![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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.
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
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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.
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
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)