Talk:Foreskin restoration/Archive 3

Anatomy

In my latest revert, I have tried to clear up the confusion between the frenar band and the dartos muscle. The Wikipedia article for dartos only defines the muscle as it exists in the scrotal skin. I am not entirely familiar with the anatomy of the foreskin, and am only using terminology explained to me by other restorers. Is the frenar band considered a part of the tunica dartos?--Z726 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the latest revert

I do not understand why my latest edit has been reverted to a version of the article containing anatomically incorrect information, irrelevant links, and attempts at inserting a POV cynical of foreskin restoration. My contributions to this page have been aimed at correcting factual inaccuracies, removing irrelevant content, reorganizing content for clarity, and adding relevant content. Since there is no explanation given for this revert, I consider it vandalism, specificaly a "bad faith revert" as defined by the Wikipedia administration. If whoever did this will respond, I shall explain the concerns I have. If not, I will simply revert the article back to my latest edit. I would prefer to resolve this through discussion.--Z726 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Some problems include:

• "The ring of muscle called the dartos" changed to "The ring of muscle called the frenar band". The name of this muscle is in fact the dartos.
• "Foreskin restoration also cannot replace the ridged band" changed to "Nonsurgical foreskin restoration does not restore the frenulum or the ridged band." This introduces an error by implication. Neither surgical nor nonsurgical restoration can restore either structure.
• Apparent removal of the sentence "The process of foreskin restoration seeks to regenerate some of the tissue removed by circumcision, as well as providing coverage of the glans." This is necessary to give the following sentence relevance.
• More troublingly, removal of the pertinent fact that NOHARMM's poll was conducted by an anti-circumcision group. Whether this affects credibility is up to the reader, but he/she must be made aware of the fact.
• Addition of original research: "These problems may arise from tight skin on a circumcised penis, whereas a restored foreskin is able to create a rolling and gliding action of the penile shaft skin along the erect shaft, reducing the friction necessary for sexual stimulation of the penis" and "These problems may be reduced (or alleviated, in the case of the second problem) by foreskin restoration, although erectile curvature can have other causes unrelated to skin loss (see Peyronie's disease)."
• Most worryingly of all, complete censorship of several examples of cited scientific research showing that keratinisation does not occur, replacing it with speculation that it does. Such POV pushing is wholly unacceptable. Jakew 20:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see where I might have made some mistakes, though I would prefer to have first been given an explanation on this discussion page. Perhaps we can figure out how I might restore some of the content I had added, without biasing the article. Concerns I have over your revert include the following:

• The heading "Physical aspects" is vague: does "aspects" refer to foreskin restoration or its effects? I was attempting to make it more specific.
• There is disagreement between this article and the dartos article over its definition. The linked article seems to agree with medical dictionaries in that the muscle is defined as part of the scrotum (as an example, see http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=dartos). By this definition, circumcision cannot remove the entire dartos muscle. If the muscular band at the tip of the foreskin is indeed a part of the dartos, then that answers the question I had asked above on 9 July (which received no response).
• Foreskin restoration does not regenerate tissues lost to circumcision. The sentence I removed was misleadiing, and may give false hopes to those desiring to restore their foreskins (a demographic for whom this article is intended). All that can be done is to either expand tissues already in place or to graft skin from another location.
• I realize it was a mistake to leave out the fact that NOHARMM is an anti-circumcision group, but you could simply have added it in. Your removal of additional poll content that I quoted seems unnecessary, as the it was relevant to this article.
• The comment about a "gliding action" was already present, and is not original research by me. The next sentence which you claim to be original research, "These problems may be reduced (or alleviated, in the case of the second problem) by foreskin restoration, although erectile curvature can have other causes unrelated to skin loss (see Peyronie's disease)." involves no research at all, but rather a logical way of providing the relevance of quoting the poll results here. Otherwise, it is merely data critical of circumcision.
• The first link I removed describes a study on HIV and circumcision, which is not relevant to the topic of foreskin restoration. Although it does contain a single sentence about keratinization, there is no methodology or data to back it up - more, better proof of the claim is needed to be considered "scientific research." The second is described incorrectly; the authors do claim to have found significant differences, but do not go into detail explaining why these are dismissed. The third is biased, claiming that there is a "false premise of excessive sensitivity of the circumcised glans" - it appears that this study was performed with a conclusion already in mind, which may very well have influenced the outcome. The third and fourth links are non-expert sources that contain personal viewpoints, and one is a self-published source. The domain circs.org is registered to one Jake Waskett; am I correct in assuming this is you? The concern I have is that you have used links from your site to present a POV cynical of foreskin restoration or those who would seek to restore.

I would like to make this article as neutral as possible, and realize that I did make some mistakes in my edits. However, your own edit shows POV pushing which, in your words is "unacceptable." Specifically I would like to remove statements slanting this article in both pro-circ and anti-circ positions, and you seem to be reinforcing the former. Considering what you have stated in your user profile, why are you interested in foreskin restoration at all?--Z726 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Might a comparative outsider suggest something here? It starts with "assume good faith"

I've looked at what each of you has to say, and it appears to me that you are each arguing the same thing but from subtly different positions. What would work well in this situation is if you are able to agree on "one route forward" and thus create a better overall article.

Each of you brings much to the party, including a joint passion for correctness and ethics. Harnessing this and working together (though I recognise that your edits may then be mercilessly edited by others) would be a highy productive use of your time.

I don't think there are any sticking points between you, so much as differences of interpretation.

I should declare an interest here. I am against routine infant circumcision including on religious grounds (I do understand and respect the resons for the religious grounds, but I am against it nonetheless), but respect an adult's right to modify his body in way way he chooses, which includes circumcision and restoration. Fiddle Faddle 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me try to address these.

• Aspects/effects: fine, no problem.
• The dartos fascia is indeed part of the scrotum, in addition to the penis. You are correct in noting that circumcision cannot therefore remove it entirely. Better phrasing might be helpful here, though the term 'frenal band' appears to be informal.
• "Foreskin restoration does not regenerate tissues lost to circumcision." - how about 'replace'?
• "I realize it was a mistake to leave out the fact that NOHARMM is an anti-circumcision group, but you could simply have added it in." - ok
• "Your removal of additional poll content that I quoted seems unnecessary, as the it was relevant to this article." - can you show that it's relevant without performing original research? That was my main concern.
• "The next sentence which you claim to be original research, "These problems may be reduced (or alleviated, in the case of the second problem) by foreskin restoration, although erectile curvature can have other causes unrelated to skin loss (see Peyronie's disease)." involves no research at all" - then can you cite a source in support?
• "The first link I removed describes a study on HIV and circumcision, which is not relevant to the topic of foreskin restoration." - the question is, does it contain relevant facts?
• "Although it does contain a single sentence about keratinization, there is no methodology or data to back it up - more, better proof of the claim is needed to be considered "scientific research."" - on the contrary, the methodology is explained: "Histological observations were carried out on samples of penile tissue obtained from 13 perfusion fixed cadavers of men aged 60-96 years, seven of whom had been circumcised." To the best of my knowledge, this is the only study in the literature in which the keratinisation hypothesis has in fact been tested.
• "The second is described incorrectly; the authors do claim to have found significant differences, but do not go into detail explaining why these are dismissed." - any differences were lost when controlling for confounding factors. The description is indeed correct - to quote from the conclusion: "We demonstrated that there are no significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and uncircumcised men with respect to vibration, spatial perception, pressure, warm and cold thermal thresholds in both patients with and without erectile dysfunction."
• "The third is biased, claiming that there is a "false premise of excessive sensitivity of the circumcised glans" - it appears that this study was performed with a conclusion already in mind, which may very well have influenced the outcome." - the belief at the time was that the circ'd glans was more sensitive. The study was intended to test it.
• "The third and fourth links are non-expert sources that contain personal viewpoints, and one is a self-published source." - factually incorrect. As is perfectly apparent from the citations at the bottom of the pages, both were originally published in the British Medical Journal. Certainly they contain opinions, however that's not a problem, and citing these demonstrates that the paragraph is not original research. Jakew 12:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and edit the article to clear up the definition of the dartos muscle. For now I'll leave out references to the frenar band, as there seems to be some confusion surrounding it. You should remember the term from the book, "The Joy of Uncircumcising," which you critique at your website - the book discusses it in several places, including how it came to exist. It was coined by pathologist John Taylor, who presented his research at the Second Internation Symposium on Circumcision in 1991. As published in the British Journal of Urology, he refers to it as the "ridged band" (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x), though he uses both terms synonymously in a 1997 interview in which he describes his research. He defines the frenar band as skin that "forms a loop that's continuous with the frenulum. Its all one continuous structure," later describing it as "part of the lining of the prepuce which I've called the ridged band in that article, also called the frenar band which we've mentioned." (http://www.intact.ca/taylor.html)

I'm not sure whether or not it's best to refer to it here as "ridged band," "frenar band," or just as a "muscular band" the way it is currently. For now I'll leave it as the third option. I will write more as I have time. Also, this page size has gotten large; is there any way of archiving some of the discussion here to shorten up the current discussion page?--Z726 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. At Taylor's own website, he states "'Ridged band' is not synonymous with 'frenar band', the muscular ring or sphincter of equine prepuce. The race horse`s penile sheath has serious economic value so vets know all about the frenar band. Perhaps the horse has a ridged band as well as a frenar band. Worth a look." [1] Confused yet? Me too. :) As for archiving - I'll do it. Jakew 18:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now I know more than I ever needed to know about horse urology. :) I wonder why he metntioned that at his site. By the time he wrote this newsletter the term "frenar band" - as applied to human anatomy - had already been in use by others such as Bigelow. Perhaps he is just saying this band on a human prepuce is not the same as that of a horse? Doctors can sure have a strange sense of humor.--Z726 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

References, article organization

I've been looking around at other Wikipedia articles, and finding footnotes to be commonly used. I think they would be useful in this article, in that a "references" section at the bottom would separate all the cited journal articles from the External Links, and in that we wouldn't have to cite them in the text. Any thoughts on this?

Also, I've been thinking of how to organize the article to best describe foreskin restoration. I would propose moving "Surgical Techniqus" and "Non-Surgical Techniques" to directly below the introduction, follow it with a new section describing effects of restoration (similar to "Physical Aspects"), and then following that with History (which I would propose merging with "Reasons", as reasons for it have changed with history). Suggestions would be appreciated.--Z726 01:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Preputioplasty

There is a discussion at Talk:Preputioplasty regarding whether or not that article should link to Foreskin restoration and your opinion would be welcome. I have not checked whetehr this artcile also links to preputioplasty. To me it seems a natural item to link to since the procedure may prevent any need for circumcision in the first place Fiddle Faddle 14:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

Image:Foreskin-restored.jpg I've removed the above image from the article. I don't have a problem with the image per se, but I do have some concerns. First, the uploader claims it is an image of an 18-year old's penis, which is potentially problematic. Second, There is no information about the type of restoration method supposedly used, the length of time the program has been followed, and the amount of starting foreskin, nor of whether or not the subject had been circumicised. I'm sure a friendly email to someone from one of the restoration sites would result in a ton of offers to use images, and we could probably find a good series of photos showing progress. In the meantime, this image has to go. Exploding Boy 00:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the uploader asserts that he is the creator of the image, so I would imagine that most of these problems could be resolved by contacting that person, as he is quite likely to be the person to whom that penis belongs. Secondly, I fail to see how the image could be "potentially problematic" purely by dint of being "of an 18-year-old's penis" - I don't see what the problem is here. Is it the person's age (if so, why?), or the fact that it's a penis, or both? As it stands, we have an article about foreskin restoration where the only image is of a natural born foreskin - there are no images of restored foreskins at all. The image you mention is not perfect, but it's a start. 217.155.20.163 23:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

18 years is adult as far as obscene images are concerned in the English speaking world. The removal requires justification. "In the meantime, this image has to go" is not a rationale for removal Fiddle Faddle 08:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no proof at all (in the form of before and after pictures) that this is a "partially restored" foreskin. There's no information about what method(s) were used, how long it took, or anything else. We don't even know if the person is actually 18! For all we know, it's the never-circumcised penis of a 15 year-old. Exploding Boy 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than turn this into a reversion war, let's instead reach a consensus. While there is nothing documented the editor who uploaded it can be asked. That is very different from performing a unilateral removal. The penis in question exhibits two prominent features of the semi-restored foreskin:

1. the lack of "normal" pseudo-sphinctre at the tip
2. the stubbiness of a penis that has had restoration devices removed immediately prior to its picture being taken and prior to it relaxing into a less covered state.

We have to take the editor's word for the age. If he says he was 18, and it looks 18, then it's 18.

I agree it's a poor example. At present it's the best we've got, and my view is that it should be reinstated pending a better example being available.

I appreciate the vigour with which you defend the article. I think that energy could be better deployed following your own suggestion "I'm sure a friendly email to someone from one of the restoration sites would result in a ton of offers to use images, and we could probably find a good series of photos showing progress." and gathering a good set of example pictures. It could then be possible to create a gallery of various different penises in different stages of restoration. Fiddle Faddle 16:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with that: it could be an uncut penis that naturally lacks full coverage (although I agree, the skin seems somewhat thick); and if the penis is, as you say, in an unnaturally "stubby" state, then this isn't an accurate representation of the amount of restored foreskin. In all likelihood, this person doesn't have anywhere near the amount of coverage he seems to. Anyway, I'll see if he can be contacted. Exploding Boy 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Which may be a problem since he hasn't been here for 6 months. Exploding Boy 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a challenge, that. I think we should work on the basis that the picture is "poor but the best we have" and continue to use it while seeking another picture or series of pictures. It does not look like an uncut penis with incomplete coverage, and it is not a "fully covered" restoration (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 23:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Frenar band

There's been some confusion as to the definition of the frenar band, and I failed to clear it up during my edits from last year. I've linked to an interview with JR Taylor in which he described it, and referenced a section of the book The Joy of Uncircumcising which refers to a presentation he gave in 1991 in which he defined this. In the interview it is unclear whether the definition of the frenar band is the different from that of the ridged band, though I've found a bunch of sites saying the two are synonymous. Whatever the case, this is mucosal tissue and cannot be defined as a "muscle sheath."

The source which stated that the frenar band could be recreated is misleading, so I have replaced it with more accurate information. There are surgeries to tighten the orifice of a restored foreskin, but they can't recreate a band of tissue that was removed during circumcision.--Z726 20:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious views

I would like to know if foresking reconstruction is allowed in Judaism, Christianity (in the East-Orthodox churches), and Islam (and whatever other culture which practices circumcision). --Shunra (27.6.07 14:00 Israel time)

While I can't speak from the perspective of those religions, a couple referenced links from this article suggest that foreskin restoration was known by Jews traveling in Europe, and even imposed on them during occupation by the Greeks and later the Romans. It is generally thought that around 140 AD the Jews settled on a method of circumcision that would leave little skin, making foreskin restoration difficult or impossible.[2][3]. In recent years, I have chatted with a few people at restoration sites who were Jewish; for them I suppose it was a personal decision to restore and not affected by religious persuasions. I haven't met any Muslims or Orthodox Christians doing this, though as far as I know most Orthodox Christians don't circumcise in the first place.

This "NeutralActivist" guy seems to have gotten himself banned rather quickly. To refute his claim, foreskin restoration is not about activism; it exists for those of us who simply want to grow more skin on our penises.--Z726 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No reason to shunra..this is just anti-circ activist stuff. One time there was a activist group in america which claimed breast implants caused cancer. Turned out to be false. Plus there are many men who say they got more pleasure after being circumcised. The internet is a bad place for inforamtion cuz it always shows the bad. circlist.com go to this website it will let you know why you should be happy being circumcised. As for religious views Judaism-prohibits restoration Islam-prohibits restoration Christianity-its fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralActivist (talk • contribs)

With all respect, the silicone they use in breast implants DO causes cancer, so i dont know what you mean by "a activist group". But i can understand the position you are in the US where you people are being brainwashed. 77.248.185.43 13:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "criticism" section

The revision I've removed refers to an article on foreskin restoration[[4]] that quotes one Dr. William Reiner. For the benefit of the user, I should point out that Dr. Renier refers to various reasons for foreskin restoration (not the act itself) in saying, "These issues are more psychological than physical, and there's probably some placebo effect that's very helpful to them." This quote was mangled in the previous revision to make it appear to have a completely different meaning, misquoting the Dr. and entirely misrepresenting what he says.--Z726 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Illustration removed. Why?

I had added this illustration, but it was removed. I feel my illustration enhances the content of this page. Am I wrong? Why was it removed?

Concept of Foreskin Restoration

--Brallion (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the image, but I can see several problems with it:

• Some of text is insufficiently neutral. In particular, "so the glans will benefit from the moisture it provides" is a poor choice of words, since it suggests that restoration is objectively beneficial. It would be better to simply say that tissue (not necessarily mucosal tissue) is brought forward and expanded, letting the reader decide for themselves whether that is good or bad.
• A word ("sturctures") is incorrectly spelt.
• To avoid confusion, it would be best to use the same terminology as is used in the article: skin (as opposed to outer tissue) and mucous membrane (as opposed to inner mucosa). Jakew (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-circumcision

DUDE I'd like to know if this is truth or only a anti-circuncison movement, the most people in U.S.A has been circuncised, and in other places around the world, Jews, a big part of Europe, even porn acts, and as far as I know the majority of them have not reported problems about pleasure nor something similar, so what's it behind of this?. Maybe to make money with ridiculous business by internet? -Unsigned

Well it wouldn't make sense that they'd report pleasure problems if they were circumcised at birth since they'd have ntohing to compare it to. People who have had sex, been circumsized, and had sex after have ntoed changes in sensitivity and that's plenty valid. -Unsigned

Actually, in America circumsicion is 50/50.I don't know where you've been getting your facts, but most of Europe is against circumsicing their baby boys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.88.44 (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The majority of anti-circumcision sites don't sell devices, books, advertising, or anything else, so I doubt that's the motivation. The main book on the topic (which predates the Web) primarily recommends generic, over-the-counter materials for restoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhumandecency (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the article. First paragraph "Reasons for foreskin restoration". "Men attempt foreskin restoration for many reasons. These include a sense of loss for their excised foreskin, a desire to restore a more natural appearance, a desire to improve the glans's sensitivity to sexual stimulation or protect it from chafing, and for regaining a sense of wholeness.[1] Some men cite a desire to regain a sense of control over their sexual organs and regaining lost self esteem. Foreskin restoration may also be seen as a reverse form of body modification."

There you go. Just go back and read it. Hypochristy (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo removal redux

I removed a photo for three reasons. #1) It is promoting a particular product (TLC Tugger) and Wikipedia is not a place to host your free advertising #2) We already have an image of a restored foreskin in the article #3) There is reliable source for the information. There is no way for us to verify the image is what it is claimed to be. There is a long history of people using fraudulant "before and after" images to promote various products.

This is the equivelent of adding a before and after photo of a fat then skinny man and then saying "This image is the result of 2 years of working out on the SoloFlex". You can see why this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Vivaldi (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Kirby makes no distinction between surgical and non-surgical restoration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboplanetalk (talk • contribs) 10:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor Layout Edit

I believe that section 6 about the medical regeneration of the foreskin should be switched with section 5 "results", as all different methods should be placed together, with the results following. It should also include any information concerning stemcel I don't have the capacity to do this myself and any assistance would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Small.is.powerful (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Kirby makes no distinction between surgical and non-surgical restoration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoboplanetalk (talk • contribs) 10:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WW2 Jewish restoration misleading

The sentence "Some European Jews sought out underground foreskin restoration operations during World War II as a method to escape Nazi persecution." is false or misleading. The Nazis did not routinely use circumcision to seek out Jews. It was much easier to refer to a person's identity card, which clearly stated a person's race and religion. The idea that they would pull down men's trousers to find out if they were Jews is ridiculous, since many non-Jews were circumcised for supposed medical reasons, so the state of a man's foreskin was not a useful way of determining his race or religion. The reference to a 1960s document is not a valid reference, since the document itself is a secondary source, and in effect hearsay. This sort of poor sourcing should not be used on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.177.58 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Accurate summarization of sources

