Anonymous 001100 (talk | contribs) →Added Contrasting Lead Image: new section |
|||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
I updated the Foreskin page by adding a second image that contrasts well with the lead image, showing the range of foreskin lengths. I believe the Foreskin page is lacking images of a longer than average foreskin, which is why I added the second image. For people to be educated about the Foreskin they should be able to see different ways it looks. Can this edit remain? What do you think? I think it adds to the article and provides something that wasn't there before. [[User:Anonymous 001100|Anonymous 001100]] ([[User talk:Anonymous 001100|talk]]) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
I updated the Foreskin page by adding a second image that contrasts well with the lead image, showing the range of foreskin lengths. I believe the Foreskin page is lacking images of a longer than average foreskin, which is why I added the second image. For people to be educated about the Foreskin they should be able to see different ways it looks. Can this edit remain? What do you think? I think it adds to the article and provides something that wasn't there before. [[User:Anonymous 001100|Anonymous 001100]] ([[User talk:Anonymous 001100|talk]]) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
||
:There is little difference between the picture you have taken and the one further down in the article. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:47, 9 September 2014
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 Talk/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-talk- 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.[2] 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.[3 I cant find the 95% statistic in the oster reference. Are you sure we need it? I don't see how it adds anything. Thanks. Tremello (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Picture Misleading
The photo of a foreskin while flaccid and then retracted when erect is misleading as it depicts a uncircumcised man in the top and a circumcised man at the bottom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HQ_SAM_SASu.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.10.157 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- No looks OK to me, loose skin present, no sign of scar. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit - should this historical "stuff" from 50s and 60s have been removed from the article ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foreskin&curid=29289333&diff=623800133&oldid=623791020 The editor who removed this material from the article labelled his edit " removing some really old stuff" But the material removed : Some early studies showed that the presence of the foreskin made sexual penetration easier. is by its nature and self definition "old stuff" and contributes to the historical context. This and so much material about the pros and cons of lopping off foreskins really belong in the circumcision article. The editor who made this reversion is active in a particular editing group on the Circumcision article in particular and on the subject in general.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 05:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Added Contrasting Lead Image
I updated the Foreskin page by adding a second image that contrasts well with the lead image, showing the range of foreskin lengths. I believe the Foreskin page is lacking images of a longer than average foreskin, which is why I added the second image. For people to be educated about the Foreskin they should be able to see different ways it looks. Can this edit remain? What do you think? I think it adds to the article and provides something that wasn't there before. Anonymous 001100 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is little difference between the picture you have taken and the one further down in the article. --NeilN talk to me 22:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)