Talk:Foreskin

Infographics "Anatomy and function of the foreskin"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please find here my point-by-point response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. "function" removed from title,

2. panel "circumcision result" removed,

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

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

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

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

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

Hey @KlayCax, sorry for the late reply, here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foreskin_Anatomy_WIKI-EN.jpg

Are you also ok with this version @Thelisteninghand and @Piccco? Guido4 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, no objections have been raised, so the new version of the illustration meets the criteria that have been stated in the discussion above. I'll insert the illustration then. As always please stick to the rules and don't revert anything before it has been agreed on a new consensus. Guido4 (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks odd. What is source mapping sensitivity of different porions of the foreskin to left and right sides of the palm of the hand? Bon courage (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that don't revert anything before it has been agreed on a new consensus is not in any way a rule. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)