Talk:Tongue

In the opening paragraph, the article lists a number of languages in which "tongue" and "language" are the same word. Considering the use of the word earlier in the paragraph, shouldn't English be included in that list?--VerargerterAffe 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

if you type in tounge at [1], it shows the URL to the tounge article. does anyone know why? Ncusa367 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

What causes a tongue to be coated for long periods of time? Is brushing the tongue after brushing teeth healthy? Or could it damage taste buds? --bodnotbod 02:22, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

comment: it is a tounge on a ship My sister says that it's bacteria collected after eating. Also from drinking liquids such as milk and juice, e.t.c. There are things called"tongue scraper" in the oral care section of pharmacies. This helps scrape the white stuff off, usually not most of it. They say it's one of the causes of bad breath or halitosis. Brushing your tongue can help to clean it off. I'd say it's useful but it doesn't do damage. Edit by: Kristen [age 11]68.162.216.144 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Someone may consider replacing the pierced tongue picture since it may risk offending somebody. - Jerryseinfeld 17:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How on earth is a picture of a pierced tongue "offensive" to anyone? The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, and in many cases a picture is worth a thousand words. Since the tongue is one of the body parts most commonly pierced/modified today, I believe this is worth mention. The fact that the human tongue is an organ that so many people today are having pierced is an interesting point to note when discussing the tongue as a subject. Furthermore a picture of a pierced tongue does more to demonstrate this fad than a description could. An encyclopedia should be objective, and therefore not place value judgements that restrict information. The purpose is to say "here is information about the tongue". The mention that the article might say "by the way, in modern society the trend of piercing the tongue has increased in popularity exponentially over the years; here is a picture of what a tongue piercing looks like" is completely informative in nature and (at least in my estimation) completely benign and inoffensive. Unless of course you have a problem with tongue piercings for some reason. But then again that should really be your own issue. For example in an article on the human ear, I would naturally expect that there might be some mention of the ubiquitous ear piercing trend among humans today, and I would expect to perhaps see a picture of an ear with an earing in it. If someone was offended by an ear piercing photo then most people would likely say that was their own personal belief and that Wikipedia shouldn't have to cater to every possible thing that someone might find offensive (unless it is something which is specifically and directly offensive in nature). When the image is completely informative in intent, it should be allowed. An article on Nazi's for example would be expected to show a picture of a swatztika, and this would not be meant to offend or promote nazism, but merely to show a picture of something that is commonly related with the subject. If a swatztika is tolerated, I think a pierced tongue should be no big contraversy. But it is all a mute point as I don't even see an image of a piercing on the article. - AnonUser

But the Picture may be offending to some people such as myself. Of course i do not see any "pierced tongue" picture anyway. - Anonomus User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.193.200 (talk • contribs)

Why does this discussion include an oral sex link? Since children often use wikipedia for science research, shouldn't we remove the sex reference?

Adults familiar with oral sex know the tongue plays an important role----and if they want to know more, they can enter "oral sex" in as a search.

The oral sex reference strikes me as entirely valid: it is a clear secondary use of the tongue after its involvement in eating and speech and is worthy of mention. Children do indeed use Wikipedia, which is a good thing, but you should remember that Wikipedia is not bowdlerised or (as some would have it) "child-safe". See our content disclaimer for more on this. Also I'm afraid I don't see the logic that this mention of oral sex is in any way harmful to children. Wikipedia is here to educate and I don't consider such knowledge to be damaging to children, and I think many if not most Wikipedians would agree with me. There are parts of Wikipedia that are best kept from children - graphic images of Holocaust victims and such - but I don't think the tongue article falls into that category. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. One powerful thing about Wikipedia or any online electronic encyclopedia is its ability to *relate* information and subjects. A mere mention to fact that the tongue has a secondary use in oral sex in addition to its primary roles in speaking and in eating is completely legitimate. Besides, it does not go into detail, it merely mentions this and then includes a pointer to the article on oral sex where the reader can learn more on the tongue's role there. This is no different than for example to mention in an article on the knee that the human knee is sometimes used as a weapon in certain forms of combat and martial arts such as thai kick boxing and then linking to relevant articles. The desire to exclude the oral sex link stems from a value judgement on the topic of sex, and an implied assumption that sex and anything sexual is somehow "innapropriate".

There is no call for oral sex to be mentioned. Certainly wikipedia is here to educate, but I wouldn't neccessarily call a little lesson on the role of the tongue in oral sex educational. Besides that, this information WOULD be harmful to children. Sex is a powerful and dangerous tool. Children that see this paragraph and are NOT familiar with the terms are suddenly thrust into the concept, which is not healthy, especially at young, but comprehensable ages. It gets them on a wrong start to understanding sex and using it safely and appropriately. They see this stuff, gain a desire to experiment with and emulate it, and that throws them on the track of becoming one of the pregnant or fathers we've seen through high school. Parents should be able to send their kids on a research quest without being exposed to this trash.

Well if you have such a problem with the mere mention of the tongue having a role in oral sex, you're really going to be upset with the article on "Clitoris"! Take a look around Wikipedia; it's never been intended to be "kid friendly". There's an article on the word "fuck," after all. There is no room here for your POV on sexual ethos. The goal is to comprehensively include as much information as possible. Just because some people, you included, aren't open about sexuality doesn't mean that the world should be cleansed of such information. Objectively, there is nothing "harmful" or "dangerous" about sex, oral sex, or mentioning the tongue's role in the latter. It is natural, it is true, and it is informative. Anthropologically speaking, the role of the tongue in oral sex is not only valid and interesting information, but also DOES have significant educational value--worth mentioning. The moralization of sexual activity is POV, plain and simple, and operating under the pretense that a mention of oral sex is "offensive" is not what Wikipedia is all about. Wikipedia is an exchange of knowledge and information, free from the repressive and inhibitive effect of value judgments. No "offense" intended of course :)

-Thelastemperor 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

What is it with parents? If you have a problem with the content your children are accessing on wikipedia, well here is a novel idea, *supervise* their online activity instead of leaving them to their own devices at the PC and expecting other wikipedians to play e-nanny and sanitize any "unsuitable" entries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.187.139 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

The claim that "the tongue is the strongest muscle in the human body proportional to size," is disputed at the strongest human muscle.

and what is the scientific name for "tongue"? we should include it as well

The scientific name for "tongue" in the US is "tongue." :) However, if you see the word or prefix "glossal" or "glosso-" in anatomical articles, it comes from glossa, the Greek word for tongue. Robotsintrouble 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is it remotely possible that someone in the world has never seen a tongue? If its not (which I believe) then what information does this image convey?--Light current 22:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I propose its removal--Light current 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

If we can get a better image, I'm all for it. A cross-section of the tongue would be ideal. -Harmil 17:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Some ideas:

I'm changing the images a little. Check the page and see what you think. Robotsintrouble 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be removed as it does not illustrate anything other than what a person would see in a mirror. A illustration pointing out the locations of taste would be optimum. Mace 09:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I placed the article as having a top rating since the tongue is a significant landmark in dentistry and greatly influences the location of teeth by providing a force to antagonize lip and cheek muscles. Also, I based my B-class rating of the article because of the large amount of information, but lack of in-line references and no section on diseases commonly affecting the tongue. - Dozenist talk 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. This is a very important structure... I've added a lot of anatomical information today, but there are a lot of problems in the structure and flow of the article... most noticably at the beginning, where there's a paltry introduction that is actually shorter than the long list of the word for 'tongue' in dozens of languages. I feel I've added enough technical details, other editors are needed to work on the intelligibility and flow of the article. Let me know if you have any questions about the muscles or whatnot. They might even deserve their own article if this one improves. Robotsintrouble 01:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is the primary organ of taste.

The majority of "taste" actually comes from the nose. The tongue can only sense certain things. Perhaps that statement should be clarified. I mean what can the tongue actually "taste" v. the confusion with the nose and taste. There also seems to be missing the structure of the underside of the tongue as well... --Hitsuji Kinno 17:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get that from? For me, I taste food with my tongue, I don't stuff it in my nose to taste it. If you have citation for that, please add it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.255.175.53 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

He is absolutly right, you can look this up a million different places.. one of which including here. http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/your_sense_of_taste/index.html A huge portion of what you preceive as taste is actually due to your sense of smell.XXLegendXx 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

He is absolutely wrong. In scientific terms, taste is described as differentiation between sweet, sour, bitter, salty, etc. What you are referring to taste is the detection of flavour, which is done with the nose. What is colloquially referred to as the taste of the food is actually the smell or flavour of the food, not the taste - in scientific terms this is the olfactory sense. This is an issue of semantics or nomenclature and seeing as this is a scientific article, I think the tongue should remain the primary organ of taste. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 18:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it actually possible to commit suicide by biting off one's tongue as is frequently referenced in Japanese media? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.131.202 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

• Ew. Y'know, I think it'd be possible. I saw this movie once (a really dumb movie) where they had to reset this guy's leg and they made him bite down on a stick to keep from biting his tongue...but since it was a really dumb movie who knows if it's true or not. But I would think it'd be possible due to blood loss. --Kiwi 21:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What about reptilian tounges? Secondary uses mentions nothing about them, even though they are very unique in the fact that reptiles use them to taste air.(I think, perhaps it's all been a lie for these years) Well, most reptiles, from the way I see it. Snakes and most lizards. It should still be mentioned, since you are mentioning dogs.-Dragonryth 10:57 PM PST

the image of the toungue looks alot different than mine.. most notable is that it's crackly like a cookie in the center and has notable lines like a handprint, mine is crackly around the edges and real smooth in the center, with no lines? is my toungue healthy?

LOL, don't worry about that, everyone have a different looking tongue, it's in your DNA. So if you see someone else's fingerprint, will you say your finger isn't healthy?! Anyway, if you are still worried, you can always see a doctor.

I agree. That tongue is weird-looking. I glad I'm not the only person who noticed that. Regardless of DNA, something is definitely off here. 69.87.180.209 14:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a condition known as fissured tongue. I have a slight case of it, although not as bad as the pic. The official line from mainstream medicine is that it's part of natural variation in tongues, and is totally benign and not a big deal. (Although personally I'm not sure I'd agree with that, mine is painful every now and then, and it can be extremely sensitive to hot or acidic foods). --Krsont 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

i'm curious how long is the tounge anyways? average - smallest - largest —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.25.104.250 (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

The part about the thermoregulation of the dog.I thot it was evaporation from his longs that helped him cool him self.What surface is more important for exchanges,the little tongue or the 2 tenis fields of lung surface?Isn't that why he breads fast?--87.64.0.234 19:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is one of those 'common knowledge' "facts" that it is impossible to lick ones elbow. I can do this however, I was just wondering if anyone knows if this is a true fact or just a common misconception? --TheNobGoblin 15:58, 1 April 2007 (GMT)

I think you answered your own question. --Krsont 11:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is this picture useful anywhere? -bladebot 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

nice, thank you. --75.41.34.231 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The article currently claims "The sublingual route ... is the only convenient and efficacious route of administration of nitroglycerin capsules to a patient suffering angina pectoris, chest pain. If the caplet is swallowed, the medication is completely neutralized by the detoxification process of the liver."

I slapped the {{fact}} tag on this last sentence, because I suspect it is wrong. I thought the liver detoxifies the blood no matter what route something got into the blood? I suspect there is some other reason why doctors recommend placing nitroglycerin capsules under the tongue.

Could someone post (preferably with supporting references) the real reason?

--75.41.34.231 03:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that is the real reason. This is referring to first pass metabolism - when drugs are ingested, the hepatic portal vein passes the absorbed drugs straight to the liver without hitting any other organs in the body. When the drug is absorbed through the mucosa underneath the tongue, the veinous drainage of the floor of the mouth returns to the heart before the blood hits the liver. So you are correct, the liver does detoxify the blood, but the route of intake of a drug does determine what organs it passes through before it hits the liver. Many times drugs are administered to avoid first pass metabolism such as IV or sublingual routes. This statement should get a reference so the fact tag is relevant here, but not for the reasons you stated. Dr-G - Illigetimi non carborundum est. 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply