"
That quote discusses what happens to the penis after circumcision, which is not what the article is about. The sentence may use the word ""foreskin"" but it is clearly a quote that is directly related to circumcision, rather than the foreskin, thus it is off-topic, and does not belong in the article. The only part of the sentence directly related to the foreskin is ""nerve endings in the foreskin,"" and that section by itself doesn't add much to the article.

Allowing material that discusses what happens to the penis after the foreskin is removed would allow the entire Sexual effects of circumcision and Medical analysis of circumcision articles to be copied to Foreskin. When taken to this extreme, it's quite evident that discussing what happens to the penis when the foreskin is removed is beyond the scope of this article. If readers wish to learn about what happens to the penis when the foreskin is removed, there are plenty of circumcision-related pages that are directly related to that topic on wikipedia, and we already link to them from the Foreskin article.

It appears that the article is being used as a soapbox for discussing circumcision because of the number of sentences devoted to circumcision in the article. If it was just one or two sentences, I would not have a basis for making this accusation, but as we can see from this diff (your revert conveniently shows all three of my edits, so I'm using that rather than listing them individually), the amount of off-topic text devoted to circumcision is substantial.

By the way, since we're discussing content again, I'm happy to go back to the Foreskin talk page, so that other editors can participate in the conversation. Thanks for continuing our discussion, I think we're getting somewhere again. However, I also note that you have now been reverted by two other editors, indicating a lack of consensus for including the material in question, so I'm not sure if further discussion is necessary, but I'm happy to continue the discussion if you wish.   "