Talk:Foreskin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"chummy" voice

Under 'Subcutaneous' last para "..by Cox and his colleagues..". The reader will have no idea who this refers to. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

They're not really supposed to. That sort of language is pretty common when two studies are cited back to back like that just so the readers understand they were conducted by different teams. MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Personal hygiene advice from wikipedia

I can find no other article on any part of human anatomy that contains a hygiene section. "Washing of the genitals should be done gently, preferably with mild soap."

Really? Smegma occurs around the vulva also but we have no such advice for women. Propose section delete - retain stuff about phimosis. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I find the section to be WP:UNDUE; it should at the very least be trimmed. Prcc27 (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've trimmed out what seemed to be superfluous. What remains is relevant material, I think, about retractability. So that's the title now. Better? Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw this, definitelly an improvement. As for the sexual practices section, what else do you think it should've mentioned, except for docking? Piccco (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors keep adding in advertisement from "foreskin regeneration" company

@MrOllie: removed and @Neveselbert: re-added two articles from a self-professed "foreskin regeneration" company known as Foregen. It states:

The circumcision of males is emphatically linked to numerous sexual dysfunctions. Many of the purported benefits do not hold up to the scrutiny of extensive literature surveys. Involuntary circumcision, particularly when not medically warranted, is also associated with many psychological and emotional traumas.

[Many circumcised men] see it as torture, mutilation and sexual assault. In view of the acute as well as long-term risks from circumcision and the legal liabilities that might arise, it is timely for health professionals and scientists to re-examine.

"Even though research suggests harmful effects of circumcision (e.g., Denniston & Milos, 1977; Denniston, Hodges, & Milos, 1999; Cold & Taylor, 1999; Hammond, 1999; Van Howe et al., 1999), psychological factors may make it difficult for circumcision advocates to stop promoting the practice (Goldman, 1997, 1998, 1999). Presumably, grief for the lost sexual body part and its functions, and the resultant denial of loss is important because it may explain the circumcised "adamant father" (who unreasonably insists on the circumcision of a son in the face of contrary evidence) as well as other manifestations of the circumcised male such as the "I'm circumcised and I'm fine" syndrome (Bigelow, 1995; Ritter & Denniston, 1996). Grief and denial in relation to involuntary circumcision may well play a role in the psychology of the circumcised male (Parkes, 1998). Such factors may figure even more prominently among those doctors who devote their entire medical practice or a substantial portion thereof to circumcising normal healthy boys when there is no medical reason to do so (cf. Bigelow, pp. 94-99). Some trauma victims experience a compulsion to re-enact the trauma (van der Kolk, 1989). Circumcising infants may to some extent involve re-enacting the trauma of one's own circumcision."

Are these reliable sources to base statements on? OntologicalTree (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@OntologicalTree, I think before removing a part of a paragraph, it is important that you first take it to talkpage and discuss the reason behind it, because otherwise the removal will most likely come off as disruptive to editors who didn't know your motives. As I've mentioned a while ago, I am willing to comprimise when there's a valid reason, if you also show willingness for calm discussion.

In any case, eventhough I don't necessarily think that any source expressing skepticsims towards circumcision is automatically invalid, I do understand the need for neutral language and avoidance of extreme statements in wiki. In my opinion, a neutral re-wording could be considered; for example the statement "Restoration creates a facsimile of the foreskin, but actual regeneration of the foreskin is experimental" is not a lie. Similarly "For some men, restoration had beneficial results" or something like that is also true; basicaly, a statement that would explain why this whole restoration thing is even happening. Maybe we could use different sources to back them(?). Waiting for opinions. Piccco (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

These sources pretty clearly do not meet WP:MEDRS. Any talk of 'neutral re-wording' would be putting the cart before the horse - we would need usable sources to support the rewordings. I will note that though I have removed other Foregen stuff (notably links directly to their own website), I hadn't removed these specific citations. I do support OntologicalTree doing so, though. MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@MrOllie, Yeah that's why I thought that better sources could be used (if found) for the suggested wording, because stating that restoration creates a foreskin facsimile and regenaration is not yet accomplished seems like neutral information, worth having a mention. Piccco (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE. This is a company that is actively soliciting funds to develop their 'foreskin regeneration' technology. They are the only ones who write about this, and there is no real reason to think that they will ever accomplish their goals. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I read 'and regeneration' in the title of the section and I thought it was something commonly discussed. I'm not very well informed about the restoration/regeneration processes. Piccco (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(In response to top comment) The only things I removed were those two citations. As for foreskin restoration, they are already sources within the article on the topic. Using those two to state that there is widespread circumcision "trauma" is obviously unacceptable. OntologicalTree (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't know what these citations were, so seeing you remove content just seemed like disruptive editing to me and, I guess, to Neveselbert as well. That's why I pointed out how important it is for an editor to first explain their motives in the talk, that's all. Piccco (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Foreskin development.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Foreskin development.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Relevance/Validity of Expired AAP Statement

The line on the foreskin’s contribution to non-HIV STD transmission is hotly debated and controversial, to say the least. Many studies show men without foreskins have higher incidence of non-HIV STDs, many show the opposite, and some show no significant effect. A meta-analysis of 91 studies of non-HIV STDs and circumcision (https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/109846) concludes “This is the first systematic review of the medical literature looking at the incidence and the prevalence of any STI as opposed to not acquiring an STI based on circumcision status. This analysis indicates that prevalence of acquiring any STI is lower in intact men. Three of the four studies of incidence are consistent with the prevalence date, while one study from New Zealand indicated a significant protective effect. Overall, the incidence data indicate a trend that intact men have a lower incidence of any STI.”

There is quite a bit of research showing a link between male-to-female HIV transmission and the foreskin, that claim is more supportable and mentioned later in the article, but the claim that the foreskin is linked to other STD transmission is untenable and doesn’t reach acceptable standards of evidence. Yoleaux (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yoleaux:. Hindawi is generally considered to be a predatory publisher.

The European Association of Urologists and several other medical organizations make similar statements to the AAP in this area. It's not limited to just them. KlayCax (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Wikipedia page for Hindawi says otherwise, that most of its journals are classified as academic and was removed from a list of predatory publishers. Since the study is a review, would it be better to cite all the sources it reviews separately? I assume that would fall under excessive citations. Yoleaux (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware that Hindawi has improved a bit in standards (affilated with Wiley now) - but it's still not great. They were traditionally considered a predatory publisher/papermill. Now, it's more of a "gray" area. @Yoleaux: I wouldn't be against metastudies in high-quality journals and/or other major medical associations.KlayCax (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way - I realize this relates to the circumcision article - but I removed "Australia" and "New Zealand" because they still have high prevalence. Their incidence is low. Circumcision's prevalence is still widespread. That's why I reverted your removal for those two polities. KlayCax (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is the skin sample study unreliable?

Explain Man-Man122 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Clinal Significance section has NPOV issues

The "Clinal Significance" section suffer from several NPOV issues and worldview issues. First, it only mentions the views of the AAP and U.S. centric medical sources. Since the U.S. is still very pro-circumcision, views of medical groups from non-circumcision countries should be added to counterbalance the views on the risk of keeping the foreskin. Second, some of the risks shown do indeed have studies that support them but these studies do not however necessarily make the case for routine circumcision. To fix this, we should avoid broad statements about risks of having a foreskin nd be more specific who specifically might benefit from circumcision in such cases but also include alternative practices one can engage in that also lesson one's risk (other then removing the foreskin). For example, the section mentions the increased risks of HIV transmission in the uncircumcised male, but fails to mention that this would most benefit males in countries with high HIV rates and were it's more difficult to apply safer sex practices. For most developed countries, higher HIV transmissions rates among the uncircumcised are not currently seen a major risk justifying the practices. While it's fine to point out certain risks from having a intact foreskin, we should balance this with info on how likely such problems are in reality. For example, phimosis is not a commonly seen issue in non-circumcising countries. Also, the notion that the "foreskin can harbor micro-organisms that may increase the risk of urinary tract infections in infants and contribute to the transmission of some sexually transmitted infections in adults" as stated in the expired 2012 AAP report on circumcision is either not supported by medical groups/experts from countries where circumcision is not routine (such as the non-HIV STD increased transmission claim) or not considered significant enough in developed countries to justify routine circumcision (such as increased UTI claims or HIV transmission claims). Just putting out these medical statements on the clinical significance of having a foreskin without better context and/or opposing viewpoints is a NPOV violation. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I am also concerned with the section, because it just seems like a laundry list of issues the foreskin can have; nothing about potential clinical benefits. Also, if we have newer sources than the expired 2012 AAP viewpoint, the AAP source should be replaced with those per WP:MEDDATE. Most medical organizations have either come out with new viewpoints on circumcision or reaffirmed their old viewpoints, so actually, maybe we should just remove the AAP altogether, since they seem to be one of the only outliers without an update? Prcc27 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Prcc27 To be fair, the clinical significance section of most body parts that have one is just "a laundry list of issues" that particular part can have. Most don't include any clinical benefits Man-Man122 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Infographics "Anatomy and function of the foreskin"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please find here my point-by-point response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. "function" removed from title,

2. panel "circumcision result" removed,

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

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

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

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

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

Foreskin function

Hey, @Piccco: and @Prcc27:. I restored information that was recently deleted from the article. Why were these sections removed?

Prcc27 recently reverted the changes. Yet I'm not sure how there's any consensus on the matter in the literature. KlayCax (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Also tagging @Thelisteninghand: and @Man-Man122:. (Who have been involved in previous discussions.) KlayCax (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Neveselbert: and @Bon courage: as well. KlayCax (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

These sources appear to be perfectly fine to me, and it is clearly not fringe material. Not sure why this was deleted at all, let alone why there would be edit warring to keep it out. MrOllie (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Morris and Krieger is clearly fringe, the other sources aren't necessarily. Any material supported solely by the former ought to be removed. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Just saying 'clearly fringe' does not make it so. You're at 4 reverts (commenting out is functionally equivalent to deleting). MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SKYISBLUE. It's obvious that the authors come from a fringe perspective, just as it's obvious that climate-denying researchers are fringe. I'm not at four reverts, I've hidden the text until a consensus can be found here. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Morris's positions on the prophylactic efficacy of circumcision within developed countries are fringe. His positions on sexual function are entirely within the mainstream.

The World Health Organization and many other major medical organizations make similar statements. KlayCax (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Neveselbert If I recall, the study itself is not from Morris, he just cited it. Man-Man122 (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Not again. Editors here cannot reject high-quality sources just because they object to Morris as author. It's almost like we need a FAQ on this. Bon courage (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of the sources, they did not seem pertinent to the function section of the article. Prcc27 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't think that information about the sensitivity of the foreskin's nerve endings is pertinent to a section that discusses the presence of those same fine-touch nerve endings? MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am mainly referring to the vestigial structure part. The part that says “the foreskin has the least sensitive hairless tissue of the body” seems like trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to mention nerves at all, the fact that they're the least sensitive isn't trivia, it is highly relevant context. Identification as 'vestigial' is also highly relevant to function - since it is a statement that the function of the foreskin has diminished as evolution proceeded. MrOllie (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If it was in the evolution section with the rest of the information about vestigial structures, that would be one thing (as long as it is WP:DUE). But having only one viewpoint on whether it’s vestigial in the function section, but not the other viewpoint, seems WP:POV. Prcc27 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have sources for 'the other viewpoint', present them. WP:POV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE - if there aren't contradictory sources there is no issue. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The source is already in the article in the evolution section.. Prcc27 (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I moved the sentence to the evolution section - I trust that resolves the issue. MrOllie (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Policy statements

Why are we taking statements about circumcision and sensitivity and twisting their words to reach a conclusion about foreskin and sensitivity? This is clearly original research, and we agreed a long time ago, that this article is about foreskin, not circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly not original research to note that removing the foreskin entirely has no impact on the sexual function of a sexual organ it is attached to. If we were writing about appendectomy you might have a point. MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say “removing the foreskin has no impact on sexual function.” It says “medical studies contradict the claim that foreskin impacts sexual function”. That is original research.

As for SYNTH: “According to policy statements from the World Health Organization and other major medical organizations”, I think the bolded wording is problematic, but maybe I’m being nitpicky. Prcc27 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

aren't other major medical organizations referenced? Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. But it seems like SYNTH to combine sources and come to that conclusion. Again, the bigger issue is we are conflating circumcision & sensitivity with foreskin & sensitivity. This is original research, and undue given this article is about foreskin, not circumcision. Prcc27 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you prefer to name every org? That seems like bad writing. Better to summarize. Bon courage (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would drop the word “major” and add a footnote naming the organizations. But I do not support including this sentence at all, per the other reasons I gave for its removal. This is the wrong article for this. Prcc27 (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

But we're meant to summarize. Bon courage (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It is not too big of an issue I suppose, but it is still inappropriate to conflate circumcision with foreskin. Prcc27 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It isn't going to be possible to avoid mention of circumcision, or reliable sources that mention circumcision while writing about the function of the foreskin. MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The effects or lack thereof of circumcision ≠ the function of foreskin. Please feel free to find policy statements that actually touch on the function of the foreskin. If the sources do not mention foreskin function, it is clearly WP:OR. Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It is obviously not OR to note that function doesn't actually change if you remove the foreskin. That a source uses the term 'circumcision' rather than 'remove the foreskin' does not somehow make it a statement unrelated to foreskins. MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Once again, our article is not making any claims about removal of foreskin & function, just foreskin function full stop. Those sources only touch on the impacts of foreskin removal on function, not foreskin function in general. Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I just want to give one more follow up on this about how absurd the sentence in question is: “medical studies contradict the claim that foreskin impacts sexual function.” Of course foreskin has an impact on sexual function! The debate is whether circumcision has a negative or neutral impact on sexual function. Which of these organizations are claiming that foreskin does not play any role in sexual function? I would be surprised if that is what they are claiming. Prcc27 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The citations have quotes. MrOllie (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And the quotes do not match up with the wording in our article. 🤷🏾‍♀️ Prcc27 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

We really have copy and paste them here? The article: medical studies contradict the claim that foreskin impacts sexual function. Cite's quote: medical studies do not support circumcision as having a negative impact on sexual function. The paraphrase is fine. MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously original research, but I digress. The organization we actually specifically name is the WHO, which says “there are many myths about male circumcision that circulate. For example, some people think that circumcision can cause impotence (failure of erection) or reduce sexual pleasure… Let me assure you that none of these is true”. The WHO only addresses specific sexual functions (i.e. pleasure, erection, etc.), not sexual function as a whole. And they certainly do not address foreskin & sexual function. Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference. It would be akin to changing “The foreskin helps to provide sufficient skin during an erection. The foreskin protects the glans. In infants, it protects the glans from ammonia and feces in diapers, which reduces the incidence of meatal stenosis. And the foreskin helps prevent the glans from getting abrasions and trauma throughout life” to “Circumcision results in insufficient skin during an erection. Circumcision exposes the glans. In infants, it exposes the glans to ammonia and feces in diapers, which increases the incidence of meatal stenosis. And circumcision makes the glans more vulnerable to getting abrasions and trauma throughout life.”

Prcc27 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

No. The equivalent change would be something like: There is still sufficient skin during an erection after the foreskin is removed., etc., etc. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on you to get consensus for inclusion. This information is already on the circumcision article, which seems like a more appropriate place for inclusion. I do think there is merit to my WP:OR arguments, and to say it isn’t original research is a stretch. Prcc27 (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that there is consensus for inclusion - consensus need not be unanimous. MrOllie (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not consensus. Whether intentional or not @Bon courage: is tipping toeing around my OR concerns. Bon courage, nobody is debating whether the source is “good” or not. Abusing good sources to make claims not said in the good sources is original research. Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a non-difference difference; why not say "removal of the foreskin by circumcision" or somesuch then? Bon courage (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That wording would be better. But still might go against the consensus to keep sentences about circumcision to a minimum. The sentence would fit better in the society and culture section, it is pov-pushy to have it in the (foreskin) function section. Prcc27 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

What "consensus" ? Bon courage (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the “Multiple bias issues” section in the archives. You even said it yourself that “There should only be a few sentences on circumcision (linking to the main articles) unless the foreskin is the explicit distinct subject”. Funny how you’re singing a different tune now. The foreskin is not the explicit distinct subject in the sources FWIW. Prcc27 (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't think there's anything there weighty enough to be adjudged a 'consensus'. I'm not entirely sure my youthful self was entirely right about this, but even so what we have fits nicely into the 'few sentences' proviso. So all good. Bon courage (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Other editors, like Piccco, often cite that discussion. It has definitely been the de facto consensus on this page. Would be sad if this longstanding consensus changed, I think it would lead to more chaos. Prcc27 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, we don't want this becoming a POVFORK, I'd agree. But otherwise, it's difficult to cover the foreskin topic without some circumcision content, in due proportion. Let's get the balance right. Bon courage (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the current situation

I didn't know where to start so I decided to make a general good-faith comment about the whole situation.

Consensus: Since last year, there was consensus that this page would almost completely avoid discusions on topics that are a permanent source of controversy (these are: sexual function, sensitivity, circumcision). This consensus was introduced by @KlayCax himself and apparently it had worked well and there was generally no major edit-war for a long time in this page. That is why, when Klay removed some content last year, it was respected and noone tried to bring back anything similar. I wanna ask KlayCax; was this consensus not respected?

The only thing that several users like myself, Prcc17, Thelisteninghand, Neveselbert etc. unanimously asked was the removal of that one sentence. That was all. Many of us felt like its existance there was unnecessary and pov, since according to our concensus, and as I explained here, the page was supposed to avoid discussing sensitivity at all. Was it so hard to make one compromisation for the sake of consensus? That was basically the only thing left causing objections. That is because the article did not discuss about sexual function of the foreskin, so this sentence alone was an old left over.

*If the reason all this started was the last sentence referencing 'sensitivity' in the "function" section, that could very simply be removed as well. I am sure that if someone explained this, there could have been an agreement on that, since indeed the consensus was that we would avoid these mentions in the function section.

Evolution: Since last year, the evolution section was the only one that none of us ever touched. I guess because it seemed like that was the section that could be dedicated to these discussions. (It's worth noting that Neveserlbert was anaware of our last year's discussions and consensus and arrived here much later so he simply couldn't have known all these things)

Misunderstandings: As I read here, KlayCax feared that some editors would attemt to make implications about the sexual function of circumciced men. This saddens me a lot because, as I explained here, I don't believe that anyone would edit with that motive. In fact, I believe that most users edit based on how they themselves feel about something, rather than what they want others to feel. Sometimes editors from both sides of an argument might forget to look through the other person's pov.

Close: What I alyways wanted from this page was a peaceful resolution that would generally be neutral and just keep editors from both sides satisfied. It seems like this is the only way that can guarantee there wouldn't be more controversies and edit-wars in the future. So far, it seemed like the last year's consensus could work and was the only way this page could avoid edit-wars (since this is the first major edit-war in a whole year and maybe could've potentially been avoided with discussion). Piccco (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The best way to avoid edit wars is - not to edit war. Obviously sensitivity is a facet of knowledge around this topic which is legitimate to cover, and not WP:LOCALCON can thwart that. Bon courage (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not against sensitivity being covered. I do think what was added to the article is trivia though. Also, this is an article about foreskin, but for some reason we are using sources about circumcision and sensitivity to make original research conclusions about foreskin and sensitivity. Prcc27 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There's quite a lot in the article about circumcision. I think cutting this material is bad - but perhaps a word tweak? Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

“There's quite a lot in the article about circumcision.” Yes, that’s what concerns me. We run the risk of having the same issues on this article that we did before. Especially if we are going to insert statements about circumcision in sections that are supposed to be about foreskin. Prcc27 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The foreskin and circumcision are inextricably linked. Even sections of the article that do not currently mention circumcision cite sources that do mention it - to the point that a large portion of the references section contains sources with 'circumcision' in the title. If there is some return of these 'issues', an application of WP:DR (perhaps an RFC) will surely resolve them. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

We already have a section for content regarding circumcision. The consensus was to keep the circumcision section brief, and keep circumcision related sentences out of the other sections. We also agreed to make this article compliant with WP:ANATMOS, but now we are using POV-pushy titles like “Function and effects of removal”, instead of just “Function” as recommended per WP:ANATMOS. Prcc27 (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, this is WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus changes all the time, and there are very few binding decisions - and those come about because of a well attended RFC, not because a handful of people made a deal in a talk page section between themselves. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You might have a point if there was an actual consensus for your proposed change. Nobody “made a deal”, we (including Bon Courage) saw that there were issues with this article, and formed a consensus to improve the article. That is what Wikipedia is all about. Prcc27 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Although I am supportive, I did not introduce this change (nor am I the only person supporting it), please do not assign me credit I have not earned. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And I am not the only person who opposes the change, so please do not insinuate that I am the only person that does. Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Mr.Ollie, I believe that what Prcc27 asked is not really anything controversial. In fact, it seems very logical that content regarding circumcision would be included in a section that it dedicated solely to that topic. Don't you think? Piccco (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is logical, for the reasons I just gave a few lines above. MrOllie (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, generally I try to understand and respect opinions, even though I believe that things here are pretty simple. I also stated below why I believe that this small change is logical and not really anything controversial. Piccco (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, its is true that a lot of times those topics are linked in the literature. The focus however is on the content that we derive from those sources, and not necessarily their title or their general focus. I also thought that the sentence that refers to the effects of circumcision is clealry more related to the procedure itself, and less to the "function" of the foreskin. That is why I could also see it more fitting in the circumcision section, since each one of those sources and specifically their quotes clearly talk about circumcision, and do not really talk about the foreskin, let alone discuss its functions. I can see why this is closely related, but they are still not exactly the same thing. For example, sources can say that "bald people are perfectly healthy and normal" (which is the truth), which would not be the same as saying "hair doesn't have a function on the human scalp" or something like that. You see what I mean? It is easy to understand this disctinction. Piccco (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Overall, it's a judgement call, we don't want a COATRACK, but on the other hand the answer is not to remove all of the content on circumcision and regeneration, since there is a some legitimate overlap. What I'm seeing with the current text is in accord with that overlap. Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Even when I moved it to a different section, rather than remove it entirely, I still got reverted. The circumcision content belongs in the circumcision section, otherwise, it comes off as pov-pushing. Prcc27 (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not 'pov-pushing' to write about sexual function in the function section. MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

It is when you change the title/scope of the section, and use weasel words so that the original claim about circumcision and function fits your pov about foreskin and function. Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree the section title was changed, I submit that changing a section title doesn't equate to pov pushing either. The rest of that isn't happening here, so we're fine there. MrOllie (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

“Foreskin removal with circumcision” is redundant and weasel wording. We already explain what circumcision is in the article, so its only purpose is to advance a POV. WP:WEASEL warns against “sentence stuffing: they may make a sentence longer without carrying any information.” Prcc27 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems wrong. It's not a "sentence" and there nothing weaselly about it; rather, it's specific. But, no biggie. Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say it was a sentence.. You are stuffing a sentence by twisting a claim that is actually about circumcision and function, and weasel word it so that you can justify having the sentence in the foreskin function section, even though it is not related to that. Prcc27 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Passes WP:V just fine, and the claim it's not "related" seems illogical. Bon courage (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah indeed, we did not say that content on circumcision cannot be included, since there is some overlap. Our point was that it is more logical to include the content that is related to circumcision in the section that is dedicated to the procedure itself. If content is spread all over the article, there is a danger of the article becoming a coatrack. That's all. Piccco (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is quite simply the US pov and I can't be part of that - wish it were possible to flag for readers. The fingertips must have sexual sensitivity???? Red. Herring. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Canadian and European medical organizations have similar statements. KlayCax (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ethics of circumcision

It looks like a user opposes the wording “the ethics of circumcision in children is a source of controversy”. I do not see what is problematic with this. Virtually nobody is saying “do not mention circumcision in the foreskin article *at all*”. Ethics is clearly pertinent to society, so I think it fits well in a section about culture and society. Not to mention, the sentence is concise so no WP:UNDUE issues. No objections were raised when I initially suggested the wording at the talk a while back. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax: says “I and several other editors did oppose it.” Who? I am not aware of any users that oppose this sentence (please do not ping them). FWIW, a user “thanked” me for restoring the sentence. “Circumcision may also be performed on children or adults to treat phimosis, balanitis, and other pathologies” has nothing significantly less to do with society and culture, so seems POV-pushy for you to remove a circumcision sentence that is about society and culture (i.e. the ethics section), but leave a circumcision sentence that is only mainly background information in that section. Prcc27 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Because it's not mainstream enough to warrant inclusion.

From the sources listed:

• The first is an article entitled Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault? from Gregory J. Boyle and a few other anti-circumcision activists. ("Intactivists"). The article itself is published in the low-impact journal The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. The paper itself claims that circumcision is "physical and sexual abuse", "male genital mutilation", and has "no clearly demonstrable medical benefits" regardless of location. All of these claims are outrageously WP: Fringe in the literature. (See Martha Nussbaum in Sex and Social Justice, et al. in terms of comparing male circumcision to FGM; see policy statements from major medical organizations on HIV transmission in high risk areas.) Incredibly, the paper also implies that "gender differences may arise from circumcision-induced behavioral changes" and that Circumcision causes behavioral and neurological changes, diminished self-esteem and body images, self deficits, and often lifelong circumcision-related stress. Many men see themselves as deformed or harmed by male genital mutilation [e.g. circumcision], causing enduring psychological damage. Many circumcised men suffer ongoing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. These are all extraordinary claims to put it lightly. I came across a video of Boyle speaking about the subject in apparently relation to the article here. Boyle himself states that there isn't a widespread, mainstream controversy about the topic. Just that there should be. That's a big difference.
• There's similar massive problems with the 2nd or 3rd citations.

Reputable sources — such as Lost Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security by Charli Carpenter — have overwhelmingly described the dispute within major medical organizations as being predominately over routine, prophylactic circumcision within developed countries. They have described ethical controversies over it being relatively fringe: This chapter describes the origins, claims, and tactics of the “intactivist” movement—a growing coalition of advocacy groups that aim to define infant male circumcision as a human rights violation—and documents the process by which powerful human rights organizations have exercised “agenda denial,” and provides some insight into why intactivist claims have not resonated with organizations at the center of the human rights network.. Carpenter describes ethical controversies of circumcision as being fringe within mainstream culture and "rejected by human rights gatekeepers." KlayCax (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We do not mention any of their “fringe” viewpoints in the article though. Just like we cite Brian Morris, but do not mention his fringe viewpoints (i.e. circumcision should be compulsory for all boys, circumcision is akin to a vaccine, etc.) Let’s ignore that source for a moment though; we also cite the British Medical Association, a major medical organization. Why are you removing content based on alleged issues of only one of the sources? The BMA seems reliable enough for inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Because it's predominately not talking about societal controversy. I wouldn't be against something like "major medical organizations have differing views on routine circumcision in developed countries". KlayCax (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The source literally says that “strongly opposing views about circumcision are found within society”. Pretty clear that the ethics are indeed relevant to society, according to the source… Prcc27 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course there are "strongly opposing views about circumcision within society". A mention of it in a 2006 BMA policy statement shouldn't be surprising. This chapter in Lost Causes: Agenda Vetting in Global Issue Networks and the Shaping of Human Security goes into the present cultural, social, and ethical situation surrounding circumcision in developed societies. The author, Carli Carpenter, concludes that it's relatively a fringe controversy in modern Western societies and among human rights organizations. The philosopher Martha Nussbaum has said similar, starting with Sex & Social Justice in 1999, and then with subsequent works. KlayCax (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. So then what is the problem here? Your source does not negate the fact that the ethics of circumcision of boys is controversial. Our article does not say that circumcision is unethical, so I am not seeing what your issue is. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Because there isn't significant, substantial controversy over it within broader culture or society to warrant it on a page that isn't supposed to be about circumcision.

There's controversy about many medical procedures to some extent. KlayCax (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Many medical organizations acknowledge that it is controversial. Hell, I bet even the AAP does. But like I said before, the ethics sentence has more to do with society and culture, than the sentence about Circumcision treating “phimosis, balanitis, and other pathologies”. Prcc27 (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The (poorly-worded) sentence is simply saying that it's rarely used as a treatment for certain pathological conditions. I think the wording could be modified. KlayCax (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it is poorly worded or actually intended to be worded that way. But we would need to be careful about violating WP:OR, if we change the wording. Rewording it just to prevent the ethics sentence from being included is the wrong way of going about things though. Prcc27 (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Poorly worded in the sentence of "could be phrased better". Not "incorrect grammar".

If routine circumcision was banned in a country I think it would warrant inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 07:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

No. That is absolutely not the threshold for a section on society and culture. The threshold is “does it have an impact on society?” It clearly does. Prcc27 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Explaining in the article why circumcision is done (culture, treatment, etc.) but not explaining why many parents do not do it (e.g. ethics) is a POV issue. Prcc27 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The threshold is “does it have an impact on society?” It clearly does Not a widespread one. Everything has an "impact on society" to some extent. If you walked up complaining about circumcision to the average person. Do you think the average person would take it seriously? Carpenter and Nussbaum have both described it as fringe. The same goes for Boyle. KlayCax (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, many parents don't circumcise their sons.

However, this is usually under the belief - I'd say majority in the medical community - that it has no significant prophylactic effect in developed nations. Not ethics. KlayCax (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It has a wide enough impact on society for major medical organizations to acknowledge it. Calling major medical organizations “fringe” is laughable. Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't seriously believe there's widespread social controversy over circumcision. Do you? Reliable sources label it fringe - including Boyle himself.

What's being disputed here? KlayCax (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

A brief mention in a 2006 paper by the BMA doesn't change that. KlayCax (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

All a controversy means is that there is a disagreement. How is a disagreement on the ethics fringe? The fact that some people think being against circumcision is “fringe” is part of the controversy/disagreement on the ethics. Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Because strong emotions about circumcision is relatively fringe. Reliable sources state it is. The wording implies that the ethics are the main source of opposition. That's not true. The main source of opposition is the majority viewpoint that it's an ineffective intervention in developed nations. There's a difference. KlayCax (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

How is an emotion fringe? Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are definitely a few semi-well-known anti-circumcision groups, but it's a relatively small thing compared to say, the opposition to female circumcision in developing countries, even though there is a bit of controversy about male circumcision as well. I remember reading about it on this page in an earlier iteration and I imagine it's in the many page histories here. Yeah, it's somewhat controversial, but certainly a pretty small movement compared to most other social issues of the day. That being said, it is certainly the case that there is a difference of opinion amongst ethicists and biomedical experts as to whether routine neonatal circumcision is a) necessary/effective, or b) ethical given that children do not have the ability to choose whether they will be subjected to the procedure. Anyway, emotions don't play into it. The question is what sources are being offered. Do we have any that are being offered to substantiate this? Andre🚐 01:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Here's probably the best resource about social attitudes. Both Martha Nussbaum and Carli Carpenter have described it as fringe.

  I (and other editors - I believe) wouldn't have an objections if it stated something like: "there are variant views about routine circumcision" or something similar. KlayCax (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Something like "Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the prophylactic efficacy of the elective circumcision of minors" would be permissible + good to have in the article in my opinion. KlayCax (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think the current wording works better for a section about society. Prcc27 (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  The BMA source is the one currently being used in this article. I have not yet perused other sources, but there may be some at the ethics of circumcision page. Prcc27 (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Does Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on the elective circumcision of minors in developed countries work?

  That seems indisputable, comprehensive, and neutral. @Bon courage: @Andrevan: @MrOllie:. @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Something like Major medical organizations hold variant perspectives on routine circumcision in developed countries would also work. KlayCax (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  It works, but nowhere near as well as the status quo, per my statement above. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  1.) It gives WP: Undue attention to ethics 2.) Leaves out discussions surrounding prophylactic efficacy.

  Are you okay with the wording? I wouldn't revert the proposed sentence. (And I'm assuming Andre, Prcc, and MrOllie would also be okay with it, although I'm going to wait on them.) KlayCax (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

  Though the wording seems to work, it's still not exactly the same. First of all, it might be a bit too vague to convey any point; while the opinions may slightly differ in the risk/benefit ratio, there is still consensus by almost all, I think, medical organizations that routine infant circ. is not a recomendation in developed countries. Not much of a variety of opinions. Besides that, the section "society and culture" discusses not only opinions of medical organizations, but society as well. For example, the Canadian Paediatric Society, calls the procedure a "contentious issue in Canada" and says it "[...]often raises ethical and legal considerations". In the last decade, there have been some major controversies around infant circumcsion all over the world: The 2011 San Francisco attempted ban, the Denmark opinion poll and attempted ban, the Iceland attempted ban, the Germany attempted ban, the 2013-15 Council of Europe controversy, during which infant circ. was described as one of “religious practices [that] remain controversial within national communities” and that may “provoke tensions.“ These obviously aren't just some "fringe" events, but are only some of the examples that reflect the tendencies in various societies and organizations regarding the topic. Piccco (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think, medical organizations that routine infant circ. is not a recomendation in developed countries. No, you raise a good point. This issue is a bit sticky for a few reasons. It is partially because several religions have strong opinions against body modifications. A recommendation could be seen as infringing upon religious liberty. It is also because certain statements from (predominately) American and the WHO have been interpreted as de facto recommendations but to what extent they actually are is heavily controversial. My personal interpretation is that they don't recommend it per se. But de facto encourage hospitals to heavily recommend (or more negatively, push it) upon parents.

  The AMA statement on 2023 that was just released is a good case of this.

  The 2011 San Francisco attempted ban Which never came to a vote due to overwhelming opposition among Democratic politicians in the state. It would have also likely failed overwhelmingly from the reliable sources that I've seen. A large majority of Americans are neonatally circumcised. the Denmark opinion poll and attempted ban, the Iceland attempted ban, the Germany attempted ban, the 2013-15 Council of Europe controversy None of which were passed and the proposals have been generally rejected by an overwhelming amount of votes in their respective parliaments. I'm not disputing that among certain individuals in the Nordics (among heavily secularized nations) and Eastern Europe (among various right-wing nationalists: where it is seen as a foreign practice of Muslims and Jews) that it is not opposed. Yet for the most part even their mainstream parties have not gone along with it.

  These obviously aren't just some "fringe" events The proposed San Francisco ban was the subject of jokes in media. Yes, all of the above happened, but I don't think it's notable enough for an article that's not supposed to be about circumcision in the first place. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described ethical opposition to circumcision as predominately fringe. (Where most opposition is confined to the academic literature surrounding the strength of its prophylactic effect.) "Intactivist" leaders have also described their own movement as fringe to various extents. (Even in areas where these beliefs have the highest levels of support.)

  Beyond this, there has also been significant debate about adult circumcision. KlayCax (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  No. The San Francisco proposed ban was struck from the ballot for preemption reasons and for an (IMO erroneous) interpretation of the First Amendment. The opposition from politicians had nothing to do with it. FWIW, circumcision was actually illegal in the Cologne area of Germany, until a law was passed to overturn the judicial ruling. If the section was only about law, maybe the failed proposals would doom its inclusion in the section. But citizens’ proposals seem to directly relate to society. After all, it was the citizens of Denmark that forced their Parliament via petition to consider a ban in the first place. Prcc27 (talk) 05:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Prcc27 I don't see why the both of you don't just combine your edits...Neither statement contradicts the other. Man-Man122 (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I’m open to that compromise, but then we run the risk of having this article become a coatrack. Prcc27 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Prcc27 In my opinion, I don't think it would, but I can see the worry. Man-Man122 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Man-Man, you might be right, I can consider this too. After all, both sentences are relatively short so there wouldn't be a big risk of a coatrack. Piccco (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  The opposition from politicians had nothing to do with it. Is there any good evidence that it would pass? I fail to extrapolate how a ballot measure in one city means that something isn't WP: Fringe. But citizens’ proposals seem to directly relate to society. A lot of proposals get on the ballot every year. It doesn't mean that the issue itself has widespread approval. If reliable sources state that it is a WP: Fringe position within the vast majority of Western societies. Then it's an obvious question of weight. While many people don't circumcise, that's often just because - like most doctors in developed countries - they see it as unnecessary for health reasons.

  Not because it's a gross, horrific mutilation like some editors here are implying. KlayCax (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  KlayCax, yes I am aware about those events, but I don't see anything new here. The point remains the same; I have listed several major controversies that occured in the previous decade, which were centered around the ethics of the procedure and reached as high as national parliaments, or even higher: the Council of Europe. The latter, thought it allowed it, still lists circ. among the "specific categories of violation of children’s physical integrity"(1). So, that there is controversy in society cannot be doubted. Numerous medical organizations have also made statements (some more mild, others harsh) on the ethics of the procedure. The parenting website supported by the Australian goverment also raises similar considerations, and I already cited the statement from the Canadian Paediatric Society above. Piccco (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's a question of WP: Weight. Wikipedia already has a problem with being slanted towards the views of white, irreligious, college-educated individuals from the Global North. (e.g. Who are significantly more likely to favor autonomistic conceptions of morality over communitarianism.) This suggested addition would make the slant even worse. I don't think anyone can dispute that the debate surrounding circumcision is primarily prophylactic rather than ethical.

  Circumcision is not as a significant ethical - in the sense of being seen as wrong - issue in the vast majority of societies. (Outside of perhaps the Nordics and Denmark.)

  Even self-described "intactivists" don't describe their views as being mainstream. I recommend that you check this chapter out. KlayCax (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, but the article does not say “circumcision is wrong”. No, it is not just a Northern European issue. Piccco cited a Canadian organization. The AAP’s task force had a whole section on ethics, in which they said “reasonable people may disagree, however, as to what is in the best interest of any individual patient or how the potential medical benefits and potential medical harms of circumcision should be weighed against each other”. “Reasonable people”? That doesn’t sound like a fringe viewpoint to me– hmm… Prcc27 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Doesn’t sound like a fringe viewpoint to me Opposition to routine circumcision isn't fringe. There's a difference between that and so-called "intactivism". The latter is a fringe movement that accused circumcised individuals of being mutilated, being sexually dysfunctional, among other claims rejected by medical professionals, while it is within the mainstream to see a lack of prophylactic benefit in developed countries.

  They're two different things. KlayCax (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  This article makes no mention of mutilation, and the sentence in question does not say anything about “sexual dysfunction”. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  The medical use of the procedure is already discussed in the article. Ethics is undoubtedly something that is always brought up when medical organizations talk about infant male circumcision; I have included all of them above and gave a few quotes that make this clear as examples. This is not about "intactivists" running around in America. They are statements made from and events involving major medical bodies from all over the world. Plus, mentioning ethics is not saying "circ. is wrong"; the article does not do that. Piccco (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Reliable sources indicate that it's not widespread, however. We don't use this language for the gender-affirming care or breast-reduction articles. (Despite significantly more controversy.)

  Wikipedia is supposed to take a global perspective. KlayCax (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Neither of those articles are about anatomy, so WP:ANATMOS would not apply. Although I do think the gender-affirming care article should possibly touch on political and ethical controversies. Ethics of circumcision is a global consideration. Prcc27 (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Textbook source

Hello everyone. I made some fixes to the currently disputed paragraph in the Function section, but apparently a user opposed my edits..? Here are some of the changes I made:

1. I reworded "Anti-circumcision activists claim that the foreskin is functionally significant for sexual pleasure" to "Anti-circumcision activists claim that the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure."
2. I changed "claim" to "claimed".

Justifications:

1. This is a no-brainer, my reworded sentence better reflects what the source actually says: "anticircumcision groups claim that presence of the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure". How can user(s) say "follow the source" and "back to what the source says", but revert me when I reword the sentence so that it mirrors the source?
2. The source is from 2007, so we should not be saying this in present tense.

Prcc27 (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this should be past tense of course. My edit on this sentence was reverted also and I understand why. BUT - it must be true that others who are not activists also make this claim. If it were true that only activists believe this then the entire issue would exist only in the US but 70% of men globally are not circumcised. There is no "intactivism" outside of the US as there is virtually no circumcision, beyond religion, therefore it is not a politicised issue. This is not a medical source but I offer it for illustration, Dutch men who are not activists report: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-male-circumcision-idUSBRE91D1CO20130214 This article is far, far too US-centric. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Every source used on Wikipedia is 'in the past'. Judgement must be used but there is no reason to put things in the past tense unless there is reason to believe (from RS, for example) that information is dated. An encyclopedia is a compendium of accepted knowledge, not some kind of dashboard into a supposed present. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

True. The greater problem lies with the politicisation by using the word 'activist'. Here's another source not from 'activists' but from the British Journal of Urology: https://web.archive.org/web/20200717115531/https://foreskinrestoration.info/images-Foreskin%20Restoration/Touch%20Test-BJU.pdf I would greatly prefer a more general term to activist - I had used 'some' which is inclusive both of the source and other medical organisations. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the authors of that source is from "National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers" (NOCIRC) which is literally an activist group. MrOllie (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand How about “anti-circumcision organizations”? That is actually more in line with the source’s wording. “Activists” seems like the wrong word here. Prcc27 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Bon courage reverted me and said “As per Talk, it's activists”. Where on this talk did we agree to that POV-pushy wording..? Prcc27 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't think I going to bother to engage with that obtuse framing. See above. Bon courage (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Framing? The source says “anticircumcision groups”, and you twisted the wording to say “activists” which seems POV-pushy. Prcc27 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate paraphrasing (which is what we are supposed to do) is not twisting the wording. MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Especially since the source goes on to explain they are active in doing things (like lobbying). If we said 'terrorists' I could understand it, but I'm at a loss to see why this word is so triggering. These folk even refer to themselves as 'intactivists' FFS! Bon courage (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Groups -> organizations is a better paraphrase because they are actual synonyms. There is no reason to use politically charged wording, even if some members of those groups embrace the label. Not all of those groups listed play a huge “activist” role; foreskin restoration organizations are less politically active. Prcc27 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What has politics got to do with it? Simply rogeting words is not paraphrasing but WP:CLOP. Read the entire source and try to convey the meaning in your own words (we actually need more from this source, like the female preference material). Bon courage (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

'Advocate' is just plain wrong. Advocates argue in support of something - you don't see 'anti-<whatever> advocates'. MrOllie (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You are all missing the point, if I may say so. It is not the issue as to how we refer to certain organisations in the US. People who think that the foreskin has a function are, if asked, all men with a foreskin. Men with foreskins may not be described in an encyclopedia as being 'anti-circumcision'. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that. Please argue with people who are actually here, not some straw man. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me, I am restating the obvious of course. 70% not circumcised is hardly fringe but the views of anti-circumcision groups may be. We need clarity not obfuscation. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Surely the point is that most people don't go around making claims (or even holding formed opinions) about the function of the foreskin. Outside of anatomists, it's pretty much only anti-circ campaigners, no? Bon courage (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

On "anti-circumcision activist wording"

I don't think "anti-circumcision activists" are the only individuals who believe this. It is commonly believed in parts of Africa that circumcision increases sexual pleasure, many Western countries associate it with the opposite, and so on and so forth, so I don't really think it would be wise to include that wording. Couldn't we just say something like: "there are common misconceptions that it heightens or lessens pleasure"? @Prcc27: @Bon courage:. KlayCax (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Follow the knowledge in the source. I would be opposed to putting "only anti-circumcision activists", We don't have a source for this being a "commmon" misconception. It's quite niche surely? Bon courage (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the textbook and WHO sentences could be consolidated into KlayCax’s wording, and that would be more concise. But we should probably wait for the RfC to be closed before exploring this. Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that there are sources that could be found as evidence for a reworded statement. But until someone actually finds such a source, we shouldn't go beyond what the sources we do have say.

(Also for the record: I would be in favor of rephrasing to "anti-circumcision organizations" because I feel like in this context "activists" is approaching WP:LABEL status. In general, if there's some wording that's unambiguously neutral and some wording that seems maybe biased we should go with the neutral wording unless we have some very good reason not to.) Loki (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Loki The WHO source already in the paragraph seems to support KlayCax’s wording.. I think “Anti-circumcision activists claim that the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure, but such claims are not supported by good evidence. In 2009, the World Health Organization called it a ‘myth’ that circumcision has any adverse effect on sexual pleasure. The view is echoed by other major medical organizations.” being condensed down to “there are common misconceptions that circumcision heightens or lessens pleasure” would be a significant improvement to the article. I do oppose both versions being included though per my comments at the RfC, but a compromise is better than nothing. And of course, also per the RfC, this does not belong in the function section of the article. I agree that the “activist” wording is too contentious, and yes, it does seem to go against the spirit of WP:LABEL. Prcc27 (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Loses information about the people suffering from (/promoting) this misconception (the anti-circ activists). So long as we find some way to keep that we're good I think. Bon courage (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what “suffering” has to do with anything.. The information is already covered in the concise proposal, just without the WP:UNDUE stuff about a small number of (mainly American) anti-circumcision organizations. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not undue, it's germane, and a theme of that (good) source. People 'suffer' from misconceptions - idiom innit. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Yeah actually: not only that but another of our sources attributes it to parents of newborns, and another one attributes it to high school students. I think that given that, we really shouldn't attribute it to anyone specific. Loki (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Better, to all three! (but in fact there's a difference between being on the receiving end of the falsehood and being on the propaganda end, so there is that. Furthermore, LokiTheLiar is using circumcision-centric sources, and the consensus on this article has been not to do that, as they are off topic - please stick to sources that focus on the foreskin.) Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

”LokiTheLiar is using circumcision-centric sources, and the consensus on this article has been not to do that, as they are off topic - please stick to sources that focus on the foreskin.” Okay, so why have you been pushing so hard for the “the World Health Organization called it a ‘myth’ that circumcision has any adverse effect on sexual pleasure. The view is echoed by other major medical organizations.” sentences? The WHO source, and the other sources are circumcision-centric sources. Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, if we should remove these sources, then we should also remove them from the section which asserts it's a myth that the foreskin is important for pleasure.

But second, my understanding is that the local consensus is that the text of this page should not focus on circumcision, not that we can't use sources that are about circumcision if they mention the foreskin. Arbitrarily excluding specific sources definitely is against the spirit of WP:V and WP:RS, if not the letter. Loki (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Some folks have been very inconsistent on that point. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

In respect to the latest attempted changes, there is clearly no consensus for something like 'heightens or lessens pleasure', or for stripping out who it is that is making the claims, or for claiming that the misconceptions are 'common'. MrOllie (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus on stripping out who is making the claim. Thelisteninghand supported replacing anti-circumcision activists with something like “some people”, KlayCax and Loki support the common misconception wording, Piccco also expressed opposition to the “anti-circumcision activist” wording. The onus is on you to get consensus, being out !voted 5-2 usually means you don’t have consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Cobbling together different objections and statements about different things does not add up to rewriting the article however you like. MrOllie (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Piccco and Thisteninghand could clarify if they are okay with the “there are common misconceptions that it heightens or lessens pleasure” wording? But in all honesty, there was never any consensus for the “anti-circumcision activists” wording that was pushed in the article. Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to follow the sources. There may be misconceptions about circumcision (and it seems odd that editors are doing a volte face and now want to talk about circumcision in this article), but the anti-circers are making claims specifically about the function of the foreskin (which is precisely on topic). That's what the best sources say, so that's what Wikipedia says. It just seems totally bizarre that in the quite short article, editors want to omit this knowledge. Why? We should be expanding the article with good sources, not triaging stuff. Bon courage (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Ummm… not really. The WHO sentence is about circumcision, not foreskin. I already stated that the WHO sentence and the textbook sentence can both be removed entirely and replaced with KlayCax’s wording. I thought about being BOLD and doing that, but I just went ahead with the edit that I felt was most likely to have consensus. No, it does not matter if our “best sources” talk about anti-circumcision groups. We are under no obligation to include trivia in the article. This was already explained to you at the RfC, and not just by me. Prcc27 (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there any sources that complain about “misinformation” from ‘anti-circumcision activists’, aside from an old textbook source (and maybe a Brian Morris source here and there)? We generally look for a pattern in the literature to determine if it is WP:DUE. The source is actually probably an outlier when it comes to its fixation on anti-circumcision organizations. Prcc27 (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Usually one good MEDRS source is enough to support content in an article which is way short of decent length. Why this laser-focus on one bit of knowledge? The entire reason for the textbook source is because editors were complaining the WHO sources wasn't ultra-specific to the foreskin. But now we have a source that explicitly discusses foreskin function, editors don't like that either. WTF? Bon courage (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure MEDRS matters when talking about the viewpoint of “activists”. Either way, clearly most users feel it is not enough. The function section is fine without the MEDDATED WHO circumcision viewpoint and the textbook’s trivia on anti-circumcision groups. Also, at least one user at the RfC said that the sentence about anti-circumcision groups’ view of foreskin is actually still about circumcision. Regardless, there is nothing inconsistent about wanting the function section to adhere to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course, MEDRS is an over-strength standard for talking about activists (so not an issue). A WP:LOCALCON cannot overcome the need for WP:NPOV. That means reflecting what sources say. We have a source (finally) directly on foreskin function, and now some editors don't want to reflect what it says. That's a problem. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Any reference to circumcision should be in the modifications section. Reading through the article it comes as a surprise to the reader, the circumcision references appear suddenly in the function section with no previous mention. The reason I wikified the 'anti-circumcision activists' reference is that readers outside of the US may have no idea what an 'anti circumcision activist' is (I didn't for one). It is also inconsistent as we cite the WHO as saying enhancing sexual pleasure may be a function. We should be clear and not confusing - we state there is debate, controversy, insufficient evidence. That does not translate to 'misconception' and the sources for other views are not restricted to US campaign groups clearly, and includes MEDRS. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/131/4/796/31907/Cultural-Bias-in-the-AAP-s-2012-Technical-Report?redirectedFrom=fulltext Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be reworded or removed.

Compared to other hairless skin areas on the body, the Meissner's index was highest in the finger tip (0.96) and lowest in the foreskin (0.28) which suggested that the foreskin has the least sensitive hairless tissue of the body.

This is (probably unintentionally) misleading. "The least sensitive hairless tissue", with a comparatively low value, on a first-time reading seemed to me that the sentence was trying to imply that it is not sensitive at all. Obviously, that's not what's actually being said, but there's an innate human instinct/psychological phenomenon to read "least something" (in a specific catagory) and think "its either weak or nonexistent" (as general statement). To avoid edit warring which has been a perennial problem in this article, I'm going to ask before changing.

Compared to other hairless skin areas on the body, the Meissner's index was highest in the finger tip (0.96) and lowest in the foreskin (0.28). This implies that out of all measured hairless areas according to the criteria, the foreskin measures the lowest.

Obviously this can be CE'd to reduce redundancy, but it removes the innate false implication one might get. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There are a few problems there. First, 'implies' is incorrect - it isn't implied, it is directly stated. 'According to the criteria' and 'measured/measures' are redundant - that is true of every experimentally verified fact, but we don't write that 'the sky is blue in those areas we have measured'. Correcting those flaws would leave us with Compared to other hairless skin areas on the body, the Meissner's index was highest in the finger tip (0.96) and lowest in the foreskin (0.28). Out of all hairless areas, the foreskin scores the lowest. Accurate, I suppose, but I still find the original version preferable because it is more clear. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Except the information being used source does not state that it is not sensitive in general, they state it is less sensitive than those regions. That isn't the same thing.

"Out of all vehicles, getting hit by a train breaks the most bones and getting hit by a bike has the least chance of breaking bones"

This doesn't mean you 100% won't break a bone if you stand in front of a bike.

The problem boils down to innate human psychology and the vagueness of what "hairless tissue" is. That needs to be further defined, and the criteria needs to be clarified as well, so it is not misinterpreted as a general statement as given by you interpreting "not sensitive at all" as being directly stated.

Also, "not sensitive at all" is directly stated? The source does not even come close to backing that up. Not only that, but the very existence of those receptors contradicts that. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This "directly stated" quotation you give: "not sensitive at all" - where's it from? Bon courage (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Second sentence of User:MrOllie's reply - First, 'implies' is incorrect - it isn't implied, it is directly stated. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about the other bit, it comes from as I said in the new section, that its a psychological human phenomenon to see "least something" to mean "weak or nonexistent".

"Least fastest runner in the class" implies he's a slow runner.

What if it's the entire track team, and he's the 30th fastest at the entire school of say, a couple thousand?

It needs clarity. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry what? could you give a diff? Bon courage (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's in the OP.

This is (probably unintentionally) misleading. "The least sensitive hairless tissue", with a comparatively low value, on a first-time reading seemed to me that the sentence was trying to imply that it is not sensitive at all. Obviously, that's not what's actually being said, but there's an innate human instinct/psychological phenomenon to read "least something" (in a specific catagory) and think "its either weak or nonexistent" (as general statement). To avoid edit warring which has been a perennial problem in this article, I'm going to ask before changing. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If one were to walk into a car dealership (for example) and then ask to see the least expensive car for sale, would you expect that car to be free? MrOllie (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You know that's a poor analogy. It's about the juxtaposition. They say "This car has the weakest horsepower motor of the entire lot", you'd expect the car to be dogshit.

But you're at a hot rod dealership. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent illustration of the faulty reasoning going on here. But we should not change the article based on a single editor who is reading things into text that simply are not there. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How come? Why shouldn't we clarify something so that someone else the in future may not run into something that could be ambiguously worded?

You don't own the article. What basis in policy do you have for not making this change, for the betterment of the article, in making the wording more explicit? DarmaniLink (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that it is for the betterment of the article. We should not degrade the prose and make an article less clear (that is, worse) because one editor didn't understand a sentence. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You act like if only one person has a problem, only one person can have a problem.

I am trying to make it more clear, more explicit, due to the psychological phenomena, that may otherwise cause people to do a double read. Do you want people to have to read something twice to understand what is being said?

One might not know what exactly "hairless tissue" means, as it has not yet been fully or properly defined, and is not defined in the other linked article on the subject either.

Remember what I said - it does not have to be that wording exactly. As it currently stands, you would have to go back and add definitions, which is the wikiprose equivalent of an exposition dump in a cafe, or, you can add it all concisely in a single paragraph, with the context integrated into the prose. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I do think that you are trying to make it more clear, but that is not what your proposed change would actually accomplish, so we shouldn't do it. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, "not sensitive at all" is directly stated? No, the second sentence ("foreskin has the least sensitive hairless tissue") follows directly from the first. Something is only 'implied' if one must assume information not already given. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"foreskin has the least sensitive hairless tissue" is not foreskin is not sensitive at all

As I said, there's an innate human instinct/psychological phenomenon to read "least something" (in a specific catagory) and think "its either weak or nonexistent" (as general statement)

The wording of this sentence needs to change. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Since the article nowhere states foreskin is not sensitive at all, there is no problem here. Re: there's an innate human instinct/psychological phenomenon to read "least something" (in a specific catagory) and think "its either weak or nonexistent" (as general statement - yes, I understand that is the main point your argument is based on, but I do not believe that is a correct assumption. You've started with a faulty premise and arrived at a faulty conclusion. MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

implies' is incorrect - it isn't implied, it is directly stated

By your own admission, you say this. I am going to respectfully ask, now that we have established that this statement is implied, that you participate in how to reword this. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Quoting me out of context (twice!) is not going to somehow convince me that I actually agree with you - I don't. MrOllie (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

As I’ve stated before, I think the sentence is WP:UNDUE trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If the article is going to talk about nerves at all, it is highly relevant. MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The main problem is what this sentence leaves out and I edited it recently to make it read better. The prepuce contains many different nerves - some mentioned under "subcutaneous': As a continuation of the human shaft skin, the prepuce receives somatosensory innervation from the bilateral dorsal nerve of the penis and branches of the perineal nerve, and autonomic innervation from the pelvic plexus.[23][24] The somatosensory receptors that are found in the prepuce are both nociceptors and mechanoreceptors, with a predominace of Meissner's corpuscles.[23][25] Meissner's corpuscles are but part of the story then but we seem to attribute only these for sensitivity. The focus by Morris on Meissner's is therefore a partial view and his conclusion indeed only, QUOTE, a "suggestion". I don't know why something that provides a 'suggestion' is even in the article. Fingertips return no sexual pleasure and cannot generate an orgasm, as far as I know - difficult to cite. Clearly there's more to it than the sentence makes out. Morris's 'study' is a desktop analysis of studies. Very poor source imo. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC) Two quotes from source: "The scientific literature suggests.." and "loss of the prepuce by circumcision would appear.." We look for science of anatomy which I think this is not, it's an opinion. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This further proves my point about it being undue trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Seems like relevant anatomical knowledge, so very relevant here. Suggest raising at WT:MED is case of doubt, since there are many editors there with experience of writing anatomical content for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, with respect, anatomical knowledge does not take the form of suggestions. Question posted on WT:MED as suggested. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) I prefer this anatomical source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450466/ but it's not MEDRS apparently, I can't see why. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)