Talk:Smegma/Archive 1

message: we're not a dictionary. needs rewriting. and we can't use other peopl's material eitehr -- the quotes from dictionaries must go entirely. Tarquin
*OK, OK, OK. Done. - Robert Brookes 15:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: not a dictionary

message: One should be aware that the issue of smegma is emotive with respect to the circumcision debate in the US. Those who advocate circumcision often use smegma as the lack of hygiene and cleanliness that comes with being uncircumcised. For example: "circumcised men don't have that problem". The anti-cricumcision efforts are to attempt to promote smegma as being a useful and indeed beneicial substance. This latter view can be seen in the attempts to reinsert information of dubious accuracy into the article. One needs to watch for this. Robert Brookes
*I reinserted information that you had deleted without explanation.  Such information provided useful information about smegma.  If you can show that any of the information in the article is inaccurate or misleading, I will remove it myself.  But if you have a problem with my edits, you could simply say so, instead of saying that it is necessary to "watch for" "information of dubious accuracy".  Instead please discuss the changes you wish to make; I will listen. Acegikmo1
**Perhaps your first mistake was assuming that what was already in the article was correct and truthful. I started this discussion which you have responded to, now all that remains to be seen is whether you can listen. - Robert Brookes 07:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Exposing an agenda

message: You removed the sentences,
"It serves as a lubricant during sexual intercourse."
"Women usually have more smegma than men."
and a paragraph about the color of smegma and where it accumulates.
Do you challenge the accuracy of these statements or do you feel that they should not be included in the article?
Acegikmo1 05:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to include 

message: Using the phrase "foul-smelling" to describe smegma indicates a pro-circumcision POV. DanBlackham 07:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Smegma is not instrinsically foul smelling. Presumably it acquires a smell unpleasant to most people if allowed to decay, but this is the case with a huge variety of substances. I don't much like "cheesy" as an adjective either. Apart from the fact that cheeses vary wildy, are you comparing the substance in question by appearance, consistency, aroma, or (er) taste? In any case, Robert, if you are unable to respond without making ad hominem attacks (see wikiquette), I shall assume that your arguments are too weak to stand on their own and revert any related edits. Rls 22:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "foul-smelling" = POV

message: It is interesting that a certain person is desperate to force the insertion of the following text into the article. 
"If allowed to accumulate in the foreskin cavity, it decays into what some consider an unpleasant, unhealthy, and bad-smelling substance.. Others state that there is nothing inherently unhealthy in this."
Smegma is bodily excrement. Like underarm BO it can begin to stink within hours of a wash. Why is this simple fact so desperately resisted? In what possible way can this gunk be considered "healthful"? Which sane person would not describe stink of decaying smegma as at an absolute minimum, "foul smelling"? What would the agenda be of a person or persons who do not consider the accumulation of smegma to be unhealthy? Is there a psychosexual connotation here? - Robert Brookes 08:16, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if he is trolling or not. It doesn't matter either way to me though. We have standards of politeness that people are expected to follow and asking people "Is there a psychosexual connotation here?" in order to insult them is simply not on. I have started a request for comments here. Come and add your name if you agree about what's being said. To Robert, feel free to respond to the accusations there. Theresa Knott  (Nate the Stork) 16:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: *You are free to do what you like Theresa. Just please do not claim that you are motivated bythe ideals of wikipedia and a commitment to NPOV. Oh and as to the accusations there, you can run your own Salem Trial if that makes you feel good. - Robert Brookes 00:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: the stink and health

message: Please provide the cites for this stuff or delete it - Robert Brookes 16:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The mumbo-jumbo about Lysozyme

message: Considering the number of edits, this article is still a long way from being very good. A web search reveals that some of the text (the intro for example) appears to be a copyvio. I propose that those of us who are regular wikipedians just get on with writing a decent article and ignore the POV pushers. In that spirit I'd like to address this sentance:
 Early medical opinion speculated that there was a connection between smegma 
 and the development of penile cancer, though recent studies have found no
 such connection.  
Can anyone provide a source for that statement? Because I've been digging around on the web and everything I've read states that allowing smegma to accumilate is a risk factor for penile cancer. Thoughts anyone?  Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 14:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey dokey.I'm fine with that. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 21:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting the article up to scratch

message: The following sentance is POV as it stands.
 Not surprisingly, given this possibility of the presence of lytic material and the fact
 that the area is anerobic environment the prevalent bacteris found under the foreskin 
 are mainly gram negative anaerobes. 
 Gram negative infections tend to be more lethal and more resistant to antibiotics than 
 gram positive infections.
Because it makes it sound as if the flora of smegma are "lethal" pathogens that can't be treated with antibiotics. This is a load of tripe! I could delete it as being irrelavent seeing as the normal flora are not considered "infections" but I'd rather balance it with the sentance you keep deleting:
 Never the less the mycobacterium M. smegmatis which is not affected by lysozyme and
 grows rapidly in smegma is nonpathogenic.
It's impossible for me to provide a reference of the relevence of this sentance. What kind of reference are yoo looking for? I notice that you haven't provided a reference for the relevence of the sentance you added about gram negative infections being lethal, nor would I ask you to as relavence is a subjective matter and cannot be referenced. Give it up already, i will not allow you to delete stuff from the article just becasue you don't like it. Theresa Knott  (The torn steak) 19:29, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Relavence of m.smegmatis

message: I've done a bit of a rewrite, as the version I found had a lot of choppy random statements backed up with citations, but little narrative flow or coherence.  Some of the statements were downright confusing to someone who didn't realize that the smegma debate is a spill-over of the circumcision debate, so I've pointed out that connection as well, and tried to reorganize things to be more coherent, although there is of course still plenty of room for improvement. --Delirium 01:18, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
*Good edit. I would say we have the makings of a good article here. - Robert the Bruce 17:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Robert has already started to insert his extreme pro-circumcision POV into the article again.  If someone where to use female smegma as a justification for female genital cutting, most people in Western countries would recoil in disgust.  In my opinion there is no ethical difference between someone using smegma as a justification for male genital cutting and someone using smegma as a justification for female genital cutting. -- DanBlackham 04:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: *You know DanB people who are not aware of the nuances of the "circumcision debate" would probably battle to understand why you are getting so het up about citing verbatim comment from published medical opinion. A while ago we even had someone state that they could see no connection between smegma and circumcision. Funny that was. Seeing you obviously have a raw nerve on this matter maybe you would provide an explanation of the connection? (I'll start it below and hope that you will add to it)  - Robert the Bruce 03:29, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of a rewrite 

message: What is the connection between smegma and the "circumcision debate"? It goes something like this. One of the reasons used for supporting neonatal circumcision is that it contributes to improved penile hygiene. Smegma accumulation with its associated stink is the epitome of poor penile hygiene. As a result opponents of circumcision jump through hoops so as to present smegma as “healthy” and not foul smelling. What is beyond question is that a simple rinse out of the foreskin is not enough to make the foreskin friendly (in the olfactory sense) and this remains a serious concern among anti-circumcision activists. - Robert the Bruce 03:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think that "a simple rinse out of the foreskin is not enough to make the foreskin friendly (in the olfactory sense)" is true, let alone beyond question. In the UK most men are not circumcised, yet don't go around stinking. Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 07:57, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: *Good. Thanks for that Theresa. Perhaps you will contribute to correctibg that then? Perhaps add some information as to your sample size experience of both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, maybe? - Robert the Bruce 08:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."
It is much more difficult for women to keep themselves clean than it is for intact men. Some supporters of female genital cutting use hygiene as a justification for cutting the genitals of girls, just like you use hygiene as a justification for cutting the genitals of boys. -- DanBlackham 08:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The circumcision connection

message: Jakew the link you just added is to a paper that isn't about penile cancer. It's about cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is  caused by genital warts isn't it. Did you add the wrong reference? Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 22:48, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancer?

message: We might want to mention something about Red Dwarf's "smeg"... —Ashley Y 06:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
:Robert Blair called it "irrelevant chatter".  Perhaps it said too much, but Robert should take some time and propose a new version if he deleted the whole thing.  DanP 19:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually in the unprecedented position of agreeing with Robert here. This is an encyclopaedia, not a cult TV magazine (and I speak as a Dwarf fan myself). - Jakew 19:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smeg 

message: :I must say, this discussion page on the controversies surrounding smegma is one of the funniest in all the 170Gb+ of Wikipedia! Even funnier than the NPOV article!  I hereby nominate it for Featured Humor Page.  All in favor say 'smeg'!
Smeg! - Patrick
Smeg! Only on wikipedia... - O.P.
smeg! 86.131.145.129 14:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smegma Humor 

message: If Smegma is partly made up of decayed skin cells, does its colour vary with the skin colour of the mammal on which it manifests itself, eg would a Gorilla have black smegma? Could a baboon with multicoloured genitalia produce 'rainbow' smegma?
Interesting question. The skin cells come from the glans and mucosa, which normally lack pigmentation (or at least typically have much less of it). - Jakew 11:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great unresolved Smegma questions 

message: Interestingly enough, on the German page there is absolutely no mention about cirumcision (neither in the pro nor contra sense). As an European, I'm absolutely astonished on how this circumcision issue can cause such a chaos. Luis rib 20:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  German page 

message: What is it? (untransliterated). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: σμήγμα Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Greek word for Smegma 

message: Picture is illustrative and should stay. Hipocrite 13:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about putting the image further down the page? Whilst useful and relevant, it is a bit in-your-face to have it right at the top. As to the argument that people are expecting it - well not necessarily. Quite a lot of people may not know what "smegma" is (maybe that's why they're looking it up on Wikipedia). Rd232 talk 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that's a very good suggestion. — Matt Crypto 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that any sort of special treatment of a given subject compromises our NPOV policy, if you're moving images around, making them smaller etc. based on your or other people's personal thoughts on the matter I think that's going way beyond or mission of making a free, NPOV encyclopedia. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let the mantra here be "More smegma, less penis!"  Edit the picture and crop to one which just shows the intersecton of the head of the penis and the shaft so that the smegma is tastefully shown.  (That sounds awful.)  One is presumably interested in the smegma rather than the phallus in this picture.  Kd4ttc 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The smegma is what is important, not the penis so I agree - JustinWick 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Response 

message: The picture isn't unreasonable at all. Arguments against it are telling of a culture that's ashamed of it's own body and so inhibitied about porn that any photo of a penis starts a panic attack. It's a body part! Much like a finger or nose. Is is wrong to illustrate what a female breast looks like for example? I found it rather refreshing to find content that visually approaches a science without being censored by ridiculous and harmful sexual taboo's. ——Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.117.62 (talk • contribs) 
: Perhaps a picture emphasising the smegma and downplaying the erect penis would be more well-received? In fact it's a little difficult (for me, anyways) to see the smegma. Ewlyahoocom 09:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture should stay and stay where it is. 

message: I cropped the penis pic so it highlights the subject material but deemphasizes the anatomy.  Kd4ttc 23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis pic cropped 

message: Can someone please give me some solid explanations as to why the profile of a human nose can be displayed on its article for example, but not that of a penis? Why was the photo cropped? Who's gagged and affected culture are we favouring here? Why is an article that's supposed to approach scientific material scientifically, caving into and being hindered by unscientific opinion? Just because A specific culture of sexuality has deformed specific peoples opinions as to what is and what is not "appropriate" to observe on our beautiful bodies does not mean that the noble purpose of this encyclopedia has to be strangled. - unisgned anon posting
:Aesthetics aside, a number of users complained that the picture was gratuitous.  I suggested a cropped pic and no one objected.  Since the photo change there have been no mor complaints regarding it being inappropriate.  The cropped image emphsizes the subject matter more clearly.  For photos of the penis there is the Penis article.  Kd4ttc 14:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon - please sign 4 tildes "~~~~" to your posts.
I'm not defending the decision.  From a photographic standpoint the cropped picture is better.  If we have an article on smegma then the photo should highlight the subject.  Wikepedia is prety free with nudes and genital photos.  Much more so than any other encyclopedia I know.  It seems a non-issue to me.  Kd4ttc 21:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should I have to look at this kind of ****? If I wanted to see a picture I'd go google image it or something, people come here to read what's it about. Pictures should be optional. I don't even know who would want to submit their own picture to be put up in the article, does having many people look at it turn you on?--80.227.100.62 08:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  80.227.100.62, please note that the picture is distributed under GNU Free Documentation License. As for the fact that from a photographic standpoint the cropped picture is better, I do not agree, since the whole picture is obviously more interesting, and gives a better description of the smegma. Wikipedia will die because of censorship. A regular encyclopedia has 1/10 of the articles we have, and 10 times more explicit pics than us. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh... 

message: Asked a female friend about this and according to her she had no idea about this and had never washed away her smemga neither had any of her female friends so do girls really suffer the same risks as men? XSpaceyx 19:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think girls can get penile cancer 201.23.64.2 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women and smemga 

message: That picture is disgusting, I never knew what smegma looked like until I looked at it. Does every uncircumcised male produces that much or only those who don't bathe regularly like the french (because they have to save water)? Because I don't. Or is it like dandruff in that some people have more and some have less? 201.23.64.2 01:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I've always been told that they bath like once in a month and how often is enough? 201.23.64.2 01:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I was eating my pizza then saw this smeg cheese picture and I thought ewwww it's discusting. Why have there got to be such foul images on wikipedia? ffs there are some sick people editing this thing. 86.143.234.154 22:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture