Talk:Smegma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

no pornography

There are already links available to images of smegma at the bottom of the page. Given the fact that many users find the image objectionable, the best solution seems to be to remove it and leave the links. Furthermore, the links are clinical depictions. The photo on the page is the work of some flasher who wants to get people to look at his penis. WP:Profanity

Please the images of smegma on a human male penis is not appropriate on a website that is accessible to children. At the very least the image should be not visible without clicking on a link.Ravman29

Wikipedia is not censored Jakew 22:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And the pic is hardly supposed to be sexually arousing showing off smegma like that. Hence, it's not pornography. -- Jugalator 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, if your child has a smegma problem what on earth are you doing send him to the Internet to look for information? Take him (her?) to the doctor NOW! Ewlyahoocom 09:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't have children, and I am an adult, but the image on this page makes even me uncomfortable. Maybe we could move it to a less prominant part of the article, or choose a less... graphic option? --Dana 01:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is absurd. The populace must be informed about the graphic nature of smegma! Do you want your children to fall victim such a fate, a fate much worse than being the smelly kid in class? The picture must be graphic and grounding, or else everyone would be walking around with piles of smegma on their peni.

This was discussed below. The consensus was keep a pic. Suggestions to crop the pic did not raise objections and the image was trimmed. Kd4ttc 14:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

not one for censorship but wikipedia varies when it comes to these medical/bodily type articles. phimosis for example offers links at the bottom of the page.

Why are there sick people like you who insist on filthy graphic images to go on pages? I mean if I told someone I had diarrhea would it mean I have to open my asshole and show them what's inside so that they know? 86.143.234.154 22:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were an encylopedia - yes! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it's my own damn fault for browsing here from the Red Dwarf page, but jeez you guys, why not just draw a diagram? --JaffaCakeLover 13:10, 17 September 2006 (GMT)

Haha, I can see a situation where you might not want to view that picture (e.g. when you're eating). But in this case, I think it's appropriate, as the picture is cropped as much as possible. I don't think a diagram would be sufficient, as it would be too vague for someone who honestly wants to know about the subject. Gangrene (you might not want to click on this!) article has many "I'm not sure I wanted to see this" pictures too (and they're much worse than here!), which shouldn't be replaced with diagrams either for the same reason. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus H. Christ, that picture makes me sick to my stomach. I can't eat cheese for at least a month now. Then again, I guess its fair retribution for searching "smegma"

not a dictionary

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)

Exposing an agenda

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)

• • • You're right; it was unfair of me to assume that the article was accurate. However, it would have made discussion easier if you explained why you removed the sections you did (either in the edit summary or here on this talk page). Acegikmo1 07:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • • OK, I resolve to explain all my actions from now on. - Robert Brookes 08:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Please note that I left all the information that you had added to the article in my edits excpet for one phrase, and I only removed it because I have read that smegma has antibacterial properties. This too I am willing to change if you care to respond. But please don't claim that I'm trying to sabotage this article. The fact that I tried to incorporate what you added and what you deleted shows that I'm not pushing any agenda. Acegikmo1

• • I would expect you to post that information about the anti-bacterial properties of smegma, why pass the onus of proof to me? I did not make the claim. - Robert Brookes 07:01, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • Again, you're right. Here is a source. I don't want you to think that I'm contending every edit you make, but it is rather frustrating when you remove ostensibly legitimate sentences and paragraphs from articles without explanation. Acegikmo1 07:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • • No, no, no! Paul Fleiss is not an independent source. If the best you can offer is chapter and verse from anti-circumcision web sites should you nor just withdraw from the discussion on the admission that you will not be able to make a contribution to NPOV? - Robert Brookes 08:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In addition the External Links are to an anti-circumcision site. Two have inserted "interpretations" to "help" readers interpret the articles in the way the web site wishes. The third is a blatant piece of anti-circumcision propaganda which has been slipped in to "push the point home". Of the 1,910 words in the article a mere 51 (2.7%) relate to smegma. The third link should be permanently deleted. The first two should only be retained if they can be linked to a neutral site where they stand alone with no inserted (anti-circumcision) comment. Robert Brookes

Just a reminder here. The external links are still the same. Maybe a few more days to get non-edited content from neutral web site before deletion? - Robert Brookes 05:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Gone. - Robert Brookes 16:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What to include

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)

• I would have thought that you would not have continually tried to reinsert that stuff unless you have some basis for believing it to be true? Post your sources then. If you knew that black children were born virtually "white" you would not make the claims about the colour of vernix. On this point maybe you should find out from (neutral) medical sources whether vernix and smegma are indeed interchangeble. As to what accumulates between the toes and behind the ears, you really believe that to be smegma? I would like to see you substantiation. The statement about women having more smegma than men. Provide a source. Robert Brookes

• • This source from Alice, Columbia University's Health Education Program, should address both issues above. I did know that black babies were born nearly white, but I never made any claims about the colour of vernix, only of smegma, nor did I claim that the two substances are interchangeable. Acegikmo1

• • • I'm not sure some internet advice column can be used as a definitive source on the issue, do you? Now what is your position? Based on what your "Alice" has stated you what what reinserted? - Robert Brookes 08:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The statement itself makes no sense as it is like saying "men sweat more than women". If it is relevant and has some scientific basis in truth then prove it and then post it. As it stands now it is a nonsense. Any heterosexual will tell you that natural female lube is on the sloppy side of KY. Smegma would have to accumulate for months to make a contribution to lubricantion and then rather like a stiff Vaseline rather than Johnsons Baby Oil or KY. So we are talking making things "slippery" here rather than "slimy" (you get the idea?). Vaginal dryness is a common womens problem, read up on it. So please stop reinserting nonsense. - Robert Brookes 06:39, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Yes, I get the idea, but that doesn't mean smegma doesn't assist in lubrication during sexual intercourse. A Google search will provide many sources to substantiate this. Acegikmo1 07:31, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • • You found it on the internet so it must be true? If you wish to cling to this theory I suggest you bring out some science to support your POV or just let it go. - Robert Brookes 08:28, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"foul-smelling" = POV

Using the phrase "foul-smelling" to describe smegma indicates a pro-circumcision POV. DanBlackham 07:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• What's the problem Dan? Does the smell "do" something for you? Is it a case of one mans stink is another mans aphrodisiac? Before you start shouting about a "pro-circumcision POV" you need to declare any conflict of interests you may have. You care to? - Robert Brookes 04:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Dan originally included the choice of the word "cheesy" as indicative of a "pro-circumcision POV". Now it is "foul-smelling" only. As with any bodily excrement smegma stinks. How long it takes to begin to reek is perhaps the only qualification that can be added. How many hours does it take? The same as BO in the armpit to develop? Hours, minutes? One needs to consider why Dan and his ilk are so desperate to hide an obvious truth as they sure aren't going to tell. - Robert Brookes 07:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As with any bodily excrement, does your earwax stink, Robert?

Robert, you introduced the phrase "foul-smelling" to the article. Can you cite a reference from a neutral source that uses the phrase "foul-smelling" to describe smegma? DanBlackham 22:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I fully understand (given your anti-circumcision activism) just how desperate you are to present smegma as not being socially embarassing. We need look no further than your much cited Wright essay from your own cirp.org: "... if allowed to accumulate in the foreskin cavity, it becomes changed into an unpleasant, unhealthy, and bad-smelling substance." On the basis of this I will edit the article accordingly. I do leave you with one point though. That is how many reports of it takinga amtter of hours after a shower until a regrettable odour develops will it take before the unqualified tag of "foul-smelling" can be reapplied in the article? - Robert Brookes 03:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

These pesky cirp.org links

From above I repeat as follows: "In addition the External Links are to an anti-circumcision site. Two have inserted "interpretations" to "help" readers interpret the articles in the way the web site wishes."

If it were not as bad as using only links from virusmyth.net on an HIV/AIDS article these particular links are disgraceful in that they have had edits inserted into the original text to ensure readers are promted to make the "correct" interpretation.

All that I have requested is for the links to be to those articles in their original state as posted on a neutral web site. Seems to have really got up the collective noses of the anti-circumcision fanatics. Sorry boys, deal with it. - Robert Brookes 09:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Links do not have to be neutral, see e.g. Scientology#External links. You are free to add a disclaimer text like: "The operators of the CIRP archives are opposed to circumcision and occasionally add explanations written from that point of view to articles hosted in their archives."--Eloquence*

• Actually it goes beyond not just being neutral when the crazies actually start to doctor the text, no? - Robert Brookes 09:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And your evidence for that happening is where?--Eloquence*

• Just follow the cirp links at the end of the article, dummy. - Robert Brookes 09:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did. Again, where is the evidence for "doctored" text?--Eloquence*

• Oh dear, reduced toplaying the semantics game now. How the high and mighty have fallen. Doctored as in: "material added (as to food) to produce a desired effect" - Merriam-Webster Online. Nice try though ;-) - Robert Brookes 10:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An article is not food. Adding commentary to articles is one of the most basic academic practices and nowhere near questionable.--Eloquence*

• It is not an article that was doctored it is thetext of a study. The link was supposedly to an academic study and landed up on an anti-circumcision web site with notes inserted in the text to "explain" how to interpret the study. It is just not good enough. Find another url where an undoctored text is available. - Robert Brookes 20:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have compared a few articles on the CIPR web site with the published articles from the medical journals. In each case the article on the CIRP web site is an accurate reproduction of the published article. Any comments added by CIPR are clearly marked and can not be confused with the original article. The suggestion by Eloquence to add a disclaimer seems to be a good solution if there are objections to links to articles on the CIRP web site. DanBlackham 22:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Nonsense. It is simple, cirp.org is biased. It should not be used, especially where they have inserted comment in the text. - Robert Brookes 21:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The British Medical Journal says that CIRP publishes "useful online information". [1]. As such, it is reasonable to use it. Any concern is adequately addressed with a disclaimer that points out that CIRP opposes circumcision. However,it is only fair to point out that CIRP is listed by the BMJ. - Michael Glass 06:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. A columnist who provides a list of "useful" web-links says so. It is disingenuous and fundamentally dishonest to claim the BMJ attribute. - Robert Brookes 02:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The columnist was writing for the British Medical Journal. The column was published in the BMJ. It was published on the BMJ's website. This could be taken as implying some form of endorsement. I agree that it would be more accurate to say that CIRP was 'listed on the BMJ's website'. However, that is no reason for Robert's offensive remarks.Michael Glass 09:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Columnists are usually given free reign within their columns, so an endorsement by a columnist in the British Medical Journal means that the columnist endorses the CIRP site, not the BMJ. &mdash Shoecream 05:33, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes that is obvious to any intelligent person ... but then these people (with a peculiar interest in foreskins) are desperate and are reduced to clutching at straws. Pathetic really.

the stink and health

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.[2]. 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)

Robert is referring to me here. I am not desperate to insert anything in the article. As a wikipedian who passionately upholds the ideal of NPOV I'm desperate to prevent POV pushing. I don't know what is going on lately but a number of POV pushers from both sides of the circumscision argument are trying to wreck the NPOV of circumscision related articles. I will fight tooth and nail if necessary to see that these articles remain neutral. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 11:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Nobody is talking about you Theresa. But you do need to run a personal integrity check here. And please stop this nonsense about fighting tooth and nail to keep things NPOV when you are pushing POV. How do you expect to be taken seriously when what you are up to is so obvious? - Robert Brookes 00:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sweat is "bodily excrement", but as well as removing waste from the body, plays a more important role in heat regulation. Smegma may eventually smell badly (I personally have never noticed this; maybe I wash too often -- perhaps Robert has a different perspective) but there is no reason to suspect that this is unhealthy. And before Robert wishes to accuse others of pyschosexual motives, it is interesting to note that his entire contribution history appears to be on penis- (and particularly foreskin-) related articles. I'd like to suggest to him that this genital obsession is probably not conducive to a NPOV. Either that or I suspect an elaborate troll. Rls 13:13, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

