Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 9 September 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreskin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anatomy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreskin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Picture

Is it appropriate to have a photograph of a black male penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.123.229 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is. Zad68 01:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great answer Zad- exactly right and with a dash of perfectly economical humour in the "it is '.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 11:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The skin colour of the penis is irrelevant but what is relevant is that the foreskin is partly retracted. An image where the whole of the glans is covered by foreskin would be more appropriate! CardBoardBoxLiving (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Prepuce redundant

I am concerned at some of the recent additions to this article, which have been cited by:

• Chengzu, Liu (2011). "Health Care for Forskin Conditions". Epidemiology of Urogenital Diseases. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House.
• Xianze, Liang (2012). Tips on Puberty Health. Beijing: People's Education Press.
• Guochang, Huang (2010). General Surgery. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House.

They talk about the concept of "prepuce redundant" (i.e. just having a slightly longer than usual foreskin) and how it requires medical intervention. One absurd statement reads: "Some males feel reluctant to keep the glans exposed for uncomfortable feeling of the glans chafing the underwear, which might partially explain the prevalence of untreated prepuce redundant". The last I checked, having a long foreskin (including one that still covers the glans when flaccid and erect) is totally normal and healthy as long as it is retractable. --TBM10 (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Unlike Phimosis, "prepuce redundant" is not a widely-acknowledged concept around the world, only popular in few countries like China. Moscowsky 15:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, my understanding of the phrase was actually the "redundant" foreskin left over after a circumcision. I have tried to deal with this wave of new information in the article and clarified some of it (which appears to be sourced from Chinese books which are unverifiable). What I was (and still am somewhat) concerned about was the possibility of a reader believing that "prepuce redundant" is abnormal and requires medical intervention, when in reality and in most parts of the world it is totally normal. My own personal experience, it does not impede or cause disruption at all. --TBM10 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Tremello

Tremello, I think the following text is better than the content you replaced which is sourced by a possibly unreliable source (newforeskin.biz): The foreskin is typically retractable over the glans, and depending on its length, which varies between males, it may remain covering part of the glans whether the penis is flaccid or erect. Research found that 95% of males were able to fully retract their foreskin by adulthood. ref: cite journal|title=Further Fate of the Foreskin Incidence of Preputial Adhesions, Phimosis, and Smegma among Danish Schoolboys |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/general/oster/ |journal=Archives of Disease in Childhood |volume=43 |pages=200–202 | date=April 1968 |first=Jakob |last=Øster |publisher=Department of Paediatrics, Central Hospital, Randers, Denmark |accessdate=November 14, 2011 | doi = 10.1136/adc.43.228.200|pmid=5689532 |pmc=2019851|issue=228. What do you think about the reasoning for replacing it? Also, I think the following statement is neither necessary or entirely relevant to this article: "Circumcision is a key part of the Jewish and Muslim religion. It is not required in Christianity. See Religious male circumcision." Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding newforeskin.biz. I don't think it is unreliable source because it is a reference used for a different statement - the newforeskin.biz reference is a page which gives images of different foreskin coverage. Unless the images are obviously fake, then I don't think it is an unreliable source for this statement. Because the statement isn't controversial. Reliable sources are primarily for disputed topics.

Regarding "Circumcision is a key part of the Jewish and Muslim religion. It is not required in Christianity. See Religious male circumcision." I am not too bothered about you removing that.

Regarding Jakob Oster's 1968 study I replaced it with Wrights 1994 study - you may have missed that because I used ref name Wright"/>. Here is is : http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright2/ I did this because Osters study as well as Gairdners study has been disputed in the years since.

In your amendment you have included the 95% statement. In my statement I put "..not supposed to be retractable in infancy. I did this because there is a perception that it is supposed to be retractable - hence we hear of cases where doctors try to pull it back and force it back - causing damage.

I also say: The age at which a boy can fully retract his foreskin varies." but you you also add , but research found that 95% of males were able to fully retract their foreskin by adulthood.