Talk:Foreskin/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Foreskin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Function policy statements RfC
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus to include some text about the sensitivity of the glans and its relation to foreskin or lack thereof somewhere in the article. There is no consensus if it should be in the function section, in a subsection, or in another location. There is no consensus over including phrasing specifically calling out anti-circumcision activists in the text about the effect, if any, of a foreskin's effect on the sensitivity of the glans. The concerns over coatracking are more convincing when discussing the role of activism in a section about the function of foreskin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Does this paragraph belong in the function section of the article: “According to a policy statement from the World Health Organization, it is a ‘myth’ that foreskin removal with circumcision has any adverse effect on sexual pleasure. The view is echoed by other major medical organizations.”?
Some users argue that it belongs in the function section, because circumcision and foreskin function are intertwined. Others argue that the sources referenced do not even reference foreskin function, and that perhaps this belongs in the circumcision subsection of our article or otherwise.
Please see the previous discussions on this issue to get a better understanding of the controversy: [1][2] Prcc27 (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. It should either be moved to the section in the article which talks about circumcision, or deleted entirely. The sources do not address foreskin function, they touch on circumcision and sensitivity. “Foreskin removal with circumcision” is WP:WEASEL wording that was added, to justify keeping it in the function section, instead of moving it to the circumcision section. We had issues in the past with sentences about circumcision being scattered throughout the article, and we do not want this article to become a coatrack again. Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Statements about sexual function can obviously appear in the section titled 'function'. The statement directly follows on from statements earlier in the section about the presence and sensitivity of nerve endings and their role in sexual pleasure. Nothing in the sentence falls afoul of WP:WEASEL - which is about vague wording and unsupported attribution. - MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:WEASEL is also about sentence stuffing “they may make a sentence longer without carrying any information.” We already define what circumcision is in the article, this redundant information is pov-pushing. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can not find the sentence you are quoting at WP:WEASEL. Maybe you mean to cite some other policy or essay? - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oops. It looks like I accidentally cited the Simple English guideline. Regardless, it is obvious that the redundant wording is being used to try to push a POV. Prcc27 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- What's the point of view? Medical organizations are pretty clear that:
- 1.) Circumcision isn't necessary in developed countries
- 2.) VMMC, at least among adults, reduces HIV in high transmission eras.
- 3.) There's no good evidence that suppose that circumcision significantly increases or decreases sexual function.
- 4.) They have widely variant views on aggregate effect. KlayCax (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax: None of that has anything to do with foreskin function, despite your personal POV that it does. Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The World Health Organization brings it up right after discussing foreskin function. It seems an odd division to state that effect of foreskin removal has no relation to function. KlayCax (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @KlayCax: None of that has anything to do with foreskin function, despite your personal POV that it does. Prcc27 (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oops. It looks like I accidentally cited the Simple English guideline. Regardless, it is obvious that the redundant wording is being used to try to push a POV. Prcc27 (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can not find the sentence you are quoting at WP:WEASEL. Maybe you mean to cite some other policy or essay? - MrOllie (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- WP:WEASEL is also about sentence stuffing “they may make a sentence longer without carrying any information.” We already define what circumcision is in the article, this redundant information is pov-pushing. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. Seems very strange to go into detail in the "function" section about the effect of its removal. Surely that's nothing to do with its "function", Nigej (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you remove something entirely and a function doesn't change, that has nothing to do with 'function'? MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- In which case it would have no function, and the "function" section should say that. Nigej (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- and, of course, evolution tells us that at some point it must have had a net beneficial "function", otherwise it wouldn't exist. Nigej (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- If you remove something entirely and a function doesn't change, that has nothing to do with 'function'? MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Prcc27 No. I agree with the statement being kept in the article, but I think circumcision might need its own section/subsection Man-Man122 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- No. 1) This is a clear example of WP:original research. The sources and the quotes provided do not even discuss about the foreskin, let