Contents

Talk:Earwax

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earwax article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

	Earwax was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Earwax. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Earwax appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the New articles column on 10 January, 2004.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roalndcp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't cerumenex removed from the market? Pollira (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be more like earwax: waht it does followed by a pathology section?--68.225.194.245 (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the "signs and symptoms" section is misplaced. I should be somewhere, but not there. Earwax is generally beneficial. Should we really start the article with a sterotype based on earwax gone bad, when that is the exceptional and not typical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.1.141 (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is moronic. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference http://books.google.com/books?id=Qe_hJ8qZb7oC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=electroscope+homemade+ear+wax&source=bl&ots=dPz4BQLlxR&sig=2v7yBrlkGSMLKAbwy0bUXAmtUjg&hl=en&ei=RMpwTr74CaTkiALtopT3Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false I shall paraphrase the first 3 paragraphs of page 88, New Scientist, July 30 1987 as the link above is to an image file so unable to efficiently copy and paste. Because of its relatively high electrical conductivity (relative to non metal filled adhesives), and its relatively long term stability, and its easy availability, - it is ideal for the amateur manufacture of a gold or aluminum leaf electroscope. If a competent editor feels this is worthy information, please edit and include it in the earwax article + link to electroscope article. Ecstatist (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Does earwax also prevent small creatures from entering the ear canal? It would seem that the wax might also block breathing orifices of many small creatures preventing them from going further into the canal. 101.51.230.244 (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a reliable source discussing this, do get back to us. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not for nothing, but given that putting a cotton swab into your ear is quite a bad idea that is even relayed in the text of this article (and supported by the NIH and CDC), maybe there should be less imagery (that is, none at all) in the article suggesting the combination of cotton swab and ear canal is appropriate. ¦ 98.180.25.248 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Jodon | Talk 11:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, didn’t want to step on the regulars’ toes. They were nice photographs, but the combination… ¦ 98.180.25.248 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a picture of a dude with wax on his pinky finger. It's how gorillas clean their ears and pick their noses. I don't see why "finger" isn't included in the earwax removal section. Seems appropriate given that all the other methods are considered risky, and pretty much every human ever has used their finger in this way. 142.58.43.59 (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Digital manipulation", as it's called, is also dangerous.[1]

I think it might make more sense to talk about this subject in the "informed consent" model instead of the "Father Knows Best" model. Riding a motorcycle is risky, but society doesn't say "Just Don't Ever Do It". If you decide that the risks (e.g., dying) are worth the benefits (e.g., lane splitting or fun), and you take reasonable precautions (e.g., wearing good gear), then that's okay. Similarly, sticking anything in your ear entails some risks. You should know what the risks are, you should consider whether and how you can mitigate those risks, and then make a decision accordingly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(a “digit” is a term that can be used to describe any finger or toe.) Martin m n novy (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're told we shouldn't use cotton swabs, and we're told we shouldn't use drops like Debrox, etc.

Well, what's left?

"A natural conveyor-belt movement will remove the wax!"

Rol. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I'll wager most ENT's stick those swabs in their ears every morning like most other human beings on the planet. "Do as I say, not as I do". It's no surprise more and more people are suspicious of physicians, and are turning to alternative therapies everyday.

But we're trained professionals!! We can use Q-tips safely, and you can't!!

Um, OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit -- it's like telling teenagers that marijuana is bad, and then they smoke it, and nothing bad happens, and the sky doesn't fall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its use in the article contradicts the definition at English Wikipedia "Lubrication" (...the process or technique of using a lubricant to reduce friction and/or wear in a contact between two surfaces.) It seems someone (or some group) has confused lubrication with "Moisturizer" and "emollient", unless this is an accepted use in some field. Abstracts of the references don't mention a purpose of lubrication, so I could just bin it. Adx (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~>protected Earwax State Unambiguously your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.213.183 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwax answered questions Yes State University your suggested changes below this line preferably in a change X to Y format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove Blank edit requests will be declined. Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.211.91 (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find out which school this person is affiliated with and get their whole IP block banned? Look at the nonsense coming from this address. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says not to use swabs "except on the external ear", is that supposed to imply that you should never use a swab to clean any of your ear, or just not to try to remove an excessive blockage with one? I can put ear buds in my ear canal every day and that's fine, but cleaning the same exact part of the ear so the ear buds don't come out all gooey and covered with ear wax, and itch and feel uncomfortable, is "dangerous" and probably going to rupture my ear drum? It's not that difficult, just don't jam the swab way down into your ear canal, and be careful to not push anything further in.

I also see a kind of contradiction in that it basically tells you "don't ever take any action to clean your ears because it might be dangerous" (in spite of the obvious fact that hundreds of millions of people have been doing this for decades and the vast majority is them have no issues, which is why cotton swabs aren't a controversy or banned yet), while also telling you that you ought to let medical professionals clean your ears by syringing, which is considered safe in spite of a rate of complications of 1 out of 1000. If cotton swabs had a rate of issues anything remotely close to that there would be millions of people with ruptured ear drums, blockages, infections, etc.

Or you can just use the swabs with common sense and care and avoid the need to go in to have your ears cleaned by a doctor. I have never even heard of someone damaging themselves with a cotton swab, in spite of it being almost a universal practice. This is your typical "there is a very remote chance that this could cause an injury if not done with care, therefore no one should ever do it at all. Instead come and pay me to do it for you, especially after pushing your earbuds into your grimy, slimy ear every day has shoved a bunch of crud back into your ear because you were scared into not letting a swab to anywhere near your ear by people telling you how extremely dangerous it is". Idumea47b (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]