Jump to content

Talk:Foreskin restoration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreskin restoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Foreskin restoration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A less biased 'synopsis' or 'lede'?

[edit]

I proposed this modification for the synopsis:

"Foreskin restoration is a misnomer for stretching the skin of the circumcised penis to encourage growth by mitosis of new skin to partially replace functions of the foreskin. The foreskin is sometimes removed for religious or cultural reasons, often as an infant, or because of injury. Specialized tissues removed during circumcision cannot be restored. Some adult men wish to reduce negative effects of their circumcision and turn to 'foreskin restoration'. In some cases men feel their circumcisions are excessive or make erections uncomfortable. 'Restoration' can sometimes provide relief.[1] Surgical skin grafting methods also exist."

It was removed by a Wikipedia Editor for lack of citations. This seems odd, and counter to other Wikipedia editors who have said that making statements in the synopsis that are well supported within the article are ok, and avoid overloading the synopsis with citations. In the present version there is one citation of an academic article behind a pay-wall. (Lerman & Liao) I left that citation in as best I could while cleaning up the awkward language. I wish I could see if this is a quote from Lerman & Liao, and if it is an accurate quote.

This Wikipedia article has been subjected to biased viewpoints from two sides of an argument over the propriety of circumcision and it's consequences. Bias can be very subtle, and should be avoided from either side. Full disclosure, I am unhappily circumcised, have engaged in several years of unsuccessful effort at 'restoration' or 'tugging' with several devices referenced in this article. I do wish language that minimizes the effects of circumcision and words that inspire false hope were not part of the discussion around this topic. I believe it is possible for one who has a position to pick out 'loaded words' and replace them with accurate and unbiased ones. I endeavored to remove biased words that suggest things that are not possible. I have made every effort at truth, accuracy, and avoiding bias. Perhaps I do have a blind spot for one bit of bias - I do not think people should be misled into believing circumcision is a thing that can ever be undone. It can't. That is true, accurate, and I don't think Wikipedia should be misleading its readers.

'Restoration' is a subtly biased word suggesting something that cannot be done, can be done. That is dishonest, inaccurate, and if not biased, nonsensical. It is, however, a popular way to refer to the issue. So calling it what it is and proceeding makes sense to me. I believe it was likely adopted by 'restorers' themselves. It is - from either side of the argument - a misnomer. Even if experimental efforts at cellular foreskin regeneration are successful someday, a cadaver foreskin is used as a scaffold for 'stem cells' to grow, and that cultured skin is then surgically attached. Even this is not truly 'restoration' of what was originally there. Stretching skin remnants cannot 'restore' a foreskin, or an organ. The best effect of restoration is to *simulate* some of the foreskin's function by 'stretching' skin tissues that remain. One might say this is more accurately stretching skin to 'mitigate' damage done by circumcision, but 'mitigate' is awkward, as well as a unnecessarily potentially biased. To the word 'damage', there is undeniably damage done in circumcision. True, accurate, and unbiased. The first sentence is a statement well supported within the article. I assert that 'restoration' is truly a misnomer as used in this article, that fact is made clear within the full article, and its inaccuracy is duly pointed out without bias. The synopsis should as accurately as possible condense the article, not throw words out that are 'wishful thinking'.

I added links to other Wikipedia articles to clarify and differentiate terminology such as 'skin', 'human penis', 'mitosis', 'foreskin', and 'restoration', all relevant to the article.

The discussion of 'restoration' begs the question, what happened that necessitates this attempt at 'restoration'. The statement "The foreskin is sometimes removed for religious or cultural reasons, often as an infant, or because of injury," answers this directly and I believe without bias.

The statement "Specialized tissues removed during circumcision cannot be restored" is truthful, accurate, and does not betray a bias. It is also taken nearly verbatim from the existing synopsis.

"Some adult men wish to reduce negative effects of their circumcision and turn to 'foreskin restoration.'" This sentence is truthful, accurate, and does not betray a bias.

The sentence attributed to Lerman and Liao is currently long and awkward: "Some forms of restoration involve only partial regeneration in instances of a high-cut wherein the circumcisee feels that the circumciser removed too much skin and that there is not enough skin for erections to be comfortable." If anybody has access to the textbook and can verify this language, that would be helpful. (This is not in quotation marks as it should be if it does directly quote Lerman and Liao.) The sentence as I replaced it reads this way: "In some cases men feel their circumcisions are excessive or make erections uncomfortable. 'Restoration' can sometimes provide relief." While this may not perfectly mirror Lerman and Liao, I believe it reads more easily.

"Surgical skin grafting methods also exist." is also a 'cleaned up' version of what's already in the synopsis.

Kendall Hallett (talk)

  1. ^ Lerman, Steven E., and Joseph C. Liao. "Neonatal circumcision." Pediatric Clinics 48.6 (2001): 1539-1557.
It's your own opinion. The lede must summarize the body, and the content of the body must conform to WP:V. In Wikipedia, sources are all. Alexbrn (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS sourcing

[edit]

To answer the question in the IP's edit summary - I am taking issue with all of the content I am deleting. That is why I am deleting it. WP:MEDRS is a firm, Wikipedia-wide requirement for content of this nature. We absolutely cannot be using vendor websites and a mis-mash of blogs and forum posts for medical content. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right too. The article was full of junk and the clear-out improves things. Bon courage (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation

[edit]

The article contains information on the historical motivation of the practice—Jews wanting to conform to gentile standards of beauty—but there is no mention of the motivation of the practice in modernity (i.e., post–World-War II). It would be prudent to include this, especially considering most of the article details the practice as done in modernity. Vex-Vectoꝛ​​ 14:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear "foreskin restoration" definition and other lede paragraph issues

[edit]

I propose altering the lede of this article in the following ways. (Considering the mass edit warring that's gone on here over the past few years, I thought it prudent to open a discussion before making the changes. If no one responds within a reasonable amount of time, I will assume there are no active objections and make the proposed changes.)

For the purposes of this discussion, I am assuming that we, on Wikipedia, have chosen to define "foreskin restoration" as all methods of restoration/reconstruction, including manual stretching and surgical techniques (although it's been my observation that, among online communities of individuals engaging in restoration/reconstruction, the majority preference appears to be to use the term "restoration" to only refer to manual stretching methods and to use "reconstruction" only to refer to surgical methods).

1) The first sentence currently states, "Foreskin restoration is the process of expanding the skin on the penis to reconstruct an organ similar to the foreskin, which has been removed by circumcision or injury." I propose changing the sentence to read, "Foreskin restoration or reconstruction refers to the process of recreating the foreskin of the human penis, which has been removed by circumcision or injury." See my bulleted justifications below.

• The second sentence already goes into more detail about how this restoration is commonly accomplished, so it's unnecessary to go into such detail in the first sentence (especially since the first sentence, as currently written, excludes surgical methods from its definition).

• The first sentence incorrectly describes the restored foreskin as an "organ" onto itself. The foreskin is part of the penis; it is not its own organ, whether it's the foreskin someone was born with or a restored one.

• The description of the restored foreskin is clearly written from a biased point of view. Whoever wrote the first sentence seems to be implying that a restored foreskin is so distinct from the original that it shouldn't even be referred to as a foreskin. It is fine and medically accurate to acknowledge that the restored foreskin is not anatomically identical to the one the restorer was born with (which the lede already does in the third sentence). However, I don't think we should refer to a restored foreskin as "an organ similar to the foreskin" any more than we should refer to reconstructed breasts as "collections of fat and skin similar to breasts" or a reconstructed face as "an area of tissue on the front of the head similar to a face." The editor in question appears to be implying that biological indistinguishability from the original should be the standard for whether or not we may call a reconstructed body part by its actual name. I strongly disagree with this and think this biased point of view has rendered the first sentence an imprecise word salad.

2) The fourth sentence currently states, "Actual regeneration of the foreskin is experimental at this time." I suggest deleting this sentence entirely. See my bulleted justifications below.

• This statement has no citation supporting it, and regenerative techniques (experimental or otherwise) are not discussed or cited anywhere else in the article.

• This statement appears to be a veiled reference to the opaque American/Italian non-profit Foregen (whose Wikipedia article redirects to this one). The organization has claimed to be researching regenerative techniques of foreskin restoration since 2010 (more specifically, techniques involving decellularization technology). However, they have not published any peer-reviewed research to date (with the exception of a 2018 paper published in the Journal of Tissue Engineering, in which they described running various lab tests and analyses on decellularized human foreskins). While they publicly claim to have conducted various animal trials since then (including multiple failed late-stage animal trials), they have not published any results of these trials in peer-reviewed journals or shared the detailed methodology of their trials with the public in any other way. To claim that regenerative foreskin restoration "is experimental at this time" based on nothing more than Foregen's 2018 paper and whatever other research efforts they claim to have made since 2010 is frankly ridiculous and serves as nothing more than puffery and promotion for Foregen. Until such time as research into regenerative foreskin restoration becomes widespread (or, at the very least, until Foregen chooses to publish far more substantial work in a peer-reviewed journal), the fourth sentence should be completely removed from the article's lede. To my knowledge, no other organization in the world has engaged (or claimed to have engaged) in any form of experimentation regarding foreskin regeneration, and, for the reasons stated above, Foregen has not established itself as a scientifically reliable source in this arena. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreskin_restoration&oldid=1265498232"