• The general opinion around here is that there are two sides to every story. One side is being desperately pushed around here. It is not POV that accumlated smegma stinks it is a fact. The question that should be asked is what is the motivation behind those who so desperately want to hide this fact in this article? Will they also claim that underarm BO does not stink? - Robert Brookes 00:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Disputed

The latest in POV to be introduced is the following: "It has also been claimed [1] that it has antibacterial and antiviral properties, and protects against irritation from urine." The cite in support of this is http://www.foreskin.org/smegma.htm . The mind boggles. It appears as if this is actually attributed to one Edward Wallerstein. OK, so back to the page of the cite. Propaganda if one ever saw it. If a cite is to be used it should be to Edward Wallerstein and his article somewhere on the internet and not some weird propaganda page. But I do think the third photo (from the top) should be included, it illustrates the smegma phenomenon perfectly. How about the title "Smegma accumulation on a human penis"? - Robert Brookes 23:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Here is a better link [3] from the department of health in the phillapines. Here is another one from michigan state university [4] Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Theresa, you seem awfully "up" on circumcision for one who claims to be purely motivated by the protection of NPOV. Why do you seem to think that essays are valid cites? Even the Wright piece is an essay with the only the occasional allusion to one Botkin's research (with no quotes or URL). Is this the best you guys can do? - Robert Brookes 00:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • No I'm not up on it at all. I did a quick web search looking for a better reference that's all. I agree that forskin.org is not the sort of site that we should link to so I looked for government of university sites instead. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that one of the pictures should be added though. Don't you agree that people should experience a visual example of smegma accumulation (even if they can't experience the smell)? Which pi is it to be then? You want to pick or should I just go ahead? - Robert Brookes 01:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • • • This is the 3rd time I've tried to edit this page -- is Wikipedia having gremlins?
      • GAAAA! Worked that time! I originally submitted a change before I reverted, but it got eaten. 3rd time lucky... Robert:
        • How can you reasonably put a dispute tag on a sentence like "it is claimed" (complete with accompanying link where it is claimed!)? Are you disputing that the claim is being made?
        • I accept(ed) that the reference was not very good, so I removed it -- and you reverted it.
        • Your quote of the cirp page is a copyvio. Quotes need to be seen as such.
        • You are violating the 3-reverts rule: Wikipedia:Three revert rule (blatantly: within about 4 hours!)
        • Pictures: I don't see why not, though those are hardly representative.
        • Rls 02:32, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
          • With regard to the 3-revert rule I am left wondering how come you can't seem to grasp that it takes two to tango? As to the copyvio, I was attempting to be fair and post wording (bad-smelling as opposed to foul-smelling) that has been used by an anti-circumcision zealot. I am happy to go with foul-smelling but would prefer gut wrenching. Which would you prefer? Is "It is claimed" suitable for a wikipedia article? So if I make some claims then they will stand? - Robert Brookes 17:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • Are you claiming that I violated the 3-reverts rule? If so, please indicate where. OK: first, "It is claimed" is suitable for a Wikipedia article if claims are reasonably widespread or backed by a good source. Second, I'm not sure what the smell (or lack of) of a minor body secretion has to do with circumcision. Third, quotations have to be marked as quotes if you want to use them, though I'm not sure why you'd want to quote a site you seem to have severe problems with anyone else referencing. Finally, do you have any disagreements over how the article stands at the moment? If so, please state what changes you would like to see made, bearing in mind the need for encyclaedic language and NPOV. Rls

• Thanks for the advice. The problem I have with the article is the desperate attempts to deny that accumulated smegma stinks (all in the name of NPOV you understand ;-). If it were not so tragic it would be hilarious. - Robert Brookes 19:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think pictures are a good idea. However you can't just go and any old picture you find on a website. You have to get permission from the copyright holder to upload under the GFDL or similar or relase into the public domain. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 06:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You just don't want the picture posted. If you really cared you would ask your friends for permission to use that pic. You won't will you. - Robert Brookes 17:58, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LOL. What can I say eh? Enough. It was sort of funny for a while, but now, I'm tired of it. I will no longer respond to anymore of your trolling. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 18:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Better you move on then. We need to move rapidly towards achieving NPOV. - Robert Brookes 19:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're a bit of an odd duck, Robert. Most of the POV warriors on Wikipedia tend to hold marginalized and highly disputed beliefs and theories. You, on the other hand, hold a mainstream opinion, namely, that circumcision is not detrimental to the health and welfare of infants. However, you act as though you're fighting a paranoid battle against world opinion, even going so far as to accuse Theresa of being anti-circumcision, when it is entirely clear to outside observers that she was attempting to mediate and introduce compromises of neutrality. func(talk) 19:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You need to understand the issues to comment. You don't, so better to keep your own council, no? If you did understand the issues around this debate you would have realised from the outset that Theresa is not as nuetral as she continually and repeatedly claims to be. - Robert Brookes 04:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is not about having neutral people. It's about having neutral articles. There are no neutral people. Jdavidb 17:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• So how does one get to NPOV articles with the monomaniacal anti-circumcision fanantics relentlessly pushing their agenda? - Robert Brookes 02:19, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what this article has to do with circumcision. It may be tangentially connected, but it doesn't put forward any sort of view that I can see. I'm fairly sure Robert is just being obnoxious for the sake of his own amusement here. Rls 19:32, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

• You don't see the connection? Again then if you know so little (or claim to know so little) why are you getting so involved here? So why do these people so desperately attempt to prevent the obvious being stated in this article? That being a bodily excrement (like how sweat turns rapidly to BO in the armpits) smegma also rapidly "ripens" and begins to smell/stink. This is obvious. Even Joyce Wright (cited on the cirp site) admits to it becoming "bad-smelling". So who do the anti-circumcision warriors struggle so desperately to suppress this obvious truth? Because it is improved "hygiene" which is so often cited by people (especially women) as a benefit accruing from circumcision. Nobody likes people to think he has a smelly dick, no woman would like to admit her husband has a stinky dick and no parent would like to admit that they have sentenced their sons to be so afflicted. Their problem gets worse. It has been found that excessive use of soap causes inflammation of the inner foreskin so the use of soap is not recommended, but you can bet that like with smelly armpits uncircumcised men would rather risk the irritation caused by soap use than to live with the "smell". Imagine just rinsing your armpits and not having deodorant. The resultant BO is something men spend millions (or maybe billions) worldwide per year to avoid. Sadly for the anti-circumcision activists there are no "personal hygiene" products which deal with this unfortunate and very anti-social phenomenon. So what are they to do? Denial, as witnessed right here in this article. - Robert Brookes 04:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sure I'll regret responding to your desperate craving for attention, but morbid curiosity compels me: if this is indeed true and you are yourself circumcised, how did you obtain this detailed first-hand knowledge of these alleged aromas? Rls 16:41, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
    • What's with the gay-baiting innuendo? You are beneath contempt. I claim no personal experience of smegma in all it forms of decay(nor that of the penis in general). Are you trying to say that a bodily excrement will not begin to stink as it decays? - Robert Brookes 04:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I refuse to get into a slanging match with you Robert. Find your amusement somewhere else. Or, if you'd like to remain part of Wikipedia, reply to the RFC about you. Rls 19:53, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

There was no gay-baiting. When you speak with such conviction upon a topic, your source of information is important. Offensive odor and stinks are two phrases that mean exactly the same thing. One of them is encyclopedic, while the other is simply an emotive slang term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a platform for social or political change/non-change. And for the record, Robert: I am circumcised, and I have no issues with circumcision. func(talk) 20:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I intend to simply ignore him. I will continue editting the article, but trying to discuss things with him on the talk page is pointless. That's not to say I won't discuss things with everyone else though. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 19:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You know you can't Theresa. You are too emotionally committed to this. There is no way in hell that you can just walk away and live with thought that the wikipedia article on smegma contains a reference to it stinking or even been foul-smelling. I wonder whythat is? - Robert Brookes 04:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The mumbo-jumbo about Lysozyme

Please provide the cites for this stuff or delete it - Robert Brookes 16:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[5][6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

• What a lot of garbage. What has this to do with smegma? Give me one good reason why this rubbish should remain in the smegma article? - Robert Brookes 04:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Interesting to see another anti-circumcision activist come to Theresa's assistance. I hope no one asks what has all this business of lysozyme got to do with circumcision. Give it a little time and a few tweeks and all will become apparent. - Robert Brookes 05:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I saw this all coming. Those who doubt that a agenda is at play here will note the two step tactic employed here. First, some vague unrelated so-called facts, then the trump card. Sadly for the anti-circumcision monomaniacs it takes a huge leap of faith to place lysozyme in amongst the gunk called smegma. I can read these guys like a book. - Robert Brookes 02:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I have no idea what RB is talking about Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:54, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Lysozyme lie continues - a challenge to Theresa Knott

It is noted that the anti-circumcision hardy annual the "Lysozyme Lie" has been inserted into the article by one Theresa Knott. The challenge is simple. Prove that lysozyme is to be found in human male smegma. If no evidence is forthcoming this will lead to a request for peer review or a RfC for Theresa Knott. This blatant POV pushing must stop and it is especially unacceptable when coming from a sysop. - Friends of Robert 15:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is idiotic that Robert has made this a personal challenge for Theresa, (I really wish he would stop finding enemies everywhere he looks), but I'm going to back him up on the lysozyme issue. I have spent about an hour now looking for information on the Internet regarding lysozyme and smegma, and to date, everything I have found is either:

• From one or more articles written by a Dr. Paul Fleiss, who is an admitted champion of anti-circumcision
• Websites that are admittedly championing anti-circumcision, (and that seem to parrot Dr. Fleiss's words verbatim)

func(talk) 03:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The challenge is a repeat of one Robert made which was ducked. It is germain to the debate especially as the person concerned has presented herself as working towards NPOV. Actually the author of the "Lysozyme Lie" is one George Hill. Why not ask Theresa where she got it all from? - Friends of Robert 06:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could someone provide a medical document that places lysozyme in smegma? It is perfectly OK with me if it comes from a cirp source, so long as it can be shown to have originated in an unbiased medical source.

Here is a definition of lysozyme from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

An enzyme occurring naturally in egg white, human tears, saliva, and other body fluids, capable of destroying the cell walls of certain bacteria and thereby acting as a mild antiseptic. Also called muramidase.

The various online dictionaries do not go so far as to specify smegma as one of the body fluids that lysozyme occurs in. At this point, I'm getting sick of searching, because every google I do turns up hundreds of anti-circ websites, making it impossible to locate medically unbiased information. func(talk) 03:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well that is a good start. Now why don't you state that unless this phantom link between lysozyme and smegma is produced the whole paragraph will be deleted? Thereafter will you support a RfC for the person who introduced the POV piece in the first place? - Friends of Robert 06:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert. The name George Hill lead me to the name Satya Parkash. He and other Indian doctors wrote an article called Sub-Preputial Wetness--Its Nature in an Indian journal called the Annals of National Medical Science in 1982. This article reports the existence of lytic material, lysozyme.

func(talk) 07:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Good I'm glad to accompany you along this voyage of discovery. I note that you embrace the "guidance" for the inserted note by CIRP that lytic equalls lysozyme. Where does this "lytic" material come from? And what is its primary purpose? And what causes this substance to be "contained" under the foreskin in quantities sufficient to kill all HIV particles? Isn't this fun? - Friends of Robert 08:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This information did, in fact, come from an anti-circ site, but the paper in question, (other than having some sections highlighted), is shown in its entirety, as it was when published in a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal. I found references to others articles that are also said to confirm the presence of lysozyme, but they are apparently not to be found printed on the Internet, such as:

