Talk:Pizzle

Structure

You can make a translation from Russian article about the structure of animal penises, if you want.Юе Артеміс (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Produced and consumed?

Ummmm... where exactly are these dog treats being produced and consumed? Not around here, here being Texas, although it certainly sounds like a big ol' redneck Texan thing to do. Another one of those Wikipedia unsolved mysteries. Maybe the UK or Netherlands based on etymology? Whoever wrote this article should perhaps share the answer...for all we know that person just made this whole thing up since there is no reference to sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.119.243 (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

1) Maybe the redirect from Bull pizzle to Pizzle should be removed and bull pizzle be turned into an article in its own right? At least to my knowledge, the bull pizzle was indeed used as a flogging device in its own right as well as the dog food used today.

2) I would like to add a picture of a bull pizzle as dog food, however I do not know how to do it in wikipedia and whether there are legal implications. At least, a proper picture is easy to find via google picture search or on some online pet food shops, e.g. http://www.dog-training.com/images/bgbbullpiz.JPG would be suitable (this link is just the first suitable picture link returned by google as an example here). I find it hard to imagine that food shops would mind the publication of these images.

--62.30.170.39 12:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)20.04.2006

On a visit to Papeete, they were selling "pizzle sticks" as satays to the foreigners. I think this should be included at least as a warning.

My dad, of German heritage, used to use it like "gizmo" (e.g. (I pushed the doorbell, but nothing happened. It's pizzle is sprung.") Kirkpasf 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: this entry should be combined with the one for bully stick. These appear to be addressing the same item. Snarfa 23:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What Happened to Facts?

None of the citations are complete on this article. They just say "citation needed." If we cannot confirm or deny a piece of information it does not belong in this enyclopedia. D0ggieM0mma 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What kind of citations could there be? Links to producer's webpages? Wouldn't that be a problem with commercial advertising? Scanning the packages of bull pizzles I buy for my dog? Wouldn't that be a copyright violation? These things are commonly sold in most pet shops around here, but how do I prove this? Scanning receipts? --138.251.194.12 12:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Bull?

The result is a very hard, 4 km long brown stick,

4 km?? I'd love to see a 4km long penis from any species. Citation??? Mgt74 01:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Beluga pizzle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.88.31 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sun drying?

Is the normal treatment high-temperature drying? Are they sometimes made by sun-drying, which is not high-temperature and thus inconsistent with the current content? Sources please, given the WP:COI and WP:SPAM problems we've had here. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes the normal process for this item is high-temperature drying! You seem so concerned maybe you could do some research on sources of information before editing articles 5 times which constitutes spam and vandalism. First, drying them at high heat is required to produce a finished dried product otherwise they would not be able to be used as dog chews. In some countries, especially in the third world they don't have the technology like ovens in the US, which causes them to sun dry the product (which is at a high temperature - as most production happens along the equator). But, you can continue to spam and vandalize topics which you obviously have no knowledge of as evidenced by your edit history! Could an admin please suspend this editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2009

Please provide a reliable source as required by WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, we certainly aren't taking anything personal, but as an editor we feel the need to prevent Spam and Vandalism on Wikipedia; please stop vandalizing articles on Wiki, not too much to ask is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.142.120 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, sun-drying is a low-temperature drying method, most suitable for thin material. Sun-drying along the equator? Aren't most equatorial areas humid (at least those where cattle would be raised)? --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest that they are dried if not by the Sun or in ovens, maybe magically (magic still exists in some areas of the world)! And many meat products all around the world are sun dried at what most people would agree are "high temperatures". Pretty interesting that it appears that this is your 10th edit to a page on Wiki, which is considered edit-warring as I have seen it. Appreciate your willingness to discuss topics rather than deleting relevant content which improves the encyclopedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one can provide a reliable source, the information will be removed per WP:V.

My very clear concerns are that "either using the Sun" is inconsistent with "very high heat", nor consistent with "as most production happens along the equator". Drying is accomplished by a combination of temperature, humidity, and pressure, depending upon the size and type of the material to be dried. The material in question is extremely dubious. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz, adding "using ovens" a fairly reasonable statement, however it is redundant (as ovens would be required to reach a high heat). Addition of "using the sun" to reach high heat requires a citation from a reliable source to remain, also the annon IPs should realize that the onus is on the editor who adds content to an article to provide the reference, not other editors to "do their research".--kelapstick (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the one that added ovens and sun and I have contacted several manufacturers of these products and confirmed that they are either dried in the sun or using ovens, otherwise how would they get dried? Aren't a lot of meat products dried in the Sun? Isn't this common knowledge. Perhaps before deleting and editing pages 10 times you both could get together and do a little research too!

Also, why not remove the whole article as there is no citation for most of it? With the two of you editing Wiki would cease to exist...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 March 2009

Contacting a manufacturer to find out how they are made constitutes original research which is not valid as a source for Wikipedia. "Common knowledge" is also not a reliable source for Wikipedia either. Wikipedia requires verifiability for all of its sources, and requires those sources to be reliable, which among other things, means they are independent of the subject of the article, in this case the manufacturer of the pizzles are not independent. As I said before, if you add material (especially material that is likely to be challenged) you are required to provide a citation for the information, other editors are not required to "get together to do a little research".

On a side note, Wikipedia seems to exist perfectly fine with "the two of us" editing, so there is nothing to worry about.--kelapstick (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just thankful that neither of you are admins and will likely never be! (well hopefully, based on your editing history) So based on your comment the majority of the article should be deleted correct, as there are not valid citations... Just want to be understanding you correctly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the entire article based on "original research" if so as "responsible editors the entire page should be deleted...any thoughts on this? Where are the references and citations for the article or for that matter most articles on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Until you learn to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I'm done with you other than to continue documenting the problems you're causing. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I am documenting the problems that YOU are causing on Wikipedia! Not causing any problems, just trying to prevent over zealous editors like yourself from ruining Wiki for others! 10 Edits in 2 days is not acceptable by any means and it has been updated on the admin page documenting your lack of civility in editing Wiki. Please learn to respect editors, is this too much to ask?

Also, when admins are looking at your history I think that they will find that you have a "pattern" of inappropriate behavior and editing on Wikipedia; which is not the case with me!

Also, your tone in responses on my talk page like you "WILL" be banned etc. etc. should be reserved for people who have been approved as Admins on Wikipedia so please refrain from continuing to visit my talk page with idol threats in reality it is you who should learn how to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 March 2009

I strongly recommend that you read WP:V. The opening paragraph adequately provides the clear summary: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

At this point, the mention has been challenged by three editors, including myself. As it is disputed, then per policy the requirement for inclusion is to provide a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This we need to delete the size too, wouldn't you agree that there are many different sizes of them and this information is not verifiable except through original research; Barek, as you have taken an new profound interest in preserving the integrity of the article wouldn't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Or is it likely, that the three of you are just trying to cause problems, because based on Barek's last comment I think that all of us could agree in a reasonable discussion that most of the article is not verifiable and thus we should delete most of it. Comments please, or do you prefer to continue singling people that want to make contributions out! The great part of all this is that in looking at your histories which are PERMANENT records it looks like the three of you go around Wiki doing this together on a repeated basis! Hopefully, an admin can step in and ban you from continuing to vandalize! Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You are inventing conspiracies where they do not exist. By comparing my contributions to the others, there's very little overlap - I have no problem with a review of my contributions.

For the other content, I suggest you re-read the last sentence of the policy quote that I had provided: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

As near as I can tell, so far the only portion that has been challenged are the methods for drying. The only other content challenge, made by you, appears to have been done not based on the material but rather just to disrupt things to make a point ... in which case, you should also read WP:POINT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, this is the first time (to my knowledge) I have come across Barek on Wikipedia, and the only other time Ronz and I have crossed paths we were on opposite sides of the discussion, not collaborating to promote the deletion of all content on Wikipedia, but I too am open to a review of my edits to search for some phantom conspiracy. This is the last comment for me on this talk page for now, I and other users have made our points, the disruptive IP editor(s) choose not to listen and repeating these points is unlikely to change that.--kelapstick (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea how the "Pizzles" are cleaned? I think that this must be original research and that we should delete. Any thoughts? What if they aren't cleaned, or what if some manufacturers don't clean them? Seems like we should delete if no citations come forward... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kelapstick

Wanted to thank you for editing this article, your work is admirable and very well done! Congrats on putting together a valid article that makes sense and is well cited! Again, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.14.63 (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)