Talk:Penis/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Size of erect penis in image

I liked the previous circumcised pictures- (erect and not) they showed a nice-looking penis that was not especially big- it was more representative of a lot of us!

IT SHOULD BE AVERAGE SIZE. Main picture is so not normal. This site should be informative, not some guys need to show off how big he is.

I'm not sure exactly which image is referred to, however, the erect penis at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Erect_penis_with_labels.jpg looks much larger than average; it looks about 8 inches. I recommend it be replaced with an image of a more average sized penis. Given the popularity of this page (I think it's in the top 200 most visited) I suspect some readers will believe the picture represents an average penis, so it may cause unnecessary body image anxiety.

As I said in an earlier post, it doesn't matter if the image depicts a penis that's a little larger or smaller than normal. The only thing that's important is that it presents a scientific/medical perspective of that part of the body. One's insecurities or anxieties are not the problem of Wikipedia or its editors. That arguments over "anxiety" and "insecurity" are just diversions from the job at hand. In this case, however, the image is likely a porn image and is, therefore, not appropriate for Wikipedia. On the other hand, if the replacement image is an example of medical photography depicting a penis of above-average size, deal with it, people! ask123 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a medical photo. This site should be informative. The first picture should not be that picture of the penis. You want to talk about "anxiety" and "insecurity". An encyclopedia should show facts, this does not show a fact. The picture should be removed

The best way to know that these penis pictures do or do not represent the average human male penis size is to go out and personally inspect as many penises as one can. Keep notes. Small penises cause snickers, average sized ones cause no reaction, and large ones generally cause a sharp inhale known medically as a gasp. Jcitrix (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It also could just be a small guy with a normal size Mhocker (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any point of reference in the photograph to give an accurate idea of what size it really is. There's no perspective. We don't know how his body is really proportioned. Asarelah (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ask123 please stop being an ass. Show a bit of compassion man. If you can do something to make some pubescent kid's years a little less stressful, do it. It is not violating any of wiki's standards by changing the main picture to something a little more modest. I know this may not be a big deal and i fully agree, I just don't like the way ask123 is acting as if his hands are tied and telling people to "deal with it". p.s. ahahaha to the concept that it could just be a tiny dude with a normal penis :)59.101.40.74 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

wtf is this, the Small Penis support page? If there is one thing Wikipedia is not short on, it is middle-aged small caucasian penis pictures. (Penis, Erection probably more too...) if one of the pictures happens to be 6 inches or above who cares. (god knows the rest of them aren't) --User0529 (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the point of it being "a little above" The first picture is grossly over sized

Well it may seem so to you, but to my Jamaican friends its seems, you know,.....tiny. ;-)

BTW, anyone notice that the talk page on Penis is also quite small, while the talk page on Cunt is HUGE! (god, life's funny at times).--Phil Wardle (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Link to german wiki

The link to the german wiki is wrong.

Actually it should link to: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_des_Menschen

Could someone fix it (i can't because the page is semiprotected). thx

80.121.25.14 (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done! Icarus of old (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it back - the german article is about general "penis" - this article is too, but our article is too heavily weighted on human penis. - Toon⁰⁵ 22:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Corkscrew penis

Some ducks and pigs have a corkscrew penis, which can be quite long. Female ducks have a long corkscrew vagina. This should be mentioned in the article.

• http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1277
• http://everything2.com/e2node/Lake%2520duck
• http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_366856.htm

-69.87.204.48 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead image

An anatomy image would be a lot better suited for the lead image of the penis. Every medical article about the penis i have ever seen has a side view anatomy illustration of the penis. Never have i seen a uncircumcised penis be used to show the penis in a medical journal or article in general.

We already have a image showing a uncircumcised penis and both it, and the current lead shows those lines that point out things.

Its a bit of a distraction and redundant to use. Also it makes it feel like the article is leaning towards uncut, uncircumcised or "natural" penises.

I think an anatomy drawing would be the most non bias option to use. Its more encyclopedic and more educational if it keeps a medical tone. I also feel that we need a circumcised anatomy illustration as well. The current anatomy illustration as well as the lead and another 3 photos (in one) are all of uncircumcised penises. its a little one sided to have 5/8 images all be of uncircumcised penises.

Also i think we need a frontal anatomy image of the penis. I see many encyclopedias and medical articles with both a front and side anatomy illustration of the penis. I even have a medical book that shows a back view focusing on the testicles from an angle where the penis is still visible.

But anyways an anatomy illustration would fit the lead image a lot better for the following reasons.

The article seems to show biasness in the use of 5 uncircumcised penises 2 of which show and point out the same general information.

a black and white photo that goes to the left to much is not the best image to use.

Its more encyclopedia and professional to use a illustration for the penis. I enjoy the fact that wikipedia is not censored but for standardization and encyclopidicness we should have the standard Antomy illustrations of the penis.

Front and side and both circumcised and non circumcised anatomy illustrations are needed.

Also to anyone who wants to know, i didn't relize the anatomy image on this article was of an uncircumcised penis until i took a closer look at the line pointing to the tip saying foreskin. i hope that debunks anyone from using "its its so one sided why you use the illustration of an uncircumcised penis?" Yami (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping it brief -- I think the current lede image is just fine. Atom (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated -- the most common spelling is "lede[1][2][3][4] and not "lead".

Try reading Wikipedia:Lead section Asher196 (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ketsuekigata said it best:

The lead image should show what the subject is and be an overall illustration of the article's topic. I think that a photograph serves that purpose much more effectively. A diagram might be useful to illustrate certain things that would be difficult or impractical to show through photography (such as internal anatomy), but doesn't really represent what a penis looks like.

66.112.107.98 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

well there has to be a better image to use. the current one is to far over and the info is already shown on the other uncircumcised penis. Yami (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do think the lead image is too far to the left, I don't understand why it was cropped from [5].--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I purpose Image:Flaccidpenis.jpg. We don't need labels on the lead image. We can just bring back Image:Human_penis07.jpg in the erection section and we also already have a diagram with labels too. Bobisbob (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we discussing the lede image, or the image in the erection section? Why do we want to change the images again? Could we split off discussion of the lede image from discussion of the eretcion section image? We should talk about options, make a decision, and then change the article. I hate it when the image changes every time a new editor finds the article and has a different preference.

I hear editor Honeymane suggesting that the lede image is too far left. I can see wwhat he means. Although I think the image is fine, I am not opposed to changing it if we can agree. Atom (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While I have a vague preference for the lede image being a diagram, I accept that I'm in the minority on this issue - the existing image is fine. What I think is important is that the image in the lede be informative and yet not distracting. I think the existing b+w image serves those needs very well. This article has had serious problems in the past because a large number of editors were all highly motivated to get the best penis in the world (their own!) into it, and so from that perspective, I would vastly prefer a situation where we need a strong consensus to make any image change. Nandesuka (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is a human penis even used in the lead/infobox? This article isn't about human penises. It isn't even about mammalian penises. Why use a single penis from a single species to represent something with such a broad range of morphological and functional variations? The human penis is already sufficiently illustrated in this article. I say lose the lead image, or, better yet, make a montage, similar to that of plant, which demonstrates a broad range of morphologies and species. Thanks, AlphaEta 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a proponent of the lede being a human penis. The article is not limited to human penii, as you indicated. We could have images of other penii, but someone will have to go to commons and look. The main reason I think the lede should be human is that most of the people who read Wikipedia are human, and as a species we tend to be focuses on ourselves. I would wager that most people coming to the article, in fact, expect to see, and are looking for informatin on the human penis. I think the current image is a good image (although color might be better) and serves that purpose. Atom (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The one I suggest is basically the same but more centered, without labels and in color. I don't think the lead need labels since we already have a diagram. Anyway, since we agree that that particular penis best illistrautes the subject then why not replace that version with a better one? Bobisbob (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We should eschew labels on the lede. The primary purpose of the lede image is to, at a glance, convey the primary topic visually. A labelled diagram is not best suited for the lede role, it is better suited for a section of the article talking about the technical/medical/anatomical aspects of the topic.

Bob, which image are you proposing? is it this one? Image:Flaccidpenis.jpg If so, I think that image would be great for the lede. Atom (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Bobisbob (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the primary purpose of the lead is to convey the topic visually, I don't see how a human penis sufficiently accomplishes this. However, it appears that most anatomical articles on Wikipedia use human organs in the lead, so I will defer to the norm. That being said, the precedent for articles describing reproductive organs, such as scrotum, clitoris, uterus, vas deferens and vagina, is to use diagrammatic representations in the lead. The lead should be able to stand alone. Anatomical diagrams convey more information than an unlabeled picture of the external male genitalia. Previous versions of this article had both an anatomical diagram as well as an image in the lead. Why not restore this format? Thanks, AlphaEta 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Those reproductive parts have diagrams in the lede because they are internal organs. The penis is external and thus a drawing/diagrams is not needed for the lede. Vulva also has an unlabeled photo in the lead. Bobisbob (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The penis is anatomically more complex than the vulva. While it is outside the body, an external image fails to represent most of its morphological and functional aspects. The sagittal section does. AlphaEta 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to some minor labelling. I don't think the lede needs to stand on its own. The primary purpose of the lede image, like the lede text, is to introduce and identify the topic sufficiently. Too much labeling distracts from the purpose. The section that goes into the detail of the topic is where a detailed and labelled image is best suited. I feel that, as silly as it sounds, the main success of lede images with some minor labelling is that it offers the perception that this photo is medically related, and not meant to be erotic (erorica/pornography). Beyond offering that impression, I think the labelling is little used or referenced by readers. The readers who want detail will go to the section with the detail and look at that image as they read the detail text. Atom (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! The lede doesn't not need go into detail on it's morphological and functional aspects. It should simply show a photo of a penis in it's most natural state. The diagrams and labels are best suited in the section that go into detail on the morphology. A diagram many be good for showing what can't be caught on a photo, but it doesn't represent what a penis actually looks like. Bobisbob (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

To answer somethign above. Its a human penis because that is the first thing a person would want info on. Something closer to home to a human penis should be the first subject, then other penises be touched upon latter.

Also why does this article needs so many uncircumcised penises?

The lead, the uncircumcised image of three different views and then the anatomy illustration.

The only circumcised penises are the image with two views of a circumcised penis and then the rollerskating penis at the bottom. the only reason that is circumcised is because more people identify with a circumcised penis when it comes to comical and cartoonish antics. I doubt to many people would recognize a penis costume as a penis if it had a bunch of material to replicate foreskin. It would look like a rolled up sock unless people looked at the testicles.

If we cannot agree on replacing it with an anatomical illustration then I would happily agree with replacing it with a color penis without labels. The labels are why its to far left and i was the first to mention that much I just said it was to far over.

I think a frontal view of the penis would be the most educational. The angle on the current lead isn't all that faltering. It throws off the proportions on the whole penis especially with the specimen curling to the left like that. Yami (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bob has already suggested a color image already, see above. I think it is Image:Flaccidpenis.jpg. You are welcome to suggest an alternative of your preference.

The topic of Circumcision is a controversial issue. See the circumcision article and talk page as an example. Keep in mind that circumsized is the state of being altered or cut -- and natural, or uncut (un-circumsized) is the state of it not being altered (natural). A majority of people in the world have not been circumzised. I think everyone agrees that images in the article should show both types and not prefer one or the other. Atom (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the article sure seems to be favoring uncut Yami (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So can I go ahead and put it in? Bobisbob (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am okay with it, but let's see if we can hear from AlphaEta and Honeymane on that too. Atom (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just don't know why we keep using a cropped image.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like Image:Flaccidpenis.jpg at all. For one thing, it's completely out of focus; the focal plane is on the scrotum, and the tip of the penis is blurry (which is one reason I converted it to black and white -- that allowed us to increase the contrast, which lessens the effect of the focus problems. That's also why I cropped out the scrotum; by eliminating it, the focus problems are less evident). For another, it includes extraneous details of the scrotum that aren't relevant to the article. Lastly, the lighting is awful (note the harsh shadows), and I think it will be distracting in the article lede (which is the other reason I converted it to b+w). Nandesuka (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well your version would be fine if it would be fine if it didn;'t have the labels and wasn't tilted to the left. Anyway I didn't why not use a fully ecrection one since a flaccid pic only shows some of it? How about Image:Penis with pre-ejaculate.jpg, Image:Uncut erected penis foreskin retrected2.jpg or a cropped Image:Penis1.JPG? Bobisbob (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First, those are all technically poor images as well (Image:Penis1.JPG is the only one that is actually in focus, but has lots of extraneous content). Second, though, they simply seem too prurient and not encyclopedic enough to use as an image in the lede. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it is edited, and we want an image in the lede that will inform, but not distract. Nandesuka (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I say crop it. A cropped version of Image:Penis1.JPG would be no less encyclopedic or distracting then the current one. But I am not searching anymore can you just center your verison more and take away the labels? Or crop Image:Penis1.JPG, I can't seem to be ableget passed the Original Work part, it takes forever to load. ThanksBobisbob (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon my English but what the hell is with all these angeled pictures? Is there not one front and side profile picture we could use? Also the angling of these pictures are often the result of a person taking their own picture and needing to be angled to take it. If we must have an angled shot it should be placed between front and side views and all should be of the same model.

The model should not have any article of clothing on the model used. That makes it look amateurish and like someone just dropped their pants and took a picture, and put it here so they could show the world their penis. That isn't how the article should run, to be a outlet so guys can switch out old images with new ones of their own penis.

We need a completely nude model who is show from the front and possibly the side. Yami (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to object to the lead image on aesthetic grounds. A greyscale shot of a semi-turgid penis, it doesn't exactly inspire the reader to go on and learn more. It's offputting and would be better deleted than remain. No, I'm not going to provide a shot of my own. :) Vranak (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What in the world

Who replaced the uncircumcised image without consensus. To make matters worse it looks like someone stapled that poor specimen then ripped it out.

I might have switched out the lead image without mentioning it on the talk page, but at least the illustration was professional looking and wasn't horribly disfigured. The erection section should use both a erect circumcised and uncircumcised penis. Not just one and not one that looks disfigured. Yami (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a diff of when the image was last changed [[6]]. Atom (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well both images as well as most of the article is showing a preference for uncircumcised penises. If we're going to have stages of the erection we should have a second set of a circumcised penis. Yami (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

only 2/10 images on her are circumcised. Also why should it keep being a uncircumcised penis to illustrate an erection. I think a non diagram version of the uncircumcised erect half of the old image, with the circumcised erection should be placed there. Yami (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you place any significance on whether it is one of the other? For an erection, does it really matter? For any of the images, does it matter? Atom (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There how about Image:Penis1.2.jpg. Bobisbob (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simply too magnetic in those colors. I'd much prefer a b+w image. Nandesuka (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, strange image. Atom (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your being waaay too picky. Anybidy else have an opinion. Nandesuka can't have the final word. Bobisbob (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more descriptive. I liked the first image you proposed better. Yes, I think getting opinions from other editors is the best. I suppose if Image:Penis1.JPG were cropped, but not as aggressively. Image:Penis1.2.jpg is simply cropped too closely. If it were me, I would take the first and crop just enough to get rid of the boxer shorts. Atom (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Best I can do, we can't have too much leg and background. Image:Penis1.0.jpg. Bobisbob (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment 1.0 and 1.2 are both fine with me. I strongly disagree that the pic should be black and white; what's the point of that? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Both circumcised and uncircumcised penises should have a equal amount of images. The article is showing to much of a preference for uncircumcised penises. Also why should the controversy of circumcision be brought up by you? wikipedia does not censor so why should be keep out circumcised penises? that's a form of censorship.

Both should be equally represented. for every image of an uncircumcised penis we should have another of a circumcised penis.

If we must have a real penis image of a penis for the lead image then we should have two. One cut one uncut both in the frontal view with no article of clothing or any distracting background. Yami (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should they be equally represented?? Atom (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Their is more uncircumcised images becuses that's what it looks like naturally and unaltered. Let it go already... So Atom, ONIJ is okay with 2.0, you want me to go ahead and put it?Bobisbob (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is always a hot one. There are far less circumcised penii in the world. Neutral POV requires both views, and balance as appropriate.

Bob: I see you already placed it. I can live with it. Other people may object, we will see. As long as the image doesn't keep changing every time a new editor runs into the article, I am fine with what most other people like. Atom (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems like I'm outnumbered here, so I will acquiesce on the lead image. I'll add some content addressing non-human species in the coming months. Thanks, AlphaEta 19:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I found this Image:Cheval en érection.jpg and this Image:Colored 3812.jpg. Atom (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put the original image back into the article. Firstly, an image with labels is more informative than one without, this being an encyclopaedic article and all. Secondly, the foreskin is part of the anatomy of a natural, surgically unaltered penis, and to illustrate the article with a lead image which has had that part surgically removed is nonsensical. What does make sense is to include an image of a circumcised penis in the "Altering the Genitalia" section, and that's already been done. Beejaypii (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural or unnatural the article should not favor one of the other no matter the controversy. Yami (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a better, anatomical diagram would be best suited for the lead image of the penis. However, it should show all parts of the penis including the foreskin. Circumcision is a modification to the penis, one that only 20% of men ever get worldwide. The logical thing to do would be to show the natural, unaltered penis which would better educate people on the full anatomy. An image of an uncircumcised penis and a circumcised penis in both flaccid and erect states and from side and front views would be best to show as supporting pictures later in the article.

The reason why the medical journal's you've seen generally don't include images of the foreskin with the penis is because for decades the American medical industry has been biased towards circumcision and choose to illustrate the circumcised penis as normal. This is not the case in other parts of the world and it's slowly changing in the US as well. Generally speaking, an artical about the penis should include information about the entire penis. By that, the focus should be on the intact penis with supplemental information about the circumcised penis as an add-on. Images of primarily of circumcised penises would be better suited to a seperate artical about circumcision.Captainbryce1 (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'll take it a step further: if we include circumsized pictures, we'd need to include pictures of all modifications including piercings, urethra splitting, etc. Better to just use pictures of the natural anatomy. --76.191.168.91 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Surgical replacement

I think this info is a wrong.

I remember clearly that there was a german guy who's penis was replaced before 2005 with his own finger. Heck even Jeff Foxworthy talked about it albeit that he made a joke about it, but it happened before 2005.

Also i do not think a doctor would do surgery so soon after the penis was attached, even by request. How creditable is this article? Yami (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected the article due to the recent edit warring. Please find consensus on the talk page. Dreadstar † 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustrating This Article: Incremental Change Is Bad

I feel like perhaps I'm being misunderstood, so let me try to outline one reason that I have strong feelings about the images on this article.

There are a number of groups of people who are highly motivated and have demonstrated a willingness to edit war endlessly over this article:

• People who want a picture of their own (or their boyfriend's) penis on Wikipedia.
• People who love/hate circumcision, and want to promote/denigrate penises that are circumcised/uncircumcised.
• People who want to spread their fetish all over Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich.

Any change of images on this article mobilizes all of the above groups who, smelling blood like chickens at a pecking party, spring into action and try to promote their favorite image over all the others. In other words: an incremental improvement in illustrating this article is not worth the trouble it brings. Incremental change is bad. We should avoid changing the images on this article unless we've got an unquestionable bright-line improvement that is simply obvious to everyone involved.

We can all agree that the existing lede image is not perfect, but it is good enough that it went without challenge for 2 months which on this article, frankly, might be some sort of a record. I'm not really being flip. I think that we should think long and hard before replacing any "good enough" image on this article with one that is only somewhat better.

There is the possibility of a much better image (which I will optimistically call "the perfect image") coming along, someday. In my mind, the perfect image would have the following characteristics:

• Properly lit.
• In sharp focus throughout.
• Contains adequate detail of the structures of the penis.
• Excludes detail of structures not part of the penis.
• Not prurient (and if you don't understand what this means, I'll summarize it as "if you think a picture of a human penis with a drop of ejaculate on the tip should be the lede image on this article, you've got to be kidding me.")
• From a color perspective, should have a more clinical look, not personal (see "properly lit")

I think a lede image can be labelled, and it can (but does not have to be) non-human.

In summary, I think the perfect image is not at all unattainable. I think there are probably photographers who contribute to Wikipedia today who could take that photo. But what I'd like to do is encourage us as editors to recognize that the risks of image churn on this article are real, ongoing, and severe. I want to encourage us to choose stability over churn, and to choose stability over minor incremental improvements, because those incremental improvements are going to lead to edit warring, as we've seen in this very case.

That's my $0.02. I welcome comments on this issue. Nandesuka (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is well thought out. I don't completely agree, but I agree to a very large degree. (For example, I don't perceive an image of a penis with pre-ejaculate as prurient, merely not sufficiently on-topic for the lede) The other characteristics of a good image given, I agree with. And certainly an image perceived as clinical over an image perceived by some as prurient would be preferred, so that characteristic applies as well. The lede image could be labelled as long as it does not interfere with the clarity of the image. (But a label free lede is preferred). The concept that an image has lasted for some period of time as the lede, as discussed, is a form of consensus. We should establish a new consensus before changing an old consensus. Personally I am fairly flexible as long as there is a consensus. Atom (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka I'd feel better about the current image if it was not labled. Bobisbob (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I say we need two leads one cut one not. both front and center view. This isn't a porn where most of the views are from the side of a angles. The penis should be viewed full on frontal cut and dry Not from some angled or artsy. To put it rudely if someone wants to see a dick in a artistic way then they should fingerpaint before they masturbate. Not come to a article that is meant to educate not entertain or thrill.

fully nude models with hygiene and a professional presentation. I went to the testicle article and some guy put his hairy rash covered sack on the article. I would have removed it but then someone would have complained.

I asked on the talk page if there wasn't a better image. The model shouldn't be showing their penis for the thrill of showing it, but for science and education. Yami (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink change

{{editprotected}} I feel that placental mammals in the opening of this article would be more useful and conform better to expectations if it were written as placental mammals. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct spelling is "mammals" though, not "mamals" as found in the article.

Why is the article edit protected? Atom (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection is set to expire in about 11 hours or so. Is there consensus for the lead image? Edit warring over it is not acceptable...as we all know.. :) Dreadstar † 19:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. As far as I am concerned, the consenus remains for the current existing image. No consensus has been found for any other image, as of yet. Atom (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

you give up to easily and stick with old consensuses. there is discussion on using other images but you all seem to keep letting them drop off. How can you say there is a consensus when you keep on giving up?

I have suggested a number of possibilities. The problem here is you all are to focus on keeping photographs of real penises on the article that you are willign to allow a poor image choice be the lede just because its a real penis.Yami (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LEDE

I believe Penis_parts.png is a better option for the lead then the current image. Yami (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why should the lead photo look like it was taken from a 1868 anatomy reference? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new image without labels in A human penis. If this image is good enough to be a lead-image someone maybe can put labels to it in a proper way. OrlandoDL (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See above discussions. Also, we have other options from commons. There are an abundance of them available. Atom (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See above discussion.

[[7]]

[[8]]

[[9]]

[[10]]

[[11]]

Yami (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I made two of then the new diagram pictures but the lede should still be a photo. The lede should show the subject the way a person would see it. Diagrams are better for the sections on anatomy and detail. I think Orlandos would be fine but if we can't have that then we should just keep the current one. Bobisbob (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not fond of Orlando's images. Nandesuka (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If the goal is "the way a person would see it," shouldn't the photograph depict a flaccid penis? Why are we showing this organ in a semi-erect state it's not in most of the time? Of course it serves a sexual function which requires rigidity, but remember it also serves a urinary function in humans. I vote in favor of a completely flaccid, labeled image. Grayscale is also just silly in my estimation. EdgeOfEpsilon (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Info in English

Hey do you guys have info about this condition? http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Hypospadias_erect_frontview.jpg I didn't want to translate it since it has been a great deal of 10 years since I moved to the States and unfortunately it takes more thinking to get the gist of something in Italian than it is to do so in English...75.15.223.94 (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Ohmg

It looks like there's an article about this condition on the English-language version of Wikipedia: Hypospadias. Regards, AlphaEta 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Penis is not the Latin word for penis.

Penis is the Latin word for tail; mentula is the Latin word for penis. Please edit the article accordingly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.155.72 (talk • contribs) 01:56, August 24, 2008

It's been a long time since I've taken Latin, but I believe mentula was more of a slang term used to describe a small penis. Double-check me on that, though. AlphaEta 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, it's funny how I remember almost nothing from Latin, but the dick jokes are still with me. AlphaEta 17:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, regardless of what you consider the word origin to be, M.D.'s call it Penis and use plural forms Penes, and Penii. I don't believe that the article claims that the term originated from Latin (even though it did -- I wonder what the Greek word is?). As far as I know, there is no other term used within the medical field for referring to this anatomical part. Atom (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know for sure what the Latin word for penis is; my paper dictionary doesn't say. [[12]] told me! And I know the article doesn't say that explicitly, but it seems implied in the upper-right-hand corner. I know it's a very minor issue, but couldn't this be clarified somehow--like replacing Latin with Medical Latin or something?

Penis is a direct borrowing of the Latin word penis (third declension). It was used to denote 'tail' in Old Latin, but was later adopted to refer to the male sex organ. Again, mentula is definitily a derogatory term, and I'm pretty sure it specifically refers to a small penis. I didn't know Wikipedia had a whole page dedicated to Latin profanity. That's great! AlphaEta 05:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Developmental disorders

Reads:

"Hypospadias is a developmental disorder where the [[Urinary meatus |meatus]] is positioned wrongly at birth."

Needs fixing.davidz (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to protection I would like to bring this up for conversation

I found the following challenged statement in the article:

Except for extreme cases at either end of the size spectrum, penis size does not correspond strongly with reproductive ability in almost any species.

I think it would be a good idea to either remove or to add a citation to this statement. As I dont really have a reference for it personally my opinion is that it should be removed per WP:BURDEN but maybe I am jumping the gun on that one. There may be some great info out there that could be referenced that would make this statement even more educational. Anybody else either have a reference that could be added or feel that it should be taken down per WP:BURDEN? -Sykko-(talk to me) 05:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, I thought it was fully protected, but appearantly it is only simi-protected because I had already edited the page (I forgot about that, I didnt notice the un-cited material until I had looked at a few other article and forgot that I had already edited the page lmao) -Sykko-(talk to me) 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect conclusion

"In comparison, the human penis is larger than that of any other primate, both in proportion to body size and in absolute terms. For this reason, sexual selection of penis size has almost certainly played an evolutionary role in Homo sapiens and its predecessors."

Can someone either provide a reference for this statement or remove it? There are a number of reasons that Homo sapiens might have a relatively large penis; it doesn't have to be sexual selection. For example, due to long gestation and thus large human head size at birth, human females have relatively large vaginas. What would a consequence of large vaginas be? Bingo. Large penises. So really. Someone find a cite, or remove this, please. 76.69.37.42 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fellatio

Since this is an informative article on the human penis, we should include pictures of fellatio. This is educational because it shows the human penis being stimulated. We could display how a male performs fellatio on another male, and to be fair, how a woman performs fellatio as well. I think that there should be a section in this article detailing what areas of the penis are stimulated with pictures to help stimulate the readers' minds. That is all.

For goodness sake. That really doesn't need photos - a description of the act would be enough. And long as a penis is a penis, fellatio is fellatio, whether or not a male or female is performing it.--Casdious (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to link to the page called fellatio (or oral sex - whatever)? Yili2943 (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I have to agree with the posting above. This article is about the penis, not about fellatio.--Koolahawk (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The pages are already created - Oral sex and Fellatio. We don't need another one.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Erection development series

Should the erection development photo series not be focused on a "normal" penis (i.e. one that does not exhibit Peyronie's disease)? I'd shoot another one myself, but I am unfortunately deprived of the organ in question. Anyone in possession of a penis and up to the task? Jediserra (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That picture does not exhibit Peyronie's disease. This diagnosis was added by an editor who is presumably not a urologist and has not examined the poster's penis medically. The original poster made no mention of having any disease, and this article states that up to 30% curvature is normal: Hence this is a normal penis and a new picture is not needed. I removed the OR from the caption (stating that a fellow wikipedian has a disease without even leaving them a talk page msg is pretty unpleasant on the part of whoever did that).Yobmod (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is something wrong with the penis in the photo, when someone gets an erection, their penis shouldn't curve upwards like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 April 2009

The image and text that accompanies it seem to imply that it is normal for the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis to fully retract upon erection. I think that may mislead some readers into thinking that this is normal, when in fact it is quite possible that there will be no retraction or only partial retraction. I believe the extremely pronounced curvature of the penis in the photograph is increasing the degree of retraction evident. It might be a good idea to mention this, or to at least not have text that *implies* that the full unassisted retraction of the foreskin is a normal and expected event in the erection process. Nevart (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images - shameless self-promotional low-quality home-made self-pics detracting from quality of article.

I have attempted to (and was reverted, with direction to seek consensus) remove 2 low-quality self-pictures of Wikimedia users' penises per paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images. This is not censorship - non-homemade alternatives can be found, which do not distract from the quality and encyclopedic value of the article by using home-made self pics of Wikimedia users.

Paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images reads: (Emphasis added)

“ Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. ”

I propose that self-pictures created by Wikimedia users (obviously home-made / self-produced images) both:

• (a) distract from the article's educational value by introducing exhibitionistic self-promotion
• (b) constitute self-promotion, which is in possible violation of WP:COI Conflict of Interest, to put it bluntly — they are vanity images.

I am not anti-penis (quite the opposite), and am not trying to impose censorship. But come on, are we going to keep allowing these shameless self-promotional low-quality home-made self-pictures (generally all of Caucasian wikimedia editors past their prime and with a body mass index higher than a porn company would be wanting to pay them money for their "educational" contributions? Maybe David Shankbone could come up with some educational shots the next time he goes to the Michael Lucas film set. At least they would be (a) professional quality images, and (b) not of fat middle-aged Wikipedia editors with flabby thighs and pubic areas.

Thoughts? (gets off soap box...) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would consider them vanity/self-promotion if they were full body shots, including the face of the subject. But since the images in question focus only on the area needed for discussion/commentary I don't see them as such. I do not believe they are distracting as they're probably the best quality free licensed material we're likely to find. And having said that, if you believe you can find a better quality image that is freely licensed, by all means, add it and you likely won't be reverted (unless someone disagrees with you about the quality). But simply removing the material with no alternative available doesn't seem correct to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Concern about your comment re porn stars. Why should an encyclopedic article be limited to showing the body-type associated with porn stars who generally are chosen as specific examples of people who are atypical, not only in terms of penis size but also physique. Certainly a picture should be quality, but it is the quality of the picture itself that should be judged, not your opinion of the model (which comes down to personal taste). If you're just wanting fap material, there are plenty of other places you can look where there is not a flabby thigh in sight. Nevart (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevart (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Which image? The flacid/erect circumcied d pic? Seems to have some educational value, and has no body/face, so is not vanity. Does not distract from the topic of the article, it illustrates it, as images should. I would say the same about all the images - the first being the least useful.Yobmod (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the lede image is actually the most tasteful(IMHO) (least amateur-looking, even though it was originally a self-pic) photo on the page. (It also was the result of discussion on the subject of lede images in mid-2008, and was cropped and grayscaled by an editor other than the creator for the purpose of a lede infobox picture). A medical diagram/line-drawing would be more "informative", but there was objection by some editors at the time of not using a photo in the lede. (And labels added to self-pics always look amateurish anyway, as Commons shows) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thought. It'd definitely be preferable to use higher-quality images, especially ones taken by medical professionals. While I know original images generally aren't considered original research, there seems to be a statement being made that the penes being depicted in these images are representative or properly illustrative of what a penis looks like. I note a comment at File talk:Erection Development.jpg which states the image may better be used to illustrate Peyronie's disease, but in the Penis article, it is marked simply as "Erection Development". Is this appropriate? I'm not sure- I'm not a medical professional and so I am incapable of identifying whether that person's penis is an appropriate illustration of normal erection development. And that's the danger- 90% of other Wikipedia readers will be equally incapable of knowing whether this is an appropriately illustrative image.

Similarly, in terms of the use of these images for vanity, there's a clear danger of the person making the image having a conflict of interest with wanting to make his penis appear as large as possible. While I'm not making any accusations, and have no evidence to do so, I think it's clear there is a risk of it that can be simply overcome by using professionally-taken images whenever possible. I hope this helps out. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

just some thoughts to add to the discussion (re: preceding point raised) : Methinks the "vanity" danger isn't in contributors making their penis look large, but in the conflict of interest/self-promotional (WP:COI) interests of a male having their penis being in an online encyclopedia, viewable by readers male & female, ages 8 to 88, around the English-speaking world. WP is not censored, but there is a high risk of COI/Self-promotion in having a Wikimedia user's penis self-pic promoted as a specimen of the human male. Most Wikimedia user penis uploaders are caucasian overweight males past a certain age. If they are trying to have their penises be specimens of the average human male penis ... most humans aren't 30-35 years old (old enough to know when you're getting a thrill off of showing your penis on Wikipedia), Caucasian, overweight users with access to a computer and a digital camera. These same uploaders will not hesitate to cry bloody murder over circumcised/uncircumcised, erect/un-erect, small/large not being represented -- but they are blind to the fact that they are flooding the page with un-notable images of overweight westerners (when most human males aren't overweight westerners, and thus it isn't a realistic representation of "specimens" of the human penis. :-) Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. One other that came to mind is the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, also called "18 USC 2257", specifies record-keeping requirements for "producers of sexually explicit material". This usually amounts to pornography models needing to have their real names on file, usually with a copy of their driver's license, with the goal of ensuring that all models are of legal age at the time of photography. How this applies here is in that these images are being published by the WMF, and images of human genitalia may be considered "sexually explicit" (even in the case of illustrative images). It strikes me as being plainly clear that none of these self-made images are going to have 2257 documentation. While it seems pretty unlikely that any of the people posing for the images are underage, we can't really tell, can we? Of course, IANAL and I'm sure there's some special circumstances that can be considered here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

true.. I am not a lawyer either, but (FWIW) since WMF is based in the United States, Wikimedia content would fall under US law. However, just because a picture is nudity does not make it automatically fall under 2257. The most obvious examples of Wikipedia content which might fall under 2257 would be the David Shankbone photos from a gay porn set. (However, we can assume the studio (Michael Lucas) has 2257 data on file, though I am not a lawyer so I don't know if Wikimedia also would be required to have 2257 proof of age on file.) The video on the ejaculation article might also be a grey area. Outsider80^(User0529) (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh, actually according to WP:PORN this has been an issue before; an image was deleted back in '06 with the summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements". While from the name of the image (creampiesex.jpg) it was obviously a form of "explicit sexual material", I wonder where the line is drawn when it comes to penis images... I suppose it's time to ask someone at the Foundation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, upon further investigation of past 2257 discussions, it would seem that these images are probably not restricted. For example, the discussion here. An erection is probably OK, but ejaculation might not be. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest an approach that may circumvent this discussion entirely. It appears to me that by using diagrams or drawings rather than photographs to illustrate the relevant parts of the article, we could (1) present the information in a clearer fashion (a photograph necessarily includes details that are irrelevant to the discussion whereas a drawing could concentrate only on what was necessary) and (2) without bias (because the diagram could represent something that truly was average, and show only the important differences in cases where multiple diagrams become necessary, e.g. to illustrate circumcision). This would also obviate any concerns about record-keeping requirements and legality. JulesH (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Diagrams already exist in the article. Wikilawyers beliