that I could find. I appreciate it's not ideal, and if you've a better suggestion I'd be happy to use it instead. Jakew (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "reportedly" is preferable to alternatives (such as the wordy "Cold and Taylor state that" or any of several less accurate solutions), and I think it'd be well to include a brief treatment of Winkelmann and the conflicting early literature. If given proper treatment, it'll be interesting and informative, and allows us to crosslink with a bunch of other interesting biological science articles that (e.g. Tactile corpuscle) may help science-minded readers deepen their understanding.

Abidagus (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(unindenting) Given that there seems to be universal agreement that the paragraph proposed above is better than that which was there previously, I've made the edit. Jakew (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I dig the edit; looks good. But I feel I should mention again: a review of complicated, contentious literature on a fairly obscure scientific topic warrants a section of its own (or inclusion in a relevant section) for proper treatment.

It isn't improving the description section, which can be easily satisfied with non-controversial material that is appropriate to all audiences (i.e. is readable and interesting for non-science-minded folks). Reorganizing the material will allow readers to begin the article with a not-contentious, readable description of the foreskin.Abidagus (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

I think there's a good case for refactoring the article into a better structure. Do you think it is urgent at this stage, or can we reasonably postpone it for a little while longer? Also, do you have a particular outline in mind, or just a sense that one is needed? Jakew (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say urgent; I think we should think it through and implement it within a week.

Arbitrary is a strong word with a specific meaning; if you think about it, that was actually somewhat rude ;) The reasoning behind the section break is this:

There are two distinct types of information in the current description section. One is basic descriptive information that most any person (e.g. teenager, adult, educated, uneducated, extremely interested in the topic, only casually so) can be reasonably expected to understand and benefit from.

The other is a fragmented review of fairly obscure, difficult to interpret scientific literature - some of which may be controversial within the scientific community itself. This is the Meissner corpuscle discussion and perhaps the sensitivity discussion (although that material may be better resolved another way).

For that reason, I propose that the second type of material - if it is to be included - be moved to another section.

I don't have a particular outline in mind; from the current revision, I would probably start by removing the two middle paragraphs from the Description section and placing them in Talk. Abidagus (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for the unintended impression of rudeness. It is fairly common practice on Wikipedia to break up long sections (which are a pain to edit in a browser) by introducing a sub-section heading; to avoid creating the impression that one's comments are of particular importance or otherwise deserving of their own sub-section it is common (though not, as far as I can tell, actually a documented practice) to use the heading "arbitrary section break" (or variations if that is already in use).

Returning to the subject, I don't think that there's sufficient reason to remove the paragraphs, even on a temporary basis. While I agree that information could be presented more clearly, the information as it stands doesn't violate any WP policies, and I'm inclined to think that awkwardly presented information is better than none, as long as it is neutral and conforms to our other policies. I would prefer to work out what change(s) need to be made and then implement them.

In my view there are two obvious approaches and a number of less obvious approaches. First of the obvious approaches is to split "description" into a high-level main section and a detailed sub-section ("detailed description", for the time being, though I think that's an atrocious heading). Second is to exploit the fact that such a hierarchical relationship already exists in the lead and body of the article, thus putting the general, high-level information in the lead and leaving the detail where it is. This needs some careful thought as, even when condensed and simplified, there may be too much text for the lead.

Less obvious approaches involve rethinking the structure of the article as a whole. I'm not happy, for example, with "Langerhans cells", which logically belongs with, and subordinate to, the "Description" section. It doesn't make a lot of sense to place it at the other end of the article. Also, there is quite a lot of redundancy in having both a "Description" and a "Functions" section, and consequently it's often less than obvious which is the right section for a given piece of information. Eventually I'd like to move much of the material into sub-sections of "Description", eg., "Sexual aspects". Jakew (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, haha.

I think you're right, to keep the material in while editing is best - but take a look at how the Description comes together with those two middle paragraphs removed. If we save the complexity for the next section, it becomes very clean and concise.

I basically agree with you re Langerhans cells, and the redundancies of having both Description and Functions as they are.

I'm having a hard time picturing what you have in mind though; is the idea to have a much larger Description section with various subs, which would eventually include the entire Meissner, sensitivity, and Langerhans discussions?

If so, I feel like that could work out very nicely. Still, I wonder what it'd look like to make Description a basic summary that references briefly each of the complexities to come, and then to give each complexity a thorough treatment in its own, specific section.