alone its functions, and specifically sexual functions (in fact, the WHO mentions sexual sensation as a potential function). There is a large number of organs and body parts that a human can live perfectly fine without, yet this would not mean that those organs are functionless when they are on the human body. Saying "bald people live fine without hair", is not the same as saying "hair is useless on the human scalp". Same with people who've had tonsilectomies: they can't even tell the difference, yet that doesn't stop the scientific community from attributing some function to the tonsils. etc. 2) This article is about a human body part. The procedure that removes that body part is already covered in lengthy detail not only in its own article, but also in a number of other wp articles. If we start bringing up this procedure/its effects etc. in random sections of this page, besides it being WP:Undue, it also turns this into a WP:coatrack article. Piccco (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Meh. Seems unfortunate to jump all the way to an RfC, with its heavy demand on editor time across the Project, for such a minor snit as which section to put a sentence in. Foreskin function and circumcision are obviously related, and if editors had sought advice from WTMED or been more diligent in consulting the literature WP:RFCBEFORE they'd have found this linkage is explicit in RS too. I have added a MEDRS textbook doing this. As the question is now moot I suggest a close and trout for the OP. Bon courage (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having both the textbook and WHO et al. viewpoint included in that section would be WP:SYNTH. The WHO does not say anything about foreskin and function, so now you are using another source to insinuate that they do or somehow make a connection between the two. Not sure how noting what anti-circumcision activists believe impoves the article. Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- The WHO stuff might seem redundant in the light of the new sourcing. The reason why I kept it is that since we are in the realm of WP:FRINGE (the view of ant-circ activists) we need to make clear what the science says. The (obvious) linkage between function, circumcision and activists in explicitly made by RS. The material fully meets WP:V. Now that a MEDRS source had been produced which completely torpedoes your argument and makes this RfC even more of a waste of time than it was, it seems highly disruptive to resume your edit warring and cut it with spurious talk of SYNTH. How can a source be a SYNTH of itself? It is completely on-point for the section, since it is explicitly about foreskin function and sexual please, even to the extent of conforming to your request for those literal words being used. Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would not have reverted you if the WHO source was replaced by the textbook source (without the pov-pushy wording about anti-circumcision activists of course); assuming the textbook source actually says what you say it says that is. Replacing the WHO source with that source could be a compromise to resolve this issue, if users are willing to agree to that.. Do you not understand what SYNTH is? You are using two different sources, to draw a conclusion. This RfC is not moot, because it does not change the fact that the WHO source is about circumcision and does not belong in the function section. Prcc27 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why's it 'POV-pushy' to summarize what a source says? No sources are synthesized to draw any 'conclusion' not made by the cited sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just because it is in the source, does not guarantee its inclusion per WP:ONUS. You are getting way off topic, what anti-circumcision activists think is not relevant to foreskin function. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but you might even be giving WP:UNDUE weight to them. We have been discussing this for several days, so for you to unilaterally add wording without consensus is very disruptive. If you want to propose adding the textbook source, go for it! But do not restore your WP:BOLD edit, when you are reverted without first getting a consensus. Even if it isn’t SYNTH, the textbook source does not justify the WHO source remaining in the function section. In fact, since this is an article about foreskin, not circumcision, I think we should consider having the textbook source replace the WHO source altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
"what anti-circumcision activists think is not relevant to foreskin function"
← huh? If the high-quality source frames the question of the effect of the foreskin's presence on sexual function thuswise, why should not Wikipedia? If you have problems with the WHO source, it seems odd to revert another source which you now apparently want to keep. Perhaps try to reign in your revert storm? Bon courage (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)- You do not have consensus for that wording, so it should not be included, per WP:ONUS. Or do the rules not apply to you? Hmm… I have problems with the WHO source and the POV-pushy “anti-circumcision activist” wording. Since both sentences had issues, I reverted to the only sentence that arguably had consensus (it’s debatable that the WHO sentence has consensus, but I digress). Would you support a compromise of “The foreskin has no significant sexual function. There is no good evidence that it improves sexual pleasure”, full stop, no WHO sentence, no anti-circumcision activist wording? Prcc27 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do have consensus since no policy-based rationale has been raised in opposition. Bungling on about SYNTH and seemingly removing the wrong content (which is well-sourced) is not a useful contribution to consensus, especially in the context of your edit warring. If you want to end the RfC and make a separate proposal, do so. What we have is fine. I'm quite keen on keeping the anti-circ fringe stuff in, as it mirrors RS. These activists say the foreskin enhances pleasure, and this is apparently a widespread myth. Bring the knowledge! Bon courage (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- A unilateral edit made literally hours ago with minimal discussion is not consensus. It is clear you are only doing this to derail the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- You don't need "consensus" (which you seem to think means your permission) to improve articles. FFS, adding a completely-on point MEDRS source is exactly what we should be doing to improve the article. Removing such content is sanctionable-level bad. It's obvious the only reason you did it was to try to maintain the illusion this RfC is anything other than a waste of time. Damaging articles for this kind of reason is what we call WP:POINT making and further evidence of WP:DE. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s the projection for me… Prcc27 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- You don't need "consensus" (which you seem to think means your permission) to improve articles. FFS, adding a completely-on point MEDRS source is exactly what we should be doing to improve the article. Removing such content is sanctionable-level bad. It's obvious the only reason you did it was to try to maintain the illusion this RfC is anything other than a waste of time. Damaging articles for this kind of reason is what we call WP:POINT making and further evidence of WP:DE. Bon courage (talk) 07:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- A unilateral edit made literally hours ago with minimal discussion is not consensus. It is clear you are only doing this to derail the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I do have consensus since no policy-based rationale has been raised in opposition. Bungling on about SYNTH and seemingly removing the wrong content (which is well-sourced) is not a useful contribution to consensus, especially in the context of your edit warring. If you want to end the RfC and make a separate proposal, do so. What we have is fine. I'm quite keen on keeping the anti-circ fringe stuff in, as it mirrors RS. These activists say the foreskin enhances pleasure, and this is apparently a widespread myth. Bring the knowledge! Bon courage (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- You do not have consensus for that wording, so it should not be included, per WP:ONUS. Or do the rules not apply to you? Hmm… I have problems with the WHO source and the POV-pushy “anti-circumcision activist” wording. Since both sentences had issues, I reverted to the only sentence that arguably had consensus (it’s debatable that the WHO sentence has consensus, but I digress). Would you support a compromise of “The foreskin has no significant sexual function. There is no good evidence that it improves sexual pleasure”, full stop, no WHO sentence, no anti-circumcision activist wording? Prcc27 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just because it is in the source, does not guarantee its inclusion per WP:ONUS. You are getting way off topic, what anti-circumcision activists think is not relevant to foreskin function. And I can’t believe I’m saying this, but you might even be giving WP:UNDUE weight to them. We have been discussing this for several days, so for you to unilaterally add wording without consensus is very disruptive. If you want to propose adding the textbook source, go for it! But do not restore your WP:BOLD edit, when you are reverted without first getting a consensus. Even if it isn’t SYNTH, the textbook source does not justify the WHO source remaining in the function section. In fact, since this is an article about foreskin, not circumcision, I think we should consider having the textbook source replace the WHO source altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why's it 'POV-pushy' to summarize what a source says? No sources are synthesized to draw any 'conclusion' not made by the cited sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I would not have reverted you if the WHO source was replaced by the textbook source (without the pov-pushy wording about anti-circumcision activists of course); assuming the textbook source actually says what you say it says that is. Replacing the WHO source with that source could be a compromise to resolve this issue, if users are willing to agree to that.. Do you not understand what SYNTH is? You are using two different sources, to draw a conclusion. This RfC is not moot, because it does not change the fact that the WHO source is about circumcision and does not belong in the function section. Prcc27 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The WHO stuff might seem redundant in the light of the new sourcing. The reason why I kept it is that since we are in the realm of WP:FRINGE (the view of ant-circ activists) we need to make clear what the science says. The (obvious) linkage between function, circumcision and activists in explicitly made by RS. The material fully meets WP:V. Now that a MEDRS source had been produced which completely torpedoes your argument and makes this RfC even more of a waste of time than it was, it seems highly disruptive to resume your edit warring and cut it with spurious talk of SYNTH. How can a source be a SYNTH of itself? It is completely on-point for the section, since it is explicitly about foreskin function and sexual please, even to the extent of conforming to your request for those literal words being used. Bon courage (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Having both the textbook and WHO et al. viewpoint included in that section would be WP:SYNTH. The WHO does not say anything about foreskin and function, so now you are using another source to insinuate that they do or somehow make a connection between the two. Not sure how noting what anti-circumcision activists believe impoves the article. Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Kinda.