I went back and checked the source I had cited quite a while ago in the "Reasons for foreskin restoration" section. Nowhere on pages 113 or 114 of The Joy of Uncircumcising do the words "in the belief" or "what they perceive to be" appear, nor does it imply that foreskin restoration is undertaken out of personal beliefs or perceptions. If you have another source that does use this language, please provide the new citation, so as not to misquote the current one. The lack of effort by 90.217.185.82 to do this when originally making these edits implies that he may not have had a source to cite in the first place. --Z726 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that accurate representation of sources is essential. However, we must also avoid violating WP:NPOV. Due to the violation of NPOV, I've removed the "Reasons for foreskin restoration" section while we work out how to represent the material. I originally intended to move this material here, but on reflection it's in the history so I will just comment on the changes themselves.

The first change made by the IP was as follows:

• "Men also restore their foreskins with the desire to increase sexual pleasure for themselves and their partners" changed to "Men also restore their foreskins in the belief that it will increase sexual pleasure for themselves and their partners". This sentence wasn't actually sourced at all, and the change is a positive one from the perspective of NPOV, since the earlier version weakly implied that restoration would increase sexual pleasure. The latter version made it clear that this was the belief of the men involved.

The second change was as follows:

• "a desire to restore a more natural appearance" changed to "a desire to restore what they perceive to be a more natural appearance". I don't have the source to hand, but on the surface this seems a reasonable edit to me because it improves NPOV (not everyone agrees that the foreskin offers a more natural appearance, consider Williamson & Williamson 1988). An alternative might be to quote the source instead, and include a prose attribution.

The final change was:

• "to improve the glans's sensitivity to sexual stimulation or protect it from chafing" changed to "the belief that it will improve the glans's sensitivity to sexual stimulation or protect it from chafing". Again, this edit improves NPOV (note that Kirby, for example, contests the notion that restoration improves the sensitivity of the glans, so Wikipedia cannot assert it as fact).

Jakew (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The following items were inserted in my above post, and have been moved. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

...The fact that not everyone agrees that the foreskin offers a more natural appearance does not change the facts. It is a FACT that a foreskin is natural, and it is a FACT that a restored foreskin makes the penis look like a natural penis. It is not an 'opinion' that a restored foreskin makes the penis look natural. It is a fact, because a circumcised penis is by definition unnatural and any restoration will make the penis look more natural. - Ian Cooper

...Again, the fact that people refuse to believe the FACT that restoration reverses keratinization and publish their erroneous beliefs in medical journals should not be a bar to Wikipedia stating a fact. - Ian Cooper

Please see WP:NPOV. Jakew (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits

RDTony (talk · contribs) has recently tried to replace instances of "uncircumcised" (as in "uncircumcised males") with the word "intact".[5] This is problematic for several reasons:

• "Intact" connotes not damaged, harmed, etc.[6] While there is certainly a point of view that circumcision constitutes harm or damage, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and cannot endorse that point of view. We must therefore use neutral language instead of such loaded terminology.
• "Intact" may be inaccurate. We know that the males in the cited sources were not circumcised, because the sources say so. We don't know that they were intact. They may have been tattooed or pierced, which under some interpretations would mean that they were not intact. For that matter, they may have castrated, or may have had a limb amputated. We don't know, and can't make such an assumption. We only know that they were not circumcised.
• "Uncircumcised" is actually the correct term for a penis that hasn't been circumcised. Furthermore, in reliable sources it is vastly more commonly used.
• The stated reasons (eg., '"Uncircumcised" is not NPOV. Semantically, it implies that circumcised is the natural state of the penis.') for the change are invalid, founded upon a misunderstanding of the English language. The prefix "un-" does not mean or imply that what follows is normal. It simply means "not". For example, consider "unharmed", "uninjured", "unpasteurised", etc. Jakew (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

--Jakew uses flawed reasoning to reject replacing "uncircumcised" with "intact":

• "Intact" connotes "not damaged, harmed, etc." because the penis has not been harmed via surgical foreskin removal (i.e. circumcision, or "circumcised" versus "intact" in this context). Surgery is objective harm (e.g. risk of complications), even when it is used to remedy some form of disease or injury. The extent of the actual harm in any individual circumcision will vary, although some level is guaranteed in every circumcision. (e.g. [[7]]) Making this obvious point is the neutral point of view because it deals with facts, not a subset of facts. No statement on the value or preference for that outcome is intended or necessary. If Wikipedia cannot endorse the fact that surgically removing part of the normal human body is a form of harm, even if that harm seeks what is perceived as a greater benefit on net, then Wikipedia is a source of mere opinion, not fact.
• "Intact" is accurate in the context. It replaces the non-NPOV "uncircumcised". Stating that "we don't know they were intact" because they may have tattoos or piercings is irrelevant because circumcision deals with the removal of the foreskin. The context of "intact" here has nothing to do with tattoos or piercings. To discuss these or castration and amputated limbs muddies the discussion for no useful purpose.
• "Vastly more commonly used" is not a synonym for "accurate". The statement by Jakew that "'uncircumcised' is actually the correct term for a penis that hasn't been circumcised" proves my point. "Uncircumcised" implies that circumcision is the normal state of the penis.
• If I had a misunderstanding of the English language, I would not have prefaced my statement with "semantically".[8] The definition of "un" and what is implied with "uncircumcised" are not aligned perfectly here, as Jakew proves with his defense of the term "uncircumcised". This terminology starts with the surgically altered penis and then defines the anatomically normal penis based on what has not yet been done to it. That is not NPOV. I am open to suggestions other than "intact," but simply reverting to "uncircumcised" violates the NPOV that Jakew states should be our goal. RDTony (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, I think you'd find it difficult to show objectively that a circumcision scar constitutes harm. I understand that you may personally regard it as harm, but that's not an objective measure. As I indicated above, there is a viewpoint that circumcision is inherently harmful, but that is merely one of several points of view, and Wikipedia cannot endorse it. Some people regard circumcision as beneficial; we can't refer to the uncircumcised penis as "unimproved" either for exactly the same reason. We have to take a neutral position.

Regarding accuracy, one of the senses of "intact" is "not altered ... unblemished". If we are to refer to "intact males", therefore, we must be able to prove that these males are unblemished and unaltered. It is therefore entirely relevant to ask whether a man has been tattooed, pieced, castrated, etc., because if he has, he isn't intact. Context matters to an extent, but consider whether it is appropriate to refer to a man wearing a sock as "fully clothed" — it's clearly inaccurate unless he is wearing a full set of clothes (including the sock), even if the context is a discussion of footwear. If one doesn't know whether other clothes are being worn, and it's unimportant, then it is better to use a less broad description ("man wearing a sock", in this particular case).

Regarding '"Uncircumcised" implies that circumcision is the normal state of the penis', I have already shown by analogy that this is not the case. If it were, then "uninjured" would surely imply that injury is the norm.

Regarding 'This terminology starts with the surgically altered penis and then defines the anatomically normal penis based on what has not yet been done to it', that's entirely appropriate because what we're trying to compare are men who have and have not been circumcised. In other words, we wish to highlight the fact that circumcision has not been performed. Jakew (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (edited 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

Jakew, a circumcision scar objectively demonstrates that circumcision involves physical harm. It is not there when the male is born, and it is a guaranteed result from the surgical removal of a foreskin (i.e. circumcision). It's a brief journey to prove that "intact" is the correct term - scar[9] to wound[10] to injury[11] demonstrates the objective harm[12]. I need make no statement on whether I or any other male would object to, be indifferent about, or prefer having a circumcision scar, either by itself or in the net consideration. I implied as much when I stated that "no value or preference for that outcome is intended or necessary." The presence of the scar is the objective result. A male's preference or evaluation of that objective outcome is subjective. Ignoring the difference by using the two terms as synonyms is a mistake that leads to the non-NPOV you insist on maintaining.

• The view that circumcision is harmful - on net - is merely one of several points of view, but only when including a qualification like "on net". I accept that not everyone agrees on the net evaluation of circumcision's mix of harms, potential harms, benefits (in the subset where medical need exists) and potential benefits. However, circumcision causes objective harm (and exposes the patient to further risk of harm). That is the only objective point of view. Pretending otherwise pushes Wikipedia to opinion on this topic.
• Engaging in sophistry[13] doesn't grant legitimacy to your claim. We both understand that the context of this topic is the penis, its removed foreskin and attempts to mimic some aspects of what is removed. The normal penis is intact because it is "not altered" and "unblemished" by circumcision. "By circumcision" is the key, obvious context here. Does this topic need to be rewritten to explicitly eliminate over-inclusion of tattoos, piercings, amputations, and other "missing" possibilities? It doesn't need to be stated explicitly because this topic is foreskin restoration, not tattoo removal. The context is readily apparent. However, we can change the language to explicitly exclude tattoos, piercings, amputations, and any other topics that, when omitted, might lead to reader confusion if you think someone will come to a page on foreskin restoration and think that it's about other penile alterations. RDTony (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, I'm afraid I don't agree with your claim that a circumcision scar is evidence of harm. It is certainly a consequence of circumcision, but whether it is harmful is the issue, and you haven't established that. Indeed, you seem to acknowledge that such an evaluation is subjective. I don't think that dictionary games prove very much either — the English language is so rich that one can easily find a trail between totally unrelated terms by following possible synonyms. Since you regard your view of the harmful nature of circumcision as "the only objective point of view", I won't bother to waste my time debating the subject with you. If/when you're willing to consider other points of view, and more to the point when you're willing to consider terminology that is neutral with respect to circumcision, we can have a sensible discussion about the application of WP:NPOV policy.

Regarding your claim that 'The normal penis is intact because it is "not altered" and "unblemished" by circumcision', this may or may not be true, depending on whether other modifications have been performed. It may been pierced, tattooed, subincised, etc., any of which would mean that it is not intact. It is, however, uncircumcised, and as you acknowledge, the fact that circumcision has not been performed "is the key". There is no justification for using an overly-broad term here, because there is a perfectly adequate term that precisely states what is meant. Of course we don't need to rewrite the text. But it is absurd and unjustifiable to change a precise term ("uncircumcised") to a vague, imprecise, and potentially inaccurate term ("intact"), while hoping that the context will compensate for the poor choice of word. Jakew (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (edited 09:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

You can choose to disagree with my statement that a circumcision scar is evidence of harm, but that requires you to ignore this fact. That's an odd choice to willfully make. You're using a subjective interpretation of "harm" because an individual male may not care about objective harms in his cumulative conclusion on the value of circumcision for himself. Your position requires that we deem circumcision free of any harm if a male prefers circumcision to being intact. Instead, the correct approach is to understand that such an individual is drawing a conclusion on a mix of harms weighed against benefits. As in "circumcised" and "uncircumcised", you're starting at the end and working backwards. Facts do not work that way.

Of course I've acknowledged that this evaluation is subjective, and will do so again now. That point is obvious, but it's not what we're discussing. I don't understand why you pretend that such an evaluation changes the objective analysis of each individual data point that informs the conclusion. If a man decides he prefers circumcision, he has concluded that he prefers what he deems to be the positives more than the negatives. He cannot decide that the (objective) negatives disappeared or didn't occur.

You bring up tattoos, piercings, subincisions and other modifications as if I didn't already address them. You're being ridiculous on this point. And I acknowledged that circumcision is the key as a deviation from what is normal, not as the start of the discussion after it's been performed. That point was clear. Don't attempt to twist it to pretend that you're disproving something. "Intact" is only "vague, imprecise and potentially inaccurate" to the extent that you continue engaging in sophistry. If you insist on imagining that readers are so incompetent that they'll confuse tattoos with circumcision, then I think we must edit the entire page to explicitly reject any possible inference that tattoos, piercings subincisions, or other bodily alterations are considered here. Do you want to make that edit, or should I?

I've established that circumcision causes at least one objective harm. This is not a dictionary game; the concepts I linked are basic definitions. I proved the test you established at the beginning of this process. The fact of harm is provided without judgment on whether or not any male should find circumcision acceptable or objectionable, on net. Opinions are subjective. The facts that inform those opinions are not. You need to accept that removing a portion of the body, even if the surgery seeks to remedy some malady, involves causing direct, unavoidable harm. The scar, the risk of further surgical complications and the now-missing foreskin are the necessary evidence to prove that harm has been incurred. I haven't stated that those harms are enough to conclude what any person should believe about circumcision applied to himself, or that circumcision is always harmful, on net. My point is that the harms occur in every case. That is fact, and proves the test you initially set out in rejecting my change from a non-NPOV word to a NPOV word. You seem to want a standard for facts that includes a subjective evaluation of utilitarian measure. You're going too far, making too many assumptions. It's led you to an error. RDTony (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, this is becoming rather tedious, and this isn't the place for a lengthy debate, so I will be brief. You are obviously quite convinced that there are "objective negatives" to circumcision, and you're free to hold that point of view. However, the fact remains that there are a range of viewpoints regarding circumcision, including the view that circumcision damages the penis, as well as the view that circumcision improves the penis. If Wikipedia uses terminology that implies one of these viewpoints, we violate WP:NPOV.

Re " Do you want to make that edit, or should I", as I have already pointed out, that edit is unnecessary. Jakew (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jakew - Where else would we debate getting the topic correct, if not the Talk page? If you're not willing to debate it, I'm not sure why you get to decide that an inaccurate term should stay.

To be clear we haven't really started to debate yet because you've ignored what I've written in favor of what I think you'd prefer I'd written. I didn't write it the way you imply because that would've been counter to my fundamental point here. I state only that "intact" is the correct NPOV term.

"[T]he view that circumcision damages the penis, as well as the view that circumcision improves the penis" is not what I'm talking about. Those are two possible conclusions based on the mix of factors involved, including those factors that are subjective pursuits. I am stating a neutral assessment of what happens when the scalpel (or other surgical instrument) removes the foreskin from the penis. Again, you set the test that you would agree to change "uncircumcised" to "intact" if I could prove that circumcision causes harm. I did that.

Think of it this way: Does Ricky Gervais tell jokes? Is Ricky Gervais funny? Those are two distinct questions. The first can be objectively "yes" (it is) without the second being "yes" for every individual. That first question is where the merits of "circumcised" versus "intact" rests. Circumcision causes some level of harm in every instance. That's enough to remove the flawed term from the article. The only appropriate response now is to change the term to the NPOV "intact", at least until you're willing to debate and attempt to disprove what I've written. RDTony (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, talk pages are intended for discussion about changes to the article; they're not intended for protracted debates about tangential issues, especially when the content of such debates tend towards original research.

Regarding your claim that I 'set the test that you would agree to change "uncircumcised" to "intact" if I could prove that circumcision causes harm', I have never said any such thing, I'm afraid, and if I somehow gave such a misleading impression I apologise. In any case, I don't think you have proved that circumcision causes harm, and we seem to have been talking at cross-purposes anyway, with you talking about individual harms and me talking about net harm (which is, in my opinion, a more intuitive meaning). Of course, we don't have the luxury of hanging a little sign on words explaining what interpretation we intend, so if "intact" can be reasonably interpreted as meaning "not subjected to a net harm", the WP:NPOV violation still occurs.

Ultimately, the word currently in the article ("uncircumcised") is accurate and neutral, and if you wish to change it you need to build WP:CONSENSUS for that change. It seems unlikely that you'll achieve consensus for "intact", due to inherent NPOV and accuracy problems that I outlined, so I would suggest thinking of alternatives. Jakew (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Jakew, I agree that there are many viewpoints about the net effect, which is why I have not used that stance to defend the need to switch to "intact". It's further into the discussion than we should go when describing the core facts. It's illogical to jump ahead before settling the initial questions. I can't build consensus if we don't talk about the same topic.

The surgical intervention involves objective harm in every case. Otherwise, why would any doctor inform a potential patient about the risks and harms from a non-therapeutic surgery like breast augmentation, for example? There is objective harm, as evidenced by the scarring and including - but not necessarily limited to - the risk of complications. Anything else we tie to that is extraneous to the fundamental point that surgery causes harm, whether it's an objective, therapeutic benefit to correct some malady or a potential, non-therapeutic benefit subjective to the individual.

You state that Wikipedia needs to be neutral, which clearly requires objective facts rather than subjective interpretations. Yet, you insist that we use "net harm" to evaluate whether there is any harm from circumcision, which clearly requires the application of subjective preferences to reach that conclusion. As you've stated repeatedly, this conclusion is not the only interpretation of the net effect of circumcision. So why do you insist on using this specific, subjective, non-exclusive conclusion to dictate what constitutes a neutral point of view of basic facts? RDTony (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, this isn't something that can be settled through debate: even with the most persuasive argument in the world, you can't make the viewpoint that circumcision is a net benefit go away, and therefore asserting otherwise, explicitly or implicitly through terminology would violate WP:NPOV. It's as simple as that. Jakew (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jakew, this could be settled through debate if you'd simply address what I've written rather than what you want to believe I've written or believe. I'm not trying to make any viewpoint go away. How many times do I have to say that I acknowledge that multiple viewpoints exist regarding individual conclusions about the value of circumcision? Here it is again: multiple conclusions are possible regarding the net effect of circumcision to any individual. Can we now debate what I've written, which is what's relevant to the change that needs to be made to the page? The way you keep injecting extraneous topics and debating those instead of what I've written, I'll guess the answer is "no". However, if you walk away without having debated what I've said, it's only appropriate that we put the correction I've defended back into the article, at least until you attempt to refute my argument. RDTony (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, I'm glad that you acknowledge the existence of these multiple viewpoints. Since these multiple viewpoints exist, we cannot choose terminology that implicitly endorses one such viewpoint, as "intact" would do. That would violate WP:NPOV. It is utterly pointless to continue the debate over whether circumcision causes harm, because the outcome of such a debate would not matter — even if we were to agree that circumcision can cause harm in the form of complications, "intact" could still be interpreted by the reader as "not subjected to a net harm", and we need to avoid words that can be interpreted in such a way. Jakew (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Jakew, you're still not addressing my argument. I'll restate our positions.

Mine - Circumcision causes objective harm (e.g. scarring, risk of complications, etc.) in every instance. That will be factored into each individual's conclusion about whether or not circumcision is a net harm or benefit for himself.

Yours - There are many viewpoints about whether or not circumcision is a net harm. If anyone deems it a net benefit, then no objective harm occurred to him.

My position is true because it deals with facts and omits opinion. (Because opinions are the outcome of facts.) Your position is false because you start with a possible opinion on the outcome and work backwards to declare universal facts. This leaves you with a subset of facts and suggests that you view some facts as subjective. They are not.

"Intact" does not imply "not subjected to a net harm" out of context unless we assume a reader will add the silly, unrelated topics offered earlier here and somehow confuse those topics with the page they're reading. The point is that the normal penis hasn't been subjected to alteration via circumcised. That's what is implied by "intact" and what should be implied with any WP:NPOV word we eventually use to replace "uncircumcised".

If we must avoid words that can be interpreted in a way that implies some opinion or subjective outcome, then we're back to my original point. "Uncircumcised" implies that circumcision is the standard and all penises should be judged according to that standard. It implies that circumcision is normal and the normal penis is just a penis that hasn't yet been circumcised. A normal, intact foreskin is the rule, while circumcision is an exception to that rule for the penis. Whether we exchange it with "intact" or something else, "uncircumcised" violates WP:NPOV. RDTony (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RDTony, just because you are inferring something does not mean that the speaker is implying it. Your belief that the word "uncircumcised" implies a normative judgment about the proper state of a penis is unsupported by any source not involved in advocacy on one side or another. As has been mentioned before, the word "uninjured" does not imply that injury is the normal or proper state of being. The dispositive issue here is that the vast majority of disinterested third-party sources prefer the word 'uncircumcised' to 'intact'. Your personal chains of logic - no matter how long and baroque they grow - simply are not relevant here, and can not be used to overturn the commonly accepted English usage. I oppose your proposed change of terminology as an inappropriate, and as a clear violation of Wikipedia's commitment to a neutral point of view. Nandesuka (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nandesuka, Jakew wrote that we can't use "intact" because someone might infer that the article refers to males who have no tattoos, piercings, or amputated limbs, which are (out-of-context) facts we can't know. Was it okay for him to infer that "intact" might imply such a silly thing? That was one of his primary challenges to "intact", so he seems to have established inference as a plausible reason for challenging certain words. Was he wrong? If we can't consider what is implied by words, then any words will do. We may pretend that Wikipedia readers are automatons who think like a dictionary, but I'm guessing none of us believes that is reality.

My "chain of logic" only appears long because I've had to repeat myself to remind Jakew that I've only included facts in my argument, not possible conclusions drawn from those facts. My points were in response to his mistaken belief that the unavoidable harm of circumcision (or any surgery) is not an objective fact. Rather than attempt to refute what I've said, he's tacked on extraneous topics and pretended that he's refuted my position because someone somewhere might be okay with being circumcised. (Your reliance on majority opinion[14] for the term of choice in the article isn't a refutation to the relevance of my argument, either.)

I've established my core point. Using terminology that starts with circumcision as the norm for the human penis, which "uncircumcised" does, is not neutral. No matter what Jakew may believe, the possibility that a male will decide circumcision is a net benefit to himself does not prove that the objective harm from the surgery itself didn't happen. "Uncircumcised" is a biased term, however subtly, and regardless of how widely accepted it is. I've suggested "intact" as a replacement, but I've also repeatedly stated that I'm willing to consider another NPOV word, if offered. RDTony (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I haven't really bothered to read most of what Jakew has written here. The point is that since you are the one proposing that we depart from the widely accepted English standard usage, you're the one with the burden of proof. You simply haven't even come close to establishing it. When it comes to determining whether a given term violates WP:NPOV, my "reliance on majority opinion" is more than simply a refutation of your argument, it's the gold standard of all refutations. We are not going to adopt new vocabulary because of your personal, unsupported-by-third-party-sources inferences. The sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be. Nandesuka (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the burden of proof is on me, and I'm satisfied that I proved my point early in the process. As long as you're willing to use a logical fallacy as the gold standard of refutation, there's nothing anyone could say. Anyone interested in reading thoroughly can decide independently. You didn't even bother to read the full thread before reaching a conclusion. With that standard, opinion drives fact, so anything can be true. That's flawed, and if it's a view shared by many about how to use Wikipedia, then Wikipedia itself is flawed. RDTony (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Photo

I've added a photo. Addressing the concerns others had over the previous photo:

This photo is of me. I am 23 years old in the "before" side and 26 in the "after". The foreskin was restored non-surgically using the method described at http://www.foreskin.gc.bz/ (which I also added a link to). The method consists of a combination of cross-taping and a modified version of T-taping. It is a "complete" restoration, although I intend to continue the method and grow enough extra to allow for some surgical touching-up.

I hope that's enough, but if there are any more concerns, I'd be happy to answer them.--Offhandive (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on the photo- while I think it is great to have a before and after illustration, I think we need a better picture. I've seen restoration results that have a much more natural appearance. And I think we should depict that it can be done well, and with good results. I feel that this article should be done in as flattering of a light as possible, since it really helps to educate people on the issue of circumcision. It also provides encouragement for those who did not endorse their own circumcision, and wish to reverse it. --99.110.255.113 (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Kirby's claims about shaft sensitivity

Kirby's comments in his BMJ editorial regarding the possibility of loss of sensitivity in the shaft are quoted here without comment. Does anyone know if there is any research basis for this? I haven't seen anything about it anywhere else, and Kirby doesn't cite any references in the original source. It might just be FUD, or it might be a reasonable inference based on the results of tissue stretching in other parts of the body. I guess either of those conclusions would be considered original research and couldn't make it into the article, but I'd at least like to see a comment from an informed source as to whether there is direct evidence regarding shaft sensitivity in restored vs. unrestored men. Inhumandecency (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Added one of those big ugly Original Research templates. I've never seen documentation on anything like this, and agree that it could very well be be FUD by the author. --76.89.247.234 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research just because someone here believes the claim is dubious. The claim is cited and attributed to Kirby, and thus all evidence indicates that Kirby made that claim and that it was published in a reliable source. That's not original research. If his claim has been criticized, or another author has made a contrasting claim, then we can bring a source indicating that as well. I have removed the OR template. Blackworm (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's not research and an OR template would not be apt. However, there seems to be no evidence given to support his claim. If someone would like to do so, please go ahead - in the meantime I've removed it entirely. Content at this site must be verifiable, and simply citing an unverified claim doesn't solve the problem. --Z726 (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not your role to assess his claim and the evidence he presents. Kirby said it, the URL verifies it, and BMJ published it. On what grounds are you removing it? Disagreeing with his claim because you believe it has flimsy grounds isn't good enough. Blackworm (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources must also be reliable; perhaps that is a better argument for what I was trying to say. No indication has been given that this man's opinion is among the medical community's consensus on the subject. I do not know if the BMJ's "Views and reviews" section is checked for accuracy of the opinions presented, or whether it would even make a difference in determining whether to publish such an article.--Z726 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The piece in question is an editorial (as noted above), and as such does not mean it carries the weight we expect from reliable sources. Even peer-reviewed journals (don't know if this even is one) give more leeway when it's an editorial, so I agree with removing the comment altogether. Apertus (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We use letters to the editor of journals as reliable sources, for example in circumcision (see this ref: [15]. I once argued as you do, that it cannot be used as a reliable source, and I was shot down by multiple administrators. An editorial is arguably more reviewed and held to a higher standard than a letter to the editor, and therefore if the former qualifies, the latter definitely does. However, if you can point to policy stating that views published by authors in medical journals in "editorial" fashion rather than "research article" fashion are not reliable sources, I will gladly yield in this discussion. Blackworm (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirby's article is nothing more than a book review and has no research or evidence to back it up. It is nothing more than Kirby's opinion after reading the reviewed book. I have never seen any evidence to support his opinion. Kirby apparently has no special expertise in foreskin restoration. He is only a book reviewer. I do not think his comment belongs in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.82.25 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The important question is whether it is a reliable source. It is. Jakew (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, just because it was published in a journal or because Jake says it is. It is simply speculation without facts to back it up, or in other words, conjecture, that does not meet Wikipedia standards. Sugarcube73 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to point to the relevant WP policy that allows you to classify a source as unreliable because you disagree with it? Jakew (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is more appropriate for you to point to the relevant WP policy that allows insertion of unfounded conjecture into an article. It would also be helpful if you cited some actual instances of injury from non-surgical foreskin restoration. Until you do that, the seventeen year old Kirby conjecture does not belong in this article. Sugarcube73 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the relevant policy is WP:NPOV, which means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Jakew (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia states:

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Kirby's book review is nothing more than the personal opinion of one man. It cannot be a "significant view" in as much as it is simply the unfounded opinion of one man who wrote a book review 17 years ago. As such it is outmoded. Can you produce substantial evidence of actual injury from non-surgical foreskin restoration?

Wikipedia says:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

Can you verify Kirby's opinion by a reliable source? I doubt it.

Unless you can do so, Kirby's unsubstantiated opinion does not belong in the article. It is nothing more than gossip or rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarcube73 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The BMJ is clearly not a questionable source, so it is unclear why you raise that point. As far as a significant view goes, it is no less significant an opinion than several others that are cited in the article, and it is necessary to include the full range of views in order to adhere to NPOV. Finally, Kirby's opinion is already verifiable: you can easily confirm that he says what he does. Jakew (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It is agreed that the BMJ is not a questionable source, but a book review, which is nothing more than one man's opinion is questionable when there are no facts to back it up. It is nothing more that conjecture.

The keyword here is significant. There is nothing significant about the conjecture of one man who knew little or nothing about foreskin restoration. The fact that it was published by the BMJ does not make it sacred.

WP says:

"Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

You are comparing the viewpoint of one man to the overwhelming experience of hundreds of thousands of restorers who find non-surgical restoration to be effective. You are improperly giving parity to the conjecture of one man and the actual experience of hundreds of thousands of men. This does not satisfy WP's NPOV. Sugarcube73 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

There are some pretty awful sources in the article already: a magazine article in Mothering, several self-published web page at NORM, FOREGEN and INTACT, a non-academic book (Bigelow), etc. By comparison, a book review that is published by a top-tier journal, and is subject to editorial review is remarkably reliable. If the article were cleaned up to remove the more dubious sources, there might be a better basis for removing Kirby, but even then it would be questionable.

As for the nature of the article, we're presenting it as opinion, not fact, and we're clearly attributing that opinion to its author. And there are plenty of statements in the article that lack rigorous proof. For example, where is the evidence for the statement that 'According to some observers it is difficult to distinguish a restored foreskin from a natural foreskin because restoration produces a "nearly normal-appearing prepuce."'? Is it a rigorous blinded experiment? No, it's someone's opinion, too. But opinions are okay as long as they're not presented as facts.

Finally, please provide a reliable source in support of your claim that "hundreds of thousands of restorers [...] find non-surgical restoration to be effective". I suspect you can't. Jakew (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page does not require reliable sources like an article does. I agree that this article needs a lot of cleaning up, but if you will look at the illustrations, it is obvious that foreskin restoration does produce a "nearly normal-appearing prepuce." 184.46.43.29 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are usually expected, especially when making extraordinary claims. More to the point, the claims tend to be given no weight if they're not accompanied by a reliable source (or at least some kind of credible evidence). Jakew (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Kirby paper was nothing more than a book review of Dr. Bigelow's book. Apparently Kirby had little knowledge of the subject. The criticism section needs to come out because Kirby is not a reliable source, although the BMJ is generally quite reliable. Sugarcube73 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision polemics

There has been an effort on the part of some editors to place polemical arguments about male circumcision wherever possible.

This article is about foreskin restoration, not circumcision. Circumcision polemics should be removed and placed in circumcision articles. Sugarcube73 (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"T-Tape" vs. "T-taping method"

I have changed the "T-taping method" link in the caption for File:Ca_before_after.jpg from '[[T-Tape|T-taping method]]' to '[[T-taping method]]'. This deliberately breaks the link to the nonesistent "T-Tape" page -- "T-Tape" redirects to "Drip tape", which is about irrigation, not Foreskin restoration. It is, therefore, unhelpful here. I hope someone who is interested will create proper "T-Tape" & "T-taping method" articles. -- 99.120.130.167 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.norm.org

  Triggered by \bnorm\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Health and safety

Is there any published, peer-reviewed proof that foreskin restoration is safe? If not, I feel that this should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.233.146 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• We can only have a whole section on it if there's enough information. Prcc27 (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Should procedures to infants be labeled involuntary?

For infants the parents are the decision makers and thus if they give consent it is not technically involuntary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My answer to the question would be no. What you said above does ring a bell, but voluntary or not doesn't seem like an important qualification to worry about in the first place. Focusing on that distinction would seem to have a WP:ADVOCACY tinge to it, so a more NPOV way of discussing things would be to simply not even mention if something is voluntary or not. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Involuntary" is defined by MW as "not done or made consciously" or "not done by choice", but in infants these procedures ARE "done or made consciously" or "done by choice" by the patient's legal guardian; therefore, my impression would be that procedures to infants should NOT be considered involuntary. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The point of that particular section is to talk about the emotional aspects of why the person that was circumcised is restoring their foreskin and how foreskin restoration affects them. I don't quite get your guy's logic... If one of my friend tells someone it's okay for them to give me a haircut when I didn't consent to it does that mean it was voluntary? You can't make a decision for someone else and consider it voluntary. Thus the "not by one's own choice" part of the definition of involuntary. If the person getting circumcised didn't consent to it, it is involuntary. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not favor your position, but to nullify the argument completely perhaps the use of terms "voluntary" and "involuntary" can simply be avoided in this context? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that the word "involuntary" in the medical setting generally means something different than the simple idea that parents gave consent instead of the child. Like an involuntary admission to a mental health facility or an involuntary procedure such as involuntary sterilization. So the use of the word should be avoid when discussing circumcisions done during infancy when the parents gave consent. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If the word "involuntary" bothers people why don't we change it to what we all agree is actually meant to be said: the parent(s) making the decision for the child (rather than the individual making the decision)? Prcc27 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a better approach. If "the newborn baby didn't personally provide informed consent" is your standard, then everything that happens to a newborn is "involuntary", which makes it meaningless. A typical newborn's life would be filled with "involuntary" feeding, diapering, clothing, bathing, cleaning, holding, caring, and loving.

An article like this should probably describe the situation with a little more detail and without divisive language. You might try something like, "The decision to circumcise a baby is made by the parents, and, when he is old enough to understand it, he may disagree with his parents' decision" or "Because babies are incapable of understanding circumcision, the decision about whether to circumcise is normally made by their parents. As adults, some men resent having this decision made by proxy, before they were capable of participating in the decision."

On the other hand, the simplest option—just to leave it out—is also fairly attractive. I think that the average person already realizes that infants don't make their own choices about things like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)