Ahmed AA, Nerdlind K, Schulzberg M.et al. Immunoelectrochemical localization of IL-1 alpha-, IL-1 beta, IL-6 and TNF-alpha-like immunoreactivities in human prepuce apocrine glands. Arch Dermatol Res 1995; 287:764-6.

func(talk) 07:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• But as above we are not sure what it did exactly say. We will wait for you to do your Sherlock Holmes trick and report back with all the evidence. BTW, where did you find the Ahmed study? I would like to get a look at that and then see if there is someone here (peer review?) who can see if it contains what you seem to claim. - Friends of Robert 08:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Seriously, drop the RfC talk, Robert. We "Hobbits" know who is pushing POV and who isn't.

func(talk) 07:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)"

• Ahh, rallying around the flag I see. Lets agree that we see where this little "investigation" takes us and don't rule out any options at this early stage, OK? - Friends of Robert 08:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi Robert. How are you today? It looks to me as if func has already answered the question you are asking. The Ahmed study can be found in Arch Dermatol Res 1995; 287:764-6.

Here's another intersting study which states that:

production of human β-defensin (HBD)-2 in keratinocytes is strongly induced  
on contact of keratinocytes with Gram-negative bacteria or proinflammatory
cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α or IL-1β (4). HBD-2 mRNA 
expression has been observed in the skin, foreskin, lungs, and trachea,

Note that beta defensin is an antimicrobial agent. Tghe above quote came from. [18] User:Theresa knott

Please provide the URL for the Ahmed study. And then show me where the lysozyme/smegma connection is. This article is about smegma isn't it? - Friends of Robert 17:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC).

It's not on the web. You might find that your local university library might carry the journal. Sometimes they allow non members access. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 10:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Are you ducking the key question again Theresa? Pray tell what the connection between smegma and lysozyme is? - Friends of Robert 16:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I answered the question that you asked. Func has already answered you "key question" the Parkash paper indicates that he found lysozyme in smegma. Do you have another question? Do you object to the Parkash paper as a source? Theresa Knott (taketh no rest)
    • The case for a RfC is building nicely. I ask you once again. What is the connection between smegma and lysozyme? - Friends of Robert 16:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Here you go again with your trolling.If you're not happy with the reference above remove the lysozyme part from the article. If your not happy with me start a rfc. I have nothing to fear, in fact i would welcome a rfc. But don't threaten me. And do answer my question - do you object to the Parkash paper as a source for lysozyme in smegma? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 16:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I am starting to tire of your arrogance. You placed the lysozyme stuff in the smegma article now you are unable to provide a connection between smegma and it. You inserted the crap you delete it. I ask you one more time then. Please explain the connection between smegma and lysozyme. - Friends of Robert 18:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • • Well to be honest I tired long ago of your abrasiveness, but it looks like I'm going to have to put up with it so let's get on with discussing the article. The Parkash paper discusses the wetness in the sub-preputial space. It concludes in the summary that the wetness is in part due to secretions from the prostate "A bio-chemical examination of the collected material as well as the washings indicated that the wetness was due to the prostatic, vesicular and urethral secretions" it then goes on to state "The prostatic and seminal vesicle secretions are known to be rich in lytic material." So the prostatic and seminal vesicle secretions contain lysozyme, and the area under the foreskin where smegma collects contains these secretions, so i'm satisfied that smegma must contain lysozyme. Now, clearly you object to that line of reasoning but i don't understand what your specific objections are, so please spell them out so that we can work towards a mutually acceptable wording. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 19:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
            • OK then, pray tell where these "prostatic and seminal vesicle secretions" originate and how they find their way to being under the foreskin? You think you can manage that? - Friends of Robert 03:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that Friends of Robert has a point about the lysozyme. The connection between lysozyme and smegma made in the Prakash paper is tenuous. "Lytic material" means material that breaks down cells, but it doesn't necessarily mean lysozyme (though it could). It seems that the only other source that indicates lysozyme may be present in smegma is Fleiss. The lack of corroboration is disturbing. I'd be more comfortable with a wording like "Some reports [19] [20] indicate that smegma contains the enzyme lysozyme" than "Smegma contains the enzyme lysozyme."
Acegikmo1 03:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • I have no problem with that. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Well yes of course. I don't think we should focus upon Prakash but rather upon the dishonesty of those who deliberately tried to "work" a connection between lysozyme and the sub-preputial wetness. It is quite disgraceful. Further, as is the case with most lies, the claims lose their consistency in the telling. Take your cite from (the also convicted father of "madam" Heidi) Fleiss where he states: "... inner prepuce contains apocrine glands, which secrete cathepsin B, lysozyme, ...". In contrast our valiant defender of the foreskin produces a source which states that: "The prostatic and seminal vesicle secretions are known to be rich in lytic material". Thus apparently when one is desperate enough to prove lysozyme is found in smegma who cares where it is claimed it comes from. Pick a gland, any gland and make the claim, it seems. So we should continue to try and tease out of Theresa where she originally got this information from (it must be from one of her anti-circumcision web sites) and why she felt the need to post it into the smgma article? Finally, if lysozyme is actually found under the foreskin it appears to be ineffective in its role as the foreskin "acting as a reservoir for organisms"[21] and a route for HIV infection [22] is the source of a number of horrible and disgusting medical (and anti-social) conditions. - Friends of Robert 03:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • My anticirc websites? Really you are not worth talking to as you see enemies in everyone who doesn't share your procirc stance. I suppose it must be easier to argue that way. You seem to find it incomprehensible that someone who disagrees with you might not be an extremist like you are. That fact that I have been on wikipedia for years, that I have edited thousands of article on hundreds of different topics (unlike you), that I am trusted enough to be an admin here (Like some of the other people here who you've also accused of being anticirc extremists) hold no water for you. As far as your concerned anyone who does not agree 100% with every word you utter must be a POV pusher. But what do I care. Your rfc resulted in a temp ban for you because you made personal attacks. You are still making personal attacks, but in a more sly way that's all. Start a rfc on me, I'd welcome community comments.I have nothing to fear from the wikipedia community having done my best to serve it all this time. I think I'll go back to not talking to you again as your constant snide remarks get to me. i will not stop editing this article though. I will do my best to insert information into this article as I have done for many other articles. I will reply to anyone else who wants to discuss my edits but not you. Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 10:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yours in the sense that they are where you get your information from. My stance is quite simple. I believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. As to your history of service to Wikipedia I offer you the analogy of the Roman Catholic priest. For thirty, forty, fifty years the priest had made a tremendous contribution to the community. However, once it became known that he had interfered sexually with one chior boy all the respect the community had for him was instantly lost. He was thrown out. My advice to you is that you should not squander the respect held for you in certain quarters by going out on a limb to desperately (and sadly dishonestly) defend the foreskin. You catch my drift? Quit while you are ahead. - Friends of Robert 16:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• One more thing.Would you be so kind as to reread Theresa's input around the statement "... lysozyme which attacks the cell walls of many Gram positive bacteria causing them to burst." and from the References section [23] the words around the statement "In the case of a covered glans the density of microorganisms increases. Prevalent are gramnegative anaerobes, especially Bacterioides melaninogenicus, also enterococci, enterobacteria and coagulase-positive staphylococci." After that I ask you to consider the following: 1) That the whole paragraph on lysozyme be deleted and 2) that you consider supporting a RfC for Theresa on the basis of her deliberate insertion of false information. - Friends of Robert 04:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. Theresa made this edit in response to my suggestion above, which I think removed or corrected the inaccurate and speculative sections of the paragraph about lysozyme. Nevertheless, I think we still need to point out that smegma is not devoid of microorganisms; rather, quite the opposite is true. We should also state that these microorganisms are ordinarlly not harmful, though they can sometimes cause problems like balanitis. I don't think that all of this refutes the hypothesis that smegma contains lysozyme or lytic material; it merely means that if smegma does contain material that can attack microorganisms, that material does not have the ability to attack all microorganisms (though this is stated in the article). If we make some of the changes I just suggested, would you be willing to remove the disputed tag?Acegikmo1 17:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I hope you can appreciate that as I respond to you I now have to keep one eye on the rooftop across the street as it seems a sniper has taken up position there and has fired a warning shot in my direction. That situation unfortunately must bring our "correspondence" to an end after this response. So reply if you will but you will understand why I need to withdraw from this discussion with you. The lie Theresa introduced is obvious. Lysozyme as far as it exists in smegma "goes after" Gram positive bacteria which are not the norm under a "covered glans" as per this study[24] So sadly once more it is a carefully contrived foreskin friendly deceit. There is enough evidence of the proliferation of exotic flora and fauna under the foreskin to blow your hair back. There is the situation where the foreskin provides a direct route of entry for HIV so all in all if lysozyme is present, if it has any positive function and effect in improving the penile health among the uncircumcised it is not apparent. Delete the garbage from the article. - Friends of Robert 02:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. I have reviewed all of Theresa's edits to this article and none of them were deliberate insertion of false information. Theresa added this information about lysozyme in an attempt to correct and clarify some of the assertions made in this previous edit. When you challenged some of the information she'd added because it was unsubstantiated, she removed it here. I conclude that her edits to this article were part of an effort to make it more comprehensive and accurate. I see no evidence of "deliberate insertion of false information" and thus would not support a request for comments regarding this.Acegikmo1 17:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Leaving the lysozyme paragraph in the article will be no more than a sop to Theresa who probably assumed that it was the truth when she plucked it from anti-circumcision website but has now been seriously embarrassed. Hopefully she is now wiser as to the low standard of truth and accuracy maintained on web sites like CIRP and can come to understand why there needs to be a disclaimer following each and every cite from that source. The RfC for Theresa would not be that she knew at the time that the lysozyme "line" was garbage and thus deliberately post material she knew to be fabricated but rather when it was exposed as garbage she desperately tried to defend her dubious position. Unforgivable. She should not have inserted this propaganda in the first place. Delete the garbage from the article. - Friends of Robert 02:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CIRP

Is CIRP an anti-circumcision site, or not? If they take a stance against circ (which was my impression), then if we're issuing disclaimers, we should say that, and not represent them as just a "circumcision information site," as done in the most recent edits by Truthbomber. (Why do I feel that that name indicates somebody on a vendetta?)

Personally I'm not sure I feel the need for a disclaimer at all, but if we're going to have one, let's not try to obscure CIRP's aim, if that is indeed what it is. Jdavidb 15:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CIRP is an anticircumcision site.(At least IMO) However the library is just a collection of research papers. Now it's possible (even probable) that the choice of which papers to include in the library is influenced by an anti circumcision POV, but there is no such problem with each individual paper. Since all the references point to the paper itself, rather than site main page, I don't personally think we need a disclaimer at all. But if we do, it should be accurate, and say that cirp is anti. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What has circumcision got to do with this article though? Not a lot IMO. Even if we decide that it is, disclaiming it as an anti-circumcision site is, I think, ad hominem (not to mention subjective) unless we have reason to suspect that this view is affecting the quality of the material -- in which case we should not reference it. The inclusion of references should depend on the quality of the research, not its underlying motives. IMO. Rls 19:51, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

• Let me help you then:

You don't see the connection? Again then if you know so little (or claim to know so little) why are you getting so involved here? So why do these people so desperately attempt to prevent the obvious being stated in this article? That being a bodily excrement (like how sweat turns rapidly to BO in the armpits) smegma also rapidly "ripens" and begins to smell/stink. This is obvious. Even Joyce Wright (cited on the cirp site) admits to it becoming "bad-smelling". So who do the anti-circumcision warriors struggle so desperately to suppress this obvious truth? Because it is improved "hygiene" which is so often cited by people (especially women) as a benefit accruing from circumcision. Nobody likes people to think he has a smelly dick, no woman would like to admit her husband has a stinky dick and no parent would like to admit that they have sentenced their sons to be so afflicted. Their problem gets worse. It has been found that excessive use of soap causes inflammation of the inner foreskin so the use of soap is not recommended, but you can bet that like with smelly armpits uncircumcised men would rather risk the irritation caused by soap use than to live with the "smell". Imagine just rinsing your armpits and not having deodorant. The resultant BO is something men spend millions (or maybe billions) worldwide per year to avoid. Sadly for the anti-circumcision activists there are no "personal hygiene" products which deal with this unfortunate and very anti-social phenomenon. So what are they to do? Denial, as witnessed right here in this article. - Robert Brookes 02:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you say makes a lot of sense. If you remove the disclaimer i will not revert you {though I suspect RB will)However if we are going to say anything about cirp (which is I agree ad hominem) we should mention it's anti POV. Yes it's subjective, but it's a subjective opinion that we can all agree on. No one has argued that it isn't anti circumcision. What's wrong with it being anti anyway? People are deleting it as though it's a dirty word. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see other articles issuing disclaimers -- usually a site's bias is obvious from the context. However, in this case it seems to me that the site is a collection of (presumably) non-partisan information culled from other sources. There's nothing wrong with linking to sites that have an agenda of course but in this case I think that flagging (each!) reference to it is an allegation that the information is inaccurate. It seems to me that there should be a Wikipedia standard for this. Maybe we should disclaim every external reference -- "WARNING! pro-superstring theory site" :/ Still, I don't care enough about it to continue an edit war with a likely soon-to-be-banned user. Rls 13:38, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

I think so far we have just applied common sense as to how to flag references. I don't think it's a good idea to form policy in order to deal with the unreasonable demands of a single user. I agree that flagging each reference is overkill and suggest that once is plenty enough. I also believe it's only really needed on the circumcision page, as being anticircumcision has little to do with smegma in that nearly everyone agrees that smegma should regulaly be washed off. (there are a few people who get turned on by the stuff - it takes all sorts I suppose). Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have adjusted the reference to CIRP, preserving the note that it is against circumcision in more neutral language and adding a note that it is listed as containing useful information in an article in the British Medical Journal. I hope that this adequately addresses everyone's concerns. If not, then let's work out how to do it better.Michael Glass 06:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Getting the article up to scratch

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)

A quick Google suggests otherwise to me. "Some studies suggested that smegma may contain cancer-causing substances, but most recent studies disagree" American Cancer Society -- shouldn't be too controversial a reference. Rls 15:10, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Okey dokey.I'm fine with that. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 21:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relavence of m.smegmatis

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)

• Wrong on two counts. First my reference is [25] and second why are you not aware that M. smegmatis is not smegma? M. smegmatis is a gram positive mycobacterium. Smegma is a "collection of necrotic debris". Now given your claims as to the presence and action of lysozyme how is it possible that M. smegmatis can survive in the anaerobic environmnt under the foreskin in association with lysozyme or other lytic material? - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A bit of a rewrite

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)
• Agreed. Acegikmo1 21:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

The circumcision connection

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)

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)

• 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)

I have more confidence in the opinion of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) than in the opinion of a pro-circumcision crusader on the Internet. The AAP says:

"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)

• You haven't changed anything Dan, only confirmed it all. Asto the AAP statement, I guess it all resvolves around the word "optimal" doesn't it. What degree of improvement do you suggest circumcision affords? Two fold, three fold, four? I would appreciate your closer involvement in this discussion Dan, I believe that you have some valuable input to share. - Robert the Bruce 12:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure. If something stinks, then it's reasonable to assume that you could smell it within a few feet radius no? So any man who stank, would be detectable by me as long as I stood next to them. In that case i have a sample size of thousands of me, most of whom are not circumcised, although a few are. Most of those who I know are circumcised (e.g. jewish) didn't smell any different from the general population. To be honest bad breath is more of a problem. Now can you please answer your own question. What's your sample size? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 08:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Good to see you still around Theresa. Your explanation "stinks" ;-) Look at it rather like stinking feet, one has to take the shoes and socks off before one can appreciate the full power when catching a whiff. They tell me this necrotic debris (aka smegma) is gut wrenching and a lot worse than smelly feet, kind of knocks your socks off (as they say). So kind of like you have to peel it to appreciate it, (if you know what I mean). Talking about sample sizes. Yes I appreciate that can be a difficult one to answer for a female. I mean the number of partners that will make a male a stud will make a female a slag. Totally infair I know, but really unless you have a reasonable amount of experience across the board your opinion isn't going to account for diddley is it now. But good to see you back on the smagma article Theresa? - Robert the Bruce 12:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • Fair enough. But you are in the same position no? I at least have some first hand experience of what an uncircumcised penis smells like. You are only reporting what others have told you. Perhaps it would be better if we stuck to established facts, or medical opinions. Are there any doctors who say that simple rinsing is not enough to keep under the forskin clean and unsmelly? Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 12:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • They tell me it depends upon what one eats. (Does that make sense?). Now I can't tell you how happy I am to hear your commitment to facts, facts, nothing but the facts. The problem is that we are not alone here. But then again I suppose nobody said it was going to be easy. - Robert the Bruce 12:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cancer?

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)

Theresa, please don't read the title alone. Please scroll down to the section entitled "Comment". The first paragraph begins "The clinical and sociological facts and observations concerning smegma strongly indicate that in some way it is implicated in the genesis of penile and cervical carcinoma." It then continues: "It must be realized that the epithelium of the lower genital tract of mice is labile and probably reacts proliferatively to a wide variety of stimuli. Whole raw smegma, however, exclusive of known carcinogens, has proved to be the most effective stimulus in this experiment, followed by either some of its components or closely allied substances."

This appears relevant to both penile and cervical cancer. - Jakew 23:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Smeg

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)

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)

Smegma Humor

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)

Great unresolved Smegma questions

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)

Not an interesting question. And the answer is: no. There is no rainbow smegma. Sorry to disappoint. How do I know this? Because I had sex with a baboon. 68.97.208.123 2 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)

German page

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)

Comment moved from article

Comment: In Norway it is called "Flens-ost". I tried to find a translation for the word "flens", but i was unable to find it. - 84.48.48.130 (sig added by Jakew)

The Greek word for Smegma

What is it? (untransliterated). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

σμήγμα Jeremy J. Shapiro 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Is the picture of a penis seriously needed here? Why not a microscopic photograph of smegma or the like? I'm no prude... I mean... an article about penises should include pictures of penises... der. But the picture of a penis here does not increase anyone's understanding of smegma. It only serves to make people go ahh! next page!--205.219.133.241 15:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

For the moment this is the best free image we have of the subject, if you think you can produce a better free image then great, we'd love to have it. However we're probably going to keep an image of Smegma on a penis (or vagina) where you can see it in context, microscopic images are great for showing you details but they can't give you any reasonable idea of how the material is distributed and how it looks from a macroscopic point of view. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture does a great job of illustrating the subject. Personally, I was surprised by its appearance -- it's one of those situations where a picture is worth a thousand words. That said, it's quite startling for this image to pop up with the article. I have a pretty strong stomach but nevertheless felt squeamish to see the image without first preparing myself. I'm sure other Wikipedia readers would feel the same way. For this reason, I think the picture should be linked to. 70.35.174.192 18:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your change of linking the picture, we display images in articles on Wikipedia, we don't link to them simply because it would diminish the quality of the article. It's fine that you're squeamish or think that the image is startling, it's not fine when that opinion is starting to affect the quaility of our content for others who simply with to study a given subject. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your reversion. We do not always display images in-line in Wikipedia. See, for example, autofellatio. Nor, for that matter, do we make a policy of displaying in-line images on every graphic subject conceivable. One wouldn't expect to be bombarded with a gruesome intraoperative photograph when doing initial research on plastic surgery. A link provides ample access to the image without unnecessary shock to readers who don't know what they're getting into. 70.35.174.192 23:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes a "gruesome intraoperative photograph" depends on your point of view, and Wikipedia follows a neutral point of view policy. I've put this discussion on RFC. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What I always think is: What would somebody who is searching for this subject expect to find? And a person searching for smegma probably expects to find information about what smegma is - I don't think they expect to see graphics photos of it.

Besides that, it makes me nauseous... I think an external link would be most appropriate here. -- Rediahs 07:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The image should stay. If you look up "smegma" in an encyclopedia you should not be suprised to see a picture of it. This is long established wikipedia policy. Thparkth 02:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a picture of it should be here, much the same way as articles on Chicken Pox and Meningitis show grim pictures as well. Its encyclopedic, whether or not its pleasant. I would question, however, why it needs to be an erect penis? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the picture to be quite useful myself. It made the article much clearer. Klosterdev 06:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response

Picture is illustrative and should stay. Hipocrite 13:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, picture is topical. WP:Not censored for the protection of minors. Durova 20:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Picture provides an illustration of smegma in context. I think it totally adds to a greater understanding of Smegma, which is what this article is all about. --Copysan 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, picture is fine, and informative. One should expect to see somewhat graphic images with an article on this topic. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, based on the subject matter. - cohesion★talk 11:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think that's a very good suggestion. — Matt Crypto 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

The caption could use some editing. "Male penis" is redundant. Durova 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture is topical and should stay. I would put it in the Human sections howwever. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture is fully appropriate, but in order to raise visibility of the subject matter in the picture and at the same time defuse penis panic, a picture of a horse penis could be used instead. (Horses often tend to accumulate large quantities of Smegma in easily visible crusts.) --213.168.122.50 18:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

The smegma is what is important, not the penis so I agree - JustinWick 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture should stay and stay where it is.

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)

cleaning up

I removed the statement that said something like 'Smegma tastes great smeared on a sandwich' Clearly childish.

Penis pic cropped

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

Sigh...

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)

Which brings me to ask...and what i've basically been charging at...what's "gratuitous" about a human penis? unsigned, again.

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)

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)

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 (what?) 03:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Darren Latchford

I am rather wondering about what that part even means, there is no link so is it a book? A personal account that was published in a newspaper, a magazine?

The description certainly seems a bit vague, to me at least.

Women and smemga

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)

I don't think girls can get penile cancer 201.23.64.2 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

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)

Well, it has nothing to do with bathing, (and FYI the French have enough water, they don't need to ration it.) It all has to with wether or not your cleaning under the foreskin often enough. --FlareNUKE 06:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's absolutely absurd to have an image right in the article. It's a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a medical text. Link to a picture. I don't care about that BS where people think they're showing how "serious" Wikipedia is by putting disgusting images up. It doesn't; if that's the case, we need graphic pictures of corpses (including autopsy photos of every possible dead celebrity), feces and everything else as omitting them would be a sin of having taste and making a judgement. If it's that way then the articles on child abuse or rape must have real-life action photographs so that people can see what it looks like; according to "NPOV policy" we can't allow our culture's distate of rape to bias the choice of images. It's absurd. There are many diseases and horrible things that people should be able to read about without seeing disturbing images. Accommodate "multiple points of view" with no inline image for people who don't want to see it and links for those who do. I for one am done with reading Wikipedia for information on diseases and other things because of all this.

As far as this "NPOV" nonsense, if deleting something out of one's taste is a sin then no sentence may be redacted from any article as judging something "unnecessary," "poorly written" or "too long" is an exercise in judgement and thus "non neutral" and any edits that shorten (or lengthen or change) articles should henceforth be reverted. --Howdybob 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

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)

Why would you read an article on smegma whilst easting a pizza if you find it disgusting? What pictures did you expect to see on an article about smegma? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)