- I don't necessarily think that it should be in the function section. However, I do think it is worth a mention in the article, possibly in the form of a subsection that comes after it. Man-Man122 (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Man-Man122, the section currently begins by saying The World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2007 that there was "debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including...enhancing sexual pleasure". Do you think that the WHO's statement about this debated "possible function" should be in the same section as the WHO's statement saying that foreskin removal with circumcision has no "adverse effect on sexual pleasure", or should the possible function and some evidence about that possible function be in different sections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Trying to make a connection between the two different policy statements on different issues would be WP:SYNTH. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Putting all the information about the role (or lack thereof) of the foreskin in enhancing sexual pleasure in the same section of the article does not violate SYNTH. Putting all the information about ____ in the same section, rather than scattering the information through multiple sections, is usually called "good encyclopedic writing style". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing I don't necessarily see a problem with them being close to each other, but I said that I would prefer that this statement and anything else circumcision-related in a separate subsection following the function subsection. Man-Man122 (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- We have two (potential) statements
- About sexual function
- About sexual function in the context of circumcision
- and you'd prefer that the first go in a ==Function== section and the second go in a ==Circumcision== section.
- I wonder whether putting them both in a ===Sexual function=== subsection (or paragraph) would be better. I'm doubtful that it's a good idea to separate this claim about a possible sexual function from the evidence of whether that function really exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- We have two (potential) statements
- Trying to make a connection between the two different policy statements on different issues would be WP:SYNTH. Prcc27 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Man-Man122, the section currently begins by saying The World Health Organization (WHO) stated in 2007 that there was "debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including...enhancing sexual pleasure". Do you think that the WHO's statement about this debated "possible function" should be in the same section as the WHO's statement saying that foreskin removal with circumcision has no "adverse effect on sexual pleasure", or should the possible function and some evidence about that possible function be in different sections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Keep and suggest close. This should have been discussed first. Echoing @Bon Courage: here. Alternatives to a RFC should have been consulted. KlayCax (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- This was discussed for several days without much progress on achieving a consensus. The RfC is clearly needed for resolution. Prcc27 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- And WT:MED was not asked? Bon courage (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- If anything, I would have consulted the No original research noticeboard. What is WT:MED going to accomplish when the main issue is original research and WP:POV, not necessarily the content itself (aside from the problematic wording)? We can’t even agree on which noticeboard would have been the appropriate next step. Sadly, I think an RfC is the only way this will be resolved. But arguing about whether or not an RfC is the best move is pointless. It has already been created, and it will resolve this once and for all, hopefully. Prcc27 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most importantly WTMED folk have experience with (and often access to) high-quality sourcing, and well as good skills in handling it. Could've saved a lot of time/effort. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nope. It would have added time and effort IMHO. This RfC is more efficient. Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The RfC is irrelevant in the light of the new sourcing, and your apparently new proposals upthread. Bon courage (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nope. It would have added time and effort IMHO. This RfC is more efficient. Prcc27 (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most importantly WTMED folk have experience with (and often access to) high-quality sourcing, and well as good skills in handling it. Could've saved a lot of time/effort. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- If anything, I would have consulted the No original research noticeboard. What is WT:MED going to accomplish when the main issue is original research and WP:POV, not necessarily the content itself (aside from the problematic wording)? We can’t even agree on which noticeboard would have been the appropriate next step. Sadly, I think an RfC is the only way this will be resolved. But arguing about whether or not an RfC is the best move is pointless. It has already been created, and it will resolve this once and for all, hopefully. Prcc27 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- And WT:MED was not asked? Bon courage (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- This was discussed for several days without much progress on achieving a consensus. The RfC is clearly needed for resolution. Prcc27 (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning no. A related question to ask is whether the foreskin brings on sexual pleasure as a "function", or it merely conducts sensation which can vary from pleasant to unpleasant. Senorangel (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- No, this is a pretty clear case of WP:SYNTH. "Removal of the foreskin does not appear to reduce sexual pleasure" and "the function of the foreskin is not sexual pleasure", while they appear similar, are not the same.
- For comparison, see "the gallbladder is important to the process of digestion" and "most people who have their gallbladder removed do not have problems with digestion", statements which are both simultaneously true. The body is complex and it's especially important to avoid WP:SYNTH when talking about it. Loki (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Another issue with the current WHO source is that it is from 2009, even though there is a newer WHO source with a similar title from 2018. This is likely a WP:MEDDATE issue. Prcc27 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Clarify stance: I think the case for removal of the WHO wording altogether is stronger than moving it to another section (especially given my MEDDATE concerns). It should not be included in the article, but if it is included, obviously the function section is the wrong venue. Prcc27 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Textbook wording
Update: A user has edited the WHO paragraph to read “The foreskin has no significant sexual function. There is no good evidence that it improves sexual pleasure, contrary to the claims of anti-circumcision activists. The World Health Organization calls it a ‘myth’ that circumcision has any adverse effect on sexual pleasure. The view is echoed by other major medical organizations.” Please clarify below if you support the addition of the first two sentences in that paragraph. (Pinging all users that have participated in the RfC so far: @MrOllie:, @KlayCax:, @Nigej:, @Man-Man122:, @Piccco:, @Bon courage:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Senorangel:, @LokiTheLiar:) Prcc27 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Update: the article now says “Research into the sexual function of the foreskin has generally been of poor quality and the results are inconclusive and a source of controversy. Anti-circumcision activists claim that the foreskin is functionally significant for sexual pleasure, but such claims are not supported by good evidence.” It’s an improvement, but the “anti-circumcision activists” part is still problematic, and regardless the WHO sentence does not belong in the Foreskin section. Prcc27 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: this wording was obviously added by the user to prove a point and derail the RfC. The “contrary to the claims of anti-circumcision activists” wording comes off as POV-pushing, and WP:UNDUE. It has nothing to do with foreskin function. And it does not change the fact that the WHO sentence is about circumcision, not foreskin. Condensing the paragraph to “The foreskin has no significant sexual function. There is no good evidence that it improves sexual pleasure.” without the anti-circumcision activists wording, and WHO sentences is a compromise I am open to. But the current paragraph is verbose, POV, and the SYNTH issues have possibly gotten worse. Prcc27 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Silly/dishonest. No policy-based rationale given for opposing this (and, rather sneakily, no mention of the existence of a new source which supports the text which is being objected to). You can't override what high-quality sources say with a WP:LOCALCON. If the on-point sources talk about anti-circumcision activists in relation to foreskin function, who is Wikipedia to dispute the connection? On a point of order, nesting a new effective RfC inside an already-running RfC seems disruptive. Suggest close and trout the OP. Bon courage (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s funny that you have cited WP:ONUS in the past, but refuse to follow it yourself. “Rules for thee, but not for me” mentality. You unilaterally changed the paragraph wording in the middle of an RfC, so of course updating the participants on the change is common sense. Having a subsection in an RfC which seeks compromise is commonplace, not disruptive at all. Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The WP:ONUS is satisfied, and even you advocated retaining the new content above (albeit in a hostage-trading kind of way). Launching an RfC before sourcing had been properly explored was always going to be problematic. Bon courage (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Waiting until an RfC is started to “explore sources” is problematic. You had several days to do so. Wikipedia editors should always be open to compromise, but we operate on consensus, and your wording as is lacks just that. Prcc27 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and it's not my sole responsibility to consult the literature if other editors can't be arsed. Maybe you could have looked? Just a thought. Some of us spend time editing topics on things other than penises. For me, I'm glad the sourcing and content is improving; I'd like more quality sources if possible. I'd add that this RfC came out of the blue following an edit war in which you were chief player, with no discussion as to its necessity, its wording, or any of the recommended WP:RFCBEFORE. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Another user suggested an RfC, you could have voiced opposition or suggested an alternative, but alas, you didn’t. The literature does not change the fact that the WHO sentence is about circumcision and does not belong in the function section. Not sure why you think it changes the scope of this RfC. Also, that’s laughable; I have edited several different articles about a lot of things. I have been more inactive lately, but of course I will jump in if I see something problematic on my watchlist. Prcc27 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Excuse me? Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and it's not my sole responsibility to consult the literature if other editors can't be arsed. Maybe you could have looked? Just a thought. Some of us spend time editing topics on things other than penises. For me, I'm glad the sourcing and content is improving; I'd like more quality sources if possible. I'd add that this RfC came out of the blue following an edit war in which you were chief player, with no discussion as to its necessity, its wording, or any of the recommended WP:RFCBEFORE. Bon courage (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Waiting until an RfC is started to “explore sources” is problematic. You had several days to do so. Wikipedia editors should always be open to compromise, but we operate on consensus, and your wording as is lacks just that. Prcc27 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The WP:ONUS is satisfied, and even you advocated retaining the new content above (albeit in a hostage-trading kind of way). Launching an RfC before sourcing had been properly explored was always going to be problematic. Bon courage (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s funny that you have cited WP:ONUS in the past, but refuse to follow it yourself. “Rules for thee, but not for me” mentality. You unilaterally changed the paragraph wording in the middle of an RfC, so of course updating the participants on the change is common sense. Having a subsection in an RfC which seeks compromise is commonplace, not disruptive at all. Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: (mostly) The first sentence and a half is ok (if cited). However the paragraph then diverges into a discussion about circumcision, which is another issue, not related to the "function" of the foreskin. Nigej (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Err, if anti-circ activists are making claims about the function of the foreskin, how's that 'not related' to the function of the foreskin? Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's not true. They're not making claims about it's function, they're making claims about what happens when you remove it. Nigej (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- From the cited source: "anticircumcision groups claim that the presence of the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure". Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- "enhances" implies a comparison with something else, in this case circumcision, which is exactly why it's not suitable in the "function" section. Nigej (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- So your assertion "they're making claims about what happens when you remove it" is in fact what's "not true", and you're doubling down with some twisty interpretation. I see. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Its clearly the case that words like "improves" and "enhances" imply a comparison with circumcision, not with the "function" of the foreskin. Nigej (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- The statement "the presence of the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure" is a statement about what the foreskin does; it is not "a claim about what happens when you remove it". It may imply comparison, but this whole mess is because editors are insisting implication should be set aside for what sources actually say on their face. Anyway, the closer will see this for what it is. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Its clearly the case that words like "improves" and "enhances" imply a comparison with circumcision, not with the "function" of the foreskin. Nigej (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- So your assertion "they're making claims about what happens when you remove it" is in fact what's "not true", and you're doubling down with some twisty interpretation. I see. Bon courage (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- "enhances" implies a comparison with something else, in this case circumcision, which is exactly why it's not suitable in the "function" section. Nigej (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- From the cited source: "anticircumcision groups claim that the presence of the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure". Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's not true. They're not making claims about it's function, they're making claims about what happens when you remove it. Nigej (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Nigej, I'm not buying this argument. In fact, it makes me wonder what shape our article on Casuistry is in. Anti-circ activists (as opposed to the majority of ordinary people who just don't happen to see the need for male circumcision) really do claim that intact foreskin = more sexual pleasure and no foreskin = less sexual pleasure, and the research shows that they're wrong on this one point.
- On the more general point, circumcision should be mentioned in this article exactly like mastectomy should be mentioned in Breast: it is obviously relevant, even though it's not the central and most important piece of information to communicate to the reader about foreskins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not against mentioning circumcision in the article, just not in the "function" part. If we talk about the "function" of a breast, would we mention mastectomy? Nigej (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- If we had sources writing about widespread myths of change in function after a mastectomy, yes we would. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at the article, but I think we might. In particular, I've read that mastectomies essentially destroy the sexual pleasure/function of the breasts, and different kinds of breast surgery have different effects on the breastfeeding function of breasts (ranging from "none" to "complete destruction of all milk-producing function"). I doubt that it would be worth more than a sentence here or there, but I doubt that anyone would object to it being mentioned in principle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not against mentioning circumcision in the article, just not in the "function" part. If we talk about the "function" of a breast, would we mention mastectomy? Nigej (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Err, if anti-circ activists are making claims about the function of the foreskin, how's that 'not related' to the function of the foreskin? Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Depends: As of the time of this reply, the section has been edited to say that following, "Research into the sexual function of the foreskin has generally been of poor quality and the results are inconclusive and a source of controversy. Anti-circumcision activists claim that the foreskin is functionally significant for sexual pleasure, but such claims are not supported by good evidence". This sentence differs with the initial one in the rfc update, I lean towards opposing the addition of “The foreskin has no significant sexual function. There is no good evidence that it improves sexual pleasure, contrary to the claims of anti-circumcision activists.", but i think the sentences that are present as I am currently typing are acceptable, and could be tweaked if negotiations need so. Man-Man122 (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated but like Man-Man I'm not opposed to revised wording. Whatever happens, it shouldn't be during the RFC tho. Loki (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- RFCs aren't meant to stop editors from editing – in fact, WP:BRD can only come to the rescue for "stuck" discussions if editors are able to edit during difficult disputes – but if editors insist on voting on specific proposed wording, then changing the wording frequently is going to cause problems. We could probably work this out the wiki way (that means editing the article back and forth, keeping your "opponents'" views carefully in mind, until everyone can live with the result), but if people want to vote, then it might be better not to try the wiki way at the same time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I Support the changes as a welcome step of the usual edit process, which shouldn't be frozen by a surprise RFC. - MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- A surprise RfC that you recommended. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. In response to a hypothetical statement that there might be a risk of 'issues' in the future, I said we could resolve them with DR, including possibly an RFC. I did not suggest and do not endorse this premature RFC. MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- A surprise RfC that you recommended. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose the "anti-circumcision activism" thing. Feels like it's pushed there. The article does not echo such views in the "function" section, so even bringing this up is unnecessary. It is also problematic to assume that anyone who might mention a potential function of that nature is an "anti-circumcsion activist"; the WHO itself listed this as a potential function. Piccco (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- But the framing exactly corresponds to that of the cited source right? Bon courage (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- We source facts, not framing. We have no obligation to say something exactly as a source says it. Loki (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? the idea is to reflect knowledge. How would you summarize it? Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- If we included every single piece of trivia in our article, it would be quite verbose. Seems WP:UNDUE in the function section at the very least. An activist’s viewpoint seems more appropriate for our society and culture section. But even then, I think the wording is superfluous given we already acknowledge that there is "debate about the role of the foreskin”. Prcc27 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Clarify: I think the case for removing “Anti-circumcision activists claim that the foreskin enhances sexual pleasure, but such claims are not supported by good evidence” is stronger than keeping it in the article per WP:POV & WP:UNDUE. But if it does stay in the article, obviously the society and culture section is a more fitting venue. Prcc27 (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
- If we included every single piece of trivia in our article, it would be quite verbose. Seems WP:UNDUE in the function section at the very least. An activist’s viewpoint seems more appropriate for our society and culture section. But even then, I think the wording is superfluous given we already acknowledge that there is "debate about the role of the foreskin”. Prcc27 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Huh? the idea is to reflect knowledge. How would you summarize it? Bon courage (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- We source facts, not framing. We have no obligation to say something exactly as a source says it. Loki (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- But the framing exactly corresponds to that of the cited source right? Bon courage (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
No Delete sentence entirely. Check your sources. The 'myth' word is attributed to the WHO and the citation includes one entry from the WHO - a draft text for a circumcision manual from 2008. Seems like it was never published. I cannot find the word 'myth' in it at all. Short cut: https://web.archive.org/web/20120115175057/http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/who_mc_local_anaesthesia.pdf The inclusion of the (possibly unsourced) sentence gives undue weight to the SENSITIVITY argument. Sensitivity is not directly a function, arguably, but protection of the glans in infants etc is clearly a function. Be pragmatic and leave out the controversy over what is an entirely subjective topic. Thanks for the RfC Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The quote is in the citation given. KlayCax (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's also not a draft text. KlayCax (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you are saying that while not providing any citation or other evidence.
- Under FUNCTION the first citation for WHO quotes - no. 16 is dead but has an archived version. The 'myth' word is not there. IT does however contain this statement on function: "There is debate about the role of the foreskin.."
- Citations 70 71 72 73 74 are not WHO.
- The World Health Organization calls it a "myth" that circumcision has any adverse effect on sexual pleasure. The view is echoed by other major medical organizations.[75]
- The only WHO citation in this group - no. 75 is to a draft manuscript for a circumcision manual. I cannot find the word 'myth' in it at all. I am deleting the sentence as it unsourced. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The cite is right there in the article, and includes the relevant quote. You seem to be looking at every citation except the one that is attached to the text in question. The archive.org convenience link is to a draft of the PDF, but it was subsequently published in final form. The scribd.com link (called 'Alt URL') is to a non-draft version. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- I went through every cite there. Can you please show me? If I can't see it what is a reader supposed to do? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know how to be any more clear about where it is than I already have been. The cite and the quote are right there next to the text. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- I went through every cite there. Can you please show me? If I can't see it what is a reader supposed to do? Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- The cite is right there in the article, and includes the relevant quote. You seem to be looking at every citation except the one that is attached to the text in question. The archive.org convenience link is to a draft of the PDF, but it was subsequently published in final form. The scribd.com link (called 'Alt URL') is to a non-draft version. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's also not a draft text. KlayCax (talk) 06:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.