Talk:Smegma

There is a real picture of a private part. This can be innocently seen by children. This should be replaced by a drawing or a written description.

Photo

Why does this article have to have the worst possible and certainly not at all realistic case of neglected hygiene? Wikipedia Commons holds several quite normal cases of smegma secretions as usable photos and for some reason most non-English versions of this page manage to use one of these instead. Without problems or discussions and particularly also without leading viewers on. Is there such a horror of a normal physical excretion among US-editors here that you need to post the most exaggerated picture available? Why not take this for example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ASmegma_Penis02.mirrored.jpg

I just reverted the image that was in use as excessive. The image presently there is a cropped version of the image you just linked. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Contentious material on cancer

The material on penile cancer that was reintroduced last year is highly contentious and not reliable seeing as it came from doctors in the forties who were seeking to promote the practice of circumcision. I feel it constitutes propaganda for the pro-circumcision cause so I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scowie (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The study you removed, published in Science, is well sourced and immediately countered by other reliable sources (ACS , NIH) which you also removed. Based on your belief that doctors in the 1940s were biased and the source is "propaganda", you have removed both sides of the issue. I tend to believe that balanced discussion of earlier beliefs and the current consensus makes more sense than bowdlerizing the article.

If you have WP:MEDRS sources discussing it as "propaganda", discussion of that point would probably be an appropriate addition to the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I consider it WP:Undue_Weight to have these arguments in the article.Scowie (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The propaganda undue weight issue doesn't seem to measure up against the brevity of the section with three WP:MEDRS sources discussing it. Additionally, without the section we are citing a source 4 times with the title "The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth" while not so much as mentioning the topic of that article. Heck, the American Cancer Society in 2015 is still giving a fair amount of space to the belief from this 1940s study. We also, of course, have the 2006 journal article solely dedicated to the belief and numerous other peer reviewed journal articles discussing the question.[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Smegma. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914114048/http://www.horsecity.com/stories/090101/hea_beans_ML.shtml to http://www.horsecity.com/stories/090101/hea_beans_ML.shtml

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) 04:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs spoiler'd images

This and basically every article involving genitals should only have images that are viewed on an "opt in" basis by covering the image and only showing it when clicked on. Articles like this are extremely difficult to read due to the repulsive imagery. Now I know some people might disagree but I think most people would agree with me. 2601:646:8600:2C60:C1BC:7D7F:343B:EDD3 (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Hiding images for how you can do that on your end. The community has repeatedly and soundly rejected any and all forms of censoring images directly, including show/hide boxen. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Male smegma - update and more info needed -

Most of the references for this section are half a century old. Surely urologists have a better understanding of the sources and functions of this substance by now?

Also, I still don't KNOW, after reading the article, whether circumcised males produce smegma at all!

Finally, is it not possible to add a clear picture, similar to that for females, of a normal amount of smegma on a natural (uncircumcised) penis? Yes, I'm aware of the edit warring and shock! horror! responses of prudes on this talk page over a decade ago. But there's now no such photo. Surely an Encyclopedia doesn't let the small minds win?! yoyo (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Picture of private part

There is a real picture of a private part. This can be innocently seen by children. This should be replaced by a drawing or a written description. 24.92.143.187 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)