![]() |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Foreskin definition
The term foreskin and prepuce have been used interchangeably, but this useage was challenged by Taves DR in a 2002 article in Medical Hypotheses.. The distinction is whether the covering of the glans penis occurs with erection. He was unable to find evidence of non-human primates having a foreskin that was long enough to cover the glans when the penis is erect. It is clear in his example showing a 10 fold reduction in the force needed to penetrate an artificial dry entroitus and as implied in the article in Wikipedia that humans foreskin do cover at least part of the glans some of the time. The picture of an erect penis with fully retracted foreskin is therefore misleading and probably is anomalous. There are interesting possible implications about the evolution of the primates but these I assume should wait for discussion in the research literature.
[1]
Drtaves (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ Taves DR The intromission function of the foreskin. 2002;59(2):180-182
Retraction pictures
I'd like to add to this article near the text about foreskin retraction, an image of an uncircumcised flaccid penis from three angles in three different states, form full foreskin coverage of the glans to full retraction of the foreskin. This is the picture
BT33015 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [[User:|BT33015]] 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it "does not add". The current article has one photo of a flaccid where the glans is almost completely covered and then one flaccid with foreskin covering to erect with foreskin retracted. This series shows three different states of coverage all when flaccid; therefore there is difference and more from "what we already have". Moreover, curiosity of foreskin look, function and functionality is very common, this photo series depicts more of the subject of the article.
BT33015 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that the article could benefit from a series of retraction images. The retractability of the foreskin is one of its most important functions, and not one that's generally well understood. This has been evidenced by the comment section here - some people have thought that the existing image depicts two different men, one who is circumcised on the bottom, and one who is not at the top. A retraction series would make the function more clear to readers.
- With that said, I do not believe that the suggested image above is ideal. The contrast and detail of the image are poor. If an image is to be used, I'd suggest a higher-quality one, such as File:A Foreskin Retraction Series.JPG or File:A high-resolution image of foreskin retraction.JPG. kyledueck (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Kyledueck as to the need or retraction photos. As to if the two penis are two different men, I don't know. As to my image, if the subject mater's quality is in question, I'd be happy to re-do a image to make it more clear. As a photographer, I'll have to talk to the model I used; however I would like the chance to re-do the image. --BT33015 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) BT33015 (talk) (UTC)
- Don't trouble yourself. There's no need for another set of images; either of the two I listed above are fine, so I'll just add one of those to the article. kyledueck (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
As a photographer, I would like another chance. Here is a series from another set that I can't find the first stage photographs.
But I feel my work is most of the time adequate for something like this.
--BT33015 (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I strongly feel the other options I mentioned are still higher quality, and add more to the article. I can appreciate your desire to contribute, but I don't see the point in taking more pictures when ideal images already exist on Wikimedia commons. kyledueck (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about the image that has been added. The foreskin in question clearly has a case of phimosis, as can be seen mid-way through retraction when the foreskin appears tight on the glans, and in the last image a phimotic ring can be seen around the shaft. I agree there is a need for retraction photos or even a video, but I don't think the one added today is perfect. --TBM10 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. What about this image then? kyledueck (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Both the photo added and the second photo suggested are amateur and without artistic expression. I will do a new full photo series as soon as I can. --BT33015 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I've rescheduled with the model I used in the black & white photo. In the next week I'll have it done. --BT33015 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. Angle and contrast are important when photographing human antomy. My goal is tasteful and educational. --BT33015 (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is a different picture, I've done two with some color differences.
darker -
ligher -
I like the second of the two. --BT33015 (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Video to illustrate the article
Commons has a good video that shows the forskin.
. Maybe this can be used in the article? Alice2Alice (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Foreskin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070122014627/http://aappolicy.aappublications.org:80/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686 to http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010003545/http://www.wired.com:80/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Archived sources still need to be checked
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Foreskin. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Attempted to fix sourcing for https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
Archived sources still need to be checked
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)