Anyway, what do you think? Am I understanding you correctly? Abidagus (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the choice is basically between a flat and a hierarchical structure: a flat structure has lots of top-level headings, while a hierarchical structure tends to emphasise sub-headings. Since we're talking about presenting the text such that we start with a 50,000ft overview and then follow up later with more specific details, I think that naturally lends itself to a hierarchical arrangement, with the general info at the top level, effectively acting as a summary of its subsections. I'm not sure that a flat structure would make quite as much logical sense, but in terms of readability the difference is probably fairly small. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Winkelmann 1957

I've now obtained a copy of Winkelmann 1957. Careful reading indicates that it does not say that Meissner's corpuscles develop after birth; it says that "Meissner-form end-organs" which are "reminiscent of the Meissner corpuscle" in one respect develop after birth:

The Meissner-Form End-Organ.—This is a papillary nerve ending present at the mucocutaneous junction. Its form is reminiscent of that of the Meissner corpuscle only in that its components are layered one on the other. These Meissner-form end-organs are composed of nonmyelinated fibers, and terminal expansions are absent. The parent nerve fibers appeared to arise from the subpapillary nerve nets. Figures 12, 13, and 16 demonstrate such endings in the prepuce and in perianal skin. Since these endings were not found in the prepuce of the newborn but were present in the adult, it appears that they develop principally after birth.

Also note the caption to his fig 16:

Oblique section of perianal tissue showing the layered structure of the nerve and complete lack of other characteristics of Meissner corpuscles.

There is further discussion on page 233, restating Winkelmann's argument that these organs are not Meissner's corpuscles. For this reason I'm removing the reference to Winkelmann 1957 from the article. Please can we all be more careful in future. Jakew (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Eeesh, sorry about that. Will do. Awfully complicated literature. Abidagus (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Young

Abidagus recently added:

• Waskett and Morris' re-analysis was subsequently disputed by Young, whose rebuttal points out that the re-analysis erroneously omitted several key points of measurement - which were a major source of variance.

I've reverted this because wording needs to be considered more carefully. The problem is this. In Sorrells' paper there were two main claims. The first may be called a 'same-points' comparison: that there was a difference in the sensitivity of point A on the circumcised penis and the same point A on the uncircumcised penis. The second is a 'different-points' comparison: that point A on the circumcised penis was more sensitive than point B on the uncircumcised penis. Sorrells' Table 2 shows the p values resulting from different-points comparisons. W&M's Table 1 shows the p values resulting from same-points comparisons. W&M also discussed the figures in Sorrells' Table 2, so both sets of comparisons were considered.

Young argues that: "By disregarding those seven points (which they miscount) in their table, Waskett and Morris have removed the major source of difference and restored the major fault of the undocumented, unreviewed and vaguely described (but widely quoted) study by Masters and Johnson [3], that of ignoring the foreskin."

First, "points out" implies that something is self-evidently correct, which violates WP:NPOV. "States" is probably better. Secondly, it's irrelevant to the subject under discussion. The preceding sentences ("According to a study by Sorrells et al. (2007), the five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin;[10] this is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that re-analysis of Sorrells' data shows no significant differences.") are about different-points comparisons. Even if Young's argument about a same-points comparison were valid, it wouldn't have any relevance in this context, since the issue is Sorrells' Table 2, not W&M's Table 1. Jakew (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmmk, so...

I agree re: WP:NPOV; a more neutral term is necessary. Good call and my bad. :) (though, 'states' is pretty dry...)

To clarify: you are saying that Young's argument quoted above - that W&M's Table 1 (same-points) failing to show significance is irrelevant as the table excludes important data - is not relevant, because the issue pointed to in this wiki article is that Sorrell's Table 2 data loses significance when the Bonferroni correction is applied. Did I read you correctly? Abidagus (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, "states" can get a bit repetitive, and I often want to use a bit of variety. But it seems to be the most neutral of all synonyms (or near-synonyms), which probably explains its heavy usage in WP.

Re your summary: almost. Table 2 is definitely the significant (sorry!) issue here, but the Bonferroni correction (and, I suppose, Young's odd argument about that) is only one of the criticisms. Another is the fact that only one point (in the different-points comparison table) is significant before any corrections are applied, which contrasts with the 5 reported by Sorrells. There are also other criticisms (such as that relating to sampling methodology) that are relevant in the context of Sorrells' assertion, though these are not actually discussed in the article. Jakew (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok...good. My view goes something like this;

First, we have a peer reviewed study published in the BJU - a highly respectable journal, which, as all respectable journals do, carefully reviewed the methodology and statistics used before accepting the study for publication. Then, a brief comment by yourself and Morris was published in BJU (was this peer reviewed as well?) with potentially relevant criticism. The comment is cited above.

Finally, a critique of the critique was published in BJU, in which all major points of criticism raised in the first comment were discussed (I think), with the conclusion that the original comment was unfounded. There's no mention of this comment in our article.

Even with just that, it seems that we would have to mention the critique's critique in some way to maintain neutrality; at the very least, the fact that it exists and was published alongside the original comment is relevant.

Going further...if we cite the 'significance disappears' argument from the first comment, how can we not mention the reply's highly relevant assertion that the specific technique used (Bonferroni correction) was not appropriate?

This article violates WP:NPOV by excluding a relevant viewpoint published in a reliable (i.e. the same) source.

I'm going to try putting in a simple, neutral fix; it's not right to leave the article without. Please feel free to revise but, let's try and keep it short, accurate, and to the point. I did my best to retain the meaning and grammatical elegance of the original and have simply stating what occurred in the literature and provide refs for those interested.

Abidagus (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So...now somebody has edited out Young's conclusion - which is extremely relevant. Explain? Abidagus (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Okay, I've tweaked the addition a little to try and maximise the amount of information in a small space. I thought "criticized their arguments and method of re-analysis" was somewhat more informative than "critiqued this comment and concluded that the original study was sound", and used roughly the same number of words. I also removed "critiqued this comment" and "in a published comment", as this seemed needlessly wordy. Jakew (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, looking at Young's letter again, I'm not sure that it's accurate to say that he "concluded that the original study was sound", as he doesn't actually say that, unless I'm greatly mistaken. Jakew (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmm lost my reply to edit conflict.

It's important to disclose that Waskett & Morris is a published comment; by failing to do so, we imply that it was a peer-reviewed study of similar weight to Sorrells et al (2007). It is a few more words, but those words do necessary work.

Re Young's conclusion; it is a paraphrase. While a majority of Young's comment is devoted to refuting Waskett & Morris' comment on specific points, he does briefly affirm that Sorrells findings were legitimate:

"Sorrells et al. found not only that the foreskin is more sensitive than most of the rest of the penis, but that the exposed corona glandis, at least, of the circumcised penis is slightly less sensitive than that of the intact penis."

I think it'd best to stick with a quick, elegant paraphrase instead of quoting that - especially in the description section. Young's appraisal of the study's validity is a relevant viewpoint. Abidagus (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not an affirmation of legitimacy; it's just a restatement of what Sorrells et al reported. "Fred added 2 and 2 and found an answer of 5" may be a true statement of what Fred did, but it doesn't imply that Fred was correct. Jakew (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well...that's not necessarily correct. Young is stating that Sorrells found that the foreskin was more sensitive than the rest of the penis. He doesn't state that Sorrells sample suggests that the foreskin is more sensitive, he doesn't state that Sorrells believes it, he doesn't state that Sorrells calculated it, and he doesn't restate Sorrells data or conclusion - he states that Sorrells found it, that it is an actual scientific finding.

That's a fairly specific statement.

That Fred adding 2 and 2 and found 5 (or 4) is a different statement; is not the same verb found. Abidagus (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but the trouble is that "finding" doesn't always imply scientific legitimacy. Sometimes "finding" just means "reported result", whether regarded as correct or otherwise. Consider, for example, "The authors have acknowledged in a personal communication that their findings are incorrect and that they resulted from a mistaken assumption as to the recoding of the "faith" item." Or: "Studies by Nordl6w (953, I964), Keiner (I95i), and Scobee (195i), however, found that a majority of convergent squints arose before the age of 12 months, and these workers concluded that the previous findings were incorrect." Or: "Similar consequences apply in the opposite case where a treatment is incorrectly found to be ineffective." I'm sure that Young believes Sorrells' study to be sound, but like it or not, he didn't say that. Since we can't put words in his keyboard (as it were), we have to stick to what he actually said.

Regarding "in a published comment", I don't strenuously object to its inclusion. However, if it is necessary for one Letter then it must be necessary for another; Young's letter should be described in the same way (eg., "a further published comment by Young ..."). Jakew (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well...this is a bit tricky. Young's comment makes clear that he endorses the findings of Sorrell's as legitimate - though perhaps he never says specifically "I endorse these findings as legitimate" in a way that can be cited here. I'm not sure.

Still...the current revision doesn't to accurately relate the aspects of Young's letter that are relevant.

From Waskett/Morris, we get a specific: "not statistically significant," i.e. the claim that there actually no finding. The language is specific and sounds convincingly scientific. From Young, we get a vague "criticized methodology." This is not balanced, and strengthens the impact of Waskett/Morris over Young despite their equal relevance.

Again: if we cite the 'significance disappears' argument from the first comment, how can we not mention the reply's highly relevant assertion that the specific technique used was not appropriate?

I agree that both comments need to be noted as comments and not studies; I'm hoping there's a less wordy way of doing it. Maybe something like..."in subsequent commentary, Wasket & Morris...Young..." Not sure... Abidagus (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you suggest a particular edit so that we have something concrete to discuss? My concerns are a) that we should be reasonably concise, and avoid giving one source much more weight than another, b) we don't create the misleading impression that one criticism addresses all of the points raised in another source and, obviously, c) that the criticisms discussed are relevant to the subject under discussion and an accurate representation of the source. Otherwise, I'm quite happy in principle to be more specific. Jakew (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...having read up a little more on wiki policy, I've begun to wonder whether its appropriate to include either comment alongside the Sorrells study. Sorrells (2007) was a medium scale scientific study, peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious journal, and cited in ~12 other scholarly articles thus far. Waskett & Morris is a brief comment by a non-scientist - with a scientist as second author...and while it is clearly not right to cite the comment without citing the comment's comment - I can't even tell who Hugh Young is. Waskett & Morris' criticism did not result in the Sorrells study being retracted, revised, nor commented on by BJU so far as can be seen, and has been cited in 2 articles.

WP:UNDUE: "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

Seems like simple removal may be the most appropriate edit. Abidagus (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can't debunk Waskett and Morris, then try a new tack of "simple removal" instead? Look, if you're going to invoke WP:UNDUE about "a medium scale scientific study" that has been cited only 12 times, then we should leave Sorrell's study out altogether. If we're going to include it, then WP:NPOV dictates that a mention of criticism is appropriate too. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jay,

12 citations in four years is actually a pretty good impact. Most scientific studies are cited at most a handful of times.

The Sorrells study represents a significant viewpoint published in a reliable source. It's a scientific study published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal, is well cited, and provides valuable information about the topic.

Wasket and Morris is a poorly cited, brief comment by a non-scientist that critiques the Sorrells study. It represents the minority opinion that there is a problem with the methodology of the Sorrells study. It didn't result in a retraction or any comment from BJU, which reviewed and approved the study for publication. It isn't necessarily significant enough to be included at all, and according to WP:NPOV there is a problem with giving it equal weight / coverage. Abidagus (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A "minority opinion"? It's a criticism, nothing more. No study is perfect. Where is that huge majority disagreeing with Waskett and Morris? And "poorly cited"? That "brief comment" has 10 citations, and the BJU also reviewed and approved Waskett and Morris's analysis for publication. The issue here doesn't appear to be policy-related. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg makes some excellent points. I'd also point out that retraction is something of a red herring. It is extremely rare for a journal to publish a retraction of a published study by themselves (though slightly more often they will do so at the request of authors); I can't find the BJUI's policy on the matter, but most journals will do so only in cases of obvious and extreme scientific misconduct (a good example being the Lancet's retraction of Wakefield's infamous paper following a judgment of the General Medical Council). It's also rare for a journal to publish their own commentary on a work; Letters to the Editor are pretty much the standard means by which journals handle criticism. So actually BJUI handled criticism in the way that might be expected. Jakew (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, guess I'd best clarify myself.

Waskett & Morris is poorly cited in that only two other scholarly articles have cited it (one was by Morris). It has had next to no measurable impact.

The "huge majority" includes the scientists who reviewed the paper, the 7 study authors, the authors of the other two comments, and many of the 20+ authors who have cited the paper - without citing the comment - in the scientific literature. Publication in a major journal such as BJU itself represents a long process of review and careful consideration of all aspects of a study and its presentation. If there were a major flaw in the statistical analyses or design of the study, it would not have been published in such a journal.

That BJU reviewed and approved the comment is misleading; review for published comments is quite different from the peer-review process that an empirical study must undergo, and in no way represents a similar level of analysis and endorsement. This is evidenced by the fact that the subsequent comments directly refute several specific statements made by Waskett & Morris.

Much of what Jakew said is true...but while retraction and correction are rare, they commonly occur when data are shown to have been misrepresented. Waskett & Morris claim that all the findings of Sorrells et al. are due to statistical voodoo and are entirely unsupported by the data. If this were true, a retraction or correction would be likely. No such retraction occurred; instead, a comment followed that disagreed entirely and specifically stated that Wasket & Morris' statistical correction was incorrectly applied.

Check out Retraction for a few examples - some of which are highly relevant - of retraction in the scientific literature.Abidagus (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's address these issues one by one (and paraphrasing heavily).

Number of citations. You say that, with two citations (three including Young's response), it has had "next to no measurable impact", but this isn't entirely consistent with your earlier statement that "Most scientific studies are cited at most a handful of times" (implying that an average study is cited less than a handful of times — 2-3, perhaps?). The trouble is, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it here.

Huge majority. I think you're making a number of errors here. Firstly, you're making a lot of assumptions about the opinions of the reviewers and those who cited the paper, as not all citations are glowing and we don't have access to the reviewer's reports, so we can't know their views on the paper. Secondly, I don't find it very convincing to use the number of authors on papers as a judge of majority views — I could probably find a multi-author HIV/AIDS denialist paper and a single author rebuttal, but it would be absurd to suggest that the former represented the majority viewpoint. This brings me to the more important point, which is that we simply haven't got enough data at the present time to be able to assess with any confidence what is or isn't the majority view. We certainly haven't enough data to be confident that one view is in such a vast majority that alternative viewpoints should be silenced.

Publication in BJU implies perfection.... There are two main problems with this argument. Firstly, the BJU published both the original study and the critique, so by your own argument the fact that the letter was published implies careful consideration and validity (but see below). Second, you say "If there were a major flaw in the statistical analyses or design of the study, it would not have been published in such a journal". That's more a case of touching faith than a logical argument; flawed studies are published by BJUI (as well as journals with higher impact factors) all the time.

...except letters, where they'll publish any old rubbish. Now a contradiction becomes apparent. Somehow this journal has such high standards (far beyond that of a normal journal) that publication of a study with major flaws is impossible, but they don't have any standards at all when it comes to letters? That doesn't make a lot of sense: it's much more plausible to assume some degree of consistency. I'm not saying that the standards are necessarily identical, but I think you're grossly exaggerating the differences. It seems a lot more realistic to say that, like most journals, BJUI use peer-review to try to catch flaws before publication, but sometimes flaws slip through the net, and they use letters in part as a form of post-publication review.

If W&M were correct, a retraction would have occurred. Let me give you an illustrative example. In 1999, Int J STD AIDS published a "meta-analysis" of circumcision and HIV (coincidentally it was also by Van Howe). Two critiques followed, by Moses et al and by O'Farrell et al, both pointing out severe methodological flaws in Van Howe's analysis that led to him finding exactly the wrong result. Those flaws have subsequently led to detailed discussion of Van Howe's paper as an example of Simpson's paradox in a standard text on meta-analyses and an extensive review of the same subject (Refs: Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. 2009, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK. And: Barker FG 2nd, Carter BS. Synthesizing medical evidence: systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Neurosurg Focus 2005;19:e5). It's safe to say that there is pretty much universal agreement that Van Howe got it wrong, but no retraction of Van Howe's paper has been published.

Young's comment was also published. Absolutely, so they've published letters representing the difference of opinion about the study. Jakew (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you really believe that? You've either misunderstood (unlikely) or deliberately misrepresented almost every claim attributed to me in your restatement.

I mean, I guess I'll go through and restate myself in brief but...it's hard to see that there's any point. :( Abidagus (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of citations - it's fairly well acknowledged in the metasciences that in most fields, a majority of publications have little or no measurable impact. No contradiction there...it's true. You could go read a paper about it or just search pubmed for yourself and see.

re "huge majority," I would never argue that there's evidence that the conclusions of Sorrells represent the majority opinion of society or of scientists in general - nor is that the issue. I did present a strong argument (which you didn't address) that the majority opinion among those who have voiced any opinion in the literature is overwhelmingly that Sorrells' study provides evidence for what it claims to provide evidence for and is not methodologically flawed. If you go and read the citations, pretty much all of them briefly cite the study as providing scientific evidence for its conclusions and ignore the comment.

BJUI is a reliable source of peer-reviewed scientific literature. It may also a reliable source for comments on peer-reviewed literature, but it is totally misleading and violates npov to present comments alongside peer-reviewed scientific literature - with equal weight - as if they were the same thing. Also, it seems like theres a mixup here between reliability and notability but I don't really know how to explicate it.

That letters to the editor are commonly used to publish critique is no contradiction to the fact that severe methodological flaws (as suggested by Wasket/Morris' comment) commonly lead to non-publication in decent journals and, if later exposed, often lead to retraction or correction (these are rare and usually limited to wrongdoing as it's rare for such a paper to be published).

The example of non-retraction ignores the entire page of examples of retraction that I linked to above. Also, a meta-analysis is an entirely different beast from an experimental study - basically a review paper with a bunch of stats tacked on that most readers won't be able to follow. Review papers and meta-analyses are almost never retracted (I've never heard of it happening, actually) and the issues surrounding them are quite different from those surrounding an empirical study (which, if false, would leave false data in the literature...while a review or meta-analysis doesn't make that kind of contribution).

Anyway...I think it may be reasonable and in line with npov to put a brief mention that there was criticism; to put an equal or greater amount of text for the comments is misleading and violates npov given that the comments represent minority, borderline notable views in this context. Something like "...most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin, though the study was criticized."

That way the casual reader gets an accurate view of what is in the literature (an empirical study that received a little criticism) without being misled, and the curious reader or scientist can still go and read the comment for his or her self. Abidagus (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(I edited to reflect the above; Jakew reverted so as to give equal weight in text to the study and the comment). Jakew, I'm having a very hard time understanding how it could be right for you to revert in a way that clearly gives undue weight to you and Brian Morris' comment. I've done my best to assume good faith etc but this doesn't make sense.

Also, a discussion of statistical significance is entirely inappropriate to this article. Very few readers understand what it means; almost none will understand why a set of data may appear significant in one analysis but not another and be able to differentiate which analysis is correct. Those who do can (and likely would) click the link. Abidagus (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's obvious from the above discussion that you've failed to convince either Jayjg or myself that undue weight was given. I've restored the previous version.

And, incidentally, I didn't revert your change. I amended it to fix the fact that it was too vague about the nature of the criticism. Jakew (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What's obvious Abidagus, is that your logic has fallen on deaf ears, but fear not, Jayjg and Jake do not own the article. I have been following this thread for quite some time and will support you in this when I'm available. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So Jayjg, if someone disagrees with you, or feels you have ownership issues, you consider it a personal attack eh? Good luck with that one. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, Gary. Specifically, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." Also see WP:NPA#Avoiding personal attacks, which says "Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI)." (emph added) So yes, accusations of ownership made without evidence and in an inappropriate place are personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to bring it up at ANI Jake. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness. :)

Jakew, I'm not sure how to reply to that. Would you be willing to briefly address the points I summarized above?

Best wishes, Abidagus (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well.

Number of citations. I think you've missed my point here. Let me put it another way. Given that most studies are cited only a small number of times, wouldn't you agree that the article is (roughly speaking) cited a fairly typical number of times by the standards of most articles?

Huge majority. There is an insufficiently large sample of authors to make any plausible deduction about prevailing opinion.

it is totally misleading and violates npov to present comments alongside peer-reviewed scientific literature. Your dislike of letters is obvious, but the fact remains that they are published in the same journal, by the same editorial board.

severe methodological flaws [...] commonly lead to non-publication in decent journals if they are detected during the peer-review process, yes, but that's not guaranteed. Often, as noted, subsequent letters point out the flaws. And retraction is a very rare event. Retraction by the journal (as opposed to by the authors) is even rarer.

Now, returning to the subject, "has been criticized" is a woefully inadequate description. It is the equivalent of saying (about the original study) "Sorrells et al measured a property of the foreskin": it's only barely more informative than saying nothing at all. A "criticism" might be as trivial as a misspelling (or the scientific equivalent) or vastly more serious. In this particular case, the methodology and (more importantly) the interpretation has been challenged. Jakew (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I've restored the obviously relevant and helpful words explaining exactly what the criticism was, cited to the critics, per Wikipedia policy. Everyone else, let's not let off-Wikipedia campaigns against specific editors spoil our writing of Wikipedia articles. I strongly hope I don't see this kind of behavior again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

What campaigns are you referring to Jayjg, and how does it relate to this discussion? Garycompugeek (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This campaign. Abidagus can explain how it relates to this discussion, if you can't figure it out. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand canvansing off wiki is a bad thing that can easily skew consensus. Thank you for the explantion. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, woah. I have never connected this identity with that one publicly, and you need to pull that link immediately. I am almost certain that your posting it violates some policy on not outing peoples' private identities and that site is of an extremely personal nature.

I did attempt to recruit a couple of editors early on; I ceased as soon as Jakew pointed out the policy conflict. I have no interest in skewing consensus and never did. Abidagus (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Evolution

The evolution section says this: "It has been proposed that the foreskin evolved to facilitate masturbation". This is not properly sourced (the reference leads nowhere) and, more importantly, is patent nonsense. If the foreskin evolved to facilitate masturbation, why does it exist in all mammals - even those with no hands? Are we seriously to assume that the foreskin evolved in horses 'just in case' they ever develop the ability to masturbate? Honestly, where do people even find this nonsense? Ianbrettcooper (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken URL. Jakew (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can the journal Medical Hypotheses be really be considered a proper scientific source? It is not peer reviewed and its editoral policy is basically to publish anything. Also, the article is quoted as a "some argue", this feels weaseley. -- Heptor _talk 08:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've reverted Sugarcube73's recent edit to the functions section, for two reasons:

• First, while the edit summary stated "Delete citations on venereal disease improperly applied to inflammation", the deleted sources referred to balanitis (which is inflammation of the glans penis), so the explanation makes little sense.
• Second, the edit moved the inflammation information to "conditions", which doesn't make much sense. First, Gairdner stated that the "protection" of the foreskin protected against inflammation ("Inflammation of the glans is uncommon in childhood when the prepuce is performing its protective function"), so it is relevant to the first section. Second, the increased or decreased risk of inflammation is not necessarily a condition affecting the foreskin itself (it may well be of the glans). Jakew (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Article as a Chessboard mess of Information and Misinformation

WHY is this Article so full with opinion and mixing 'FORESKIN' and its Anatomy and properties with those of CIRCUMCISION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.39.80 (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't happen in other language links of the Article,why in English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.218.39.80 (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Because the good ol' US of A is the largest English-speaking nation and its residents are the primary users/contributors to English wikipedia. It just so happens that the US has by far the highest rates of circumcision, a practice first promoted to the population at large in the late 19th century as a (ineffective) means to prevent masturbation. The pro-circ attitude has persisted and the medical establishment continues to try to invent new justifications for the procedure every time their previous theories have been debunked. There's no reason for the infestation of the article with references to circumcision, especially when it includes terms like "uncircumcised", a term that privileges circumcision as if it were the default state, as if intact penises are somehow lacking something important, are less complete, when in fact the opposite is true.--Prepuce4Life (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that this article is being used as a soapbox to promote circumcision. Editors should be careful to stay on topic - this is an article about the foreskin, not circumcision. I have removed some off-topic material, but discussion may be required to fix other sections. kyledueck (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of relevant, well-sourced material

(Note: Although this is a continuation of the above discussion, I'm creating a new section as I find the long reference list distracting in a talk page section.)

Kyledueck (talk · contribs), aided by two other editors, has removed a large amount of relevant, well-cited material, claiming that it is "off-topic". Among removals are:

• A World Health Organisation quotation, noting 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." Kyle argued at my talk page that 'The sentence may use the word "foreskin" but it is clearly a quote that is directly related to circumcision, rather than the foreskin, thus it is off-topic, and does not belong in the article.', but that argument makes the mistaken assumption that all statements can be neatly divided into those that are about the foreskin and those that are about circumcision. In fact, because circumcision is the removal of the foreskin, many statements are actually about both circumcision and the foreskin. This particular statement sets up a hypothesis about what would happen if the foreskin were not there and then tests that hypothesis against the literature. It's clearly and obviously relevant.
• Changing 'Schoen (2007) states that "[a]necdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity. Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men."' to 'Schoen (2007) states that "[a]necdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity."' By taking the first sentence out of context, it effectively reverses its meaning. In the fuller quotation it is clear that Schoen offers the objective published studies as a refutation of the claims in the first sentence.
• Removal of 'several studies find that inflammation of the glans is more common when the foreskin is present' and associated refs. Again, this information is clearly relevant. If you prefer, we could cite another source, such as PMID 17437774: "The foreskin frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease ..."? Or (regarding some other conditions): PMID 21668404: "The presence of foreskin has been found to predispose men to penile carcinoma and sexually transmitted infections"
• Removal of 'The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) state that "no controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin" (citing AAP's 1999 policy on circumcision.) On what possible basis?

Jakew (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Were these sentences considered off-topic because they referred explicitly to foreskins? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion that discussing what happens to the penis after the foreskin has been removed, and comparing penises based on circumcision status is beyond the scope of this article. Such material belongs on the circumcision-related pages, since they are specifically about removal of the foreskin. If these topics are allowed here, the entire articles Medical analysis of circumcision and Sexual effects of circumcision could be copied to Foreskin. When taken to this extreme, it's easy to see that these topics are beyond the scope of this article, and WP:OFFTOPIC suggests that such content be removed.

The bullet points below quote the article text being discussed, and correspond to the bullet points above that Jake wanted to talk about. I've included my response to Jake after each bullet point.

• "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"

It's not "a hypothesis about what would happen if the foreskin were not there." The statement challenges the idea that circumcision diminishes sexual function. Clearly irrelevant, since this article does not deal with what happens to the penis after circumcision, so this statement is off-topic and should be removed.

• 'Schoen (2007) states that "[a]necdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity. Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men."'

My complaint with this is that comparing circumcised and intact men is beyond the scope of this article. I think that we could reword this one to keep it on topic, without quoting it out of context. How about we change it to this: 'According to Schoen (2007), studies do not support that claim that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and sexual sensitivity.'

• 'Simmons et al. report, however, that its presence "frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer".'

Firstly, this statement does not appear to be directly related to the Gairdner statement that precedes it. The word "however" seems to indicate that the statement contradicts Gairdner's claim that the foreskin protects the glans, but if the source did not explicitly state this, then the statement as it's currently written is original research. Secondly, it does not appear to be related to other functions of the foreskin, which is the subject of that particular section. Thirdly, this statement insinuates that the presence of the foreskin is a liability, because medical conditions can affect it. This is propaganda technique called an appeal to fear. Medical conditions can affect every part of the human body. Insinuating that the very presence of a healthy, functional body part constitutes a danger to an individual can only be an attempt to inspire fear. If we were writing pro-circumcision propaganda, this statement would be perfect, but wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. To see how absurd this statement is, compare it to:

"The presence of the breasts make women prone to breast cancer, and spinal disorders"

"The presence of eyes predisposes individuals to eye infections, cataracts, and astigmatism"

"The presence of the labia predisposes women to medical conditions such as labial adhesions, vulvodynia of the labia, scarcomas and carcinomas of the labia"

This appeal to fear should be removed immediately, per WP:PROPAGANDA.

• 'The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) state that "no controlled scientific data are available regarding differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin"'

Again, this article is not about comparing penises based on circumcision status. A statement about the immune function of the foreskin would be suitable for inclusion in this article, but a statement comparing immune function based on circumcision status would be better suited to one of the circumcision articles. kyledueck (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree with your statement that "discussing what happens to the penis after the foreskin has been removed, and comparing penises based on circumcision status is beyond the scope of this article", Kyle. This article is about the foreskin, and certain other articles are about its removal. A certain amount of overlap with those other articles is unavoidable, and must be expected. Your argument that (for example) the "Medical analysis of circumcision" article could be copied here is incorrect: not only is that article framed in terms of circumcision, but its sources are similarly framed.

I would suggest that this article is about the foreskin, and its scope includes what reliable sources have to say about the foreskin. If sources choose to make comparisons between penises with foreskins and those without, there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't include them. Indeed, since that is an obvious way to scientifically test claimed functions, excluding it would have the bizarre effect of allowing unsubstantiated claims while excluding sources that subjected them to testing.

Let me respond to your points:

• "It's not "a hypothesis about what would happen if the foreskin were not there." The statement challenges the idea that circumcision diminishes sexual function." — it's a statement about the notion that circumcision diminishes sexual function because of "the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin". If those nerve endings are relevant, then so is a statement about the consequences (or lack thereof) when they're gone.
• "My complaint with this is that comparing circumcised and intact men is beyond the scope of this article." — I don't agree. If a source makes such a comparison in a relevant context (in this case, assessing claimed functions of the foreskin), it's within scope.
• "Firstly, this statement does not appear to be directly related to the Gairdner statement that precedes it. The word "however" seems to indicate that the statement contradicts Gairdner's claim that the foreskin protects the glans, but if the source did not explicitly state this, then the statement as it's currently written is original research." — Okay, I've moved it to another place.
• "Secondly, it does not appear to be related to other functions of the foreskin, which is the subject of that particular section." — Dubious. It's in the "Other" section, which obviously contains miscellaneous functions. And in the "what does it do" sense, a function can be negative or positive. Nevertheless, I've moved it to the 'Conditions' section for the time being.
• "Thirdly, this statement insinuates that the presence of the foreskin is a liability, because medical conditions can affect it." — Your objection seems to be that you disagree. WP:NPOV requires that we document prominent viewpoints about the foreskin. One significant viewpoint is much as you describe. Another is that the foreskin has a vast range of functions. We document that, too.
• "Again, this article is not about comparing penises based on circumcision status." — You haven't made a compelling argument for that. Jakew (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the foreskin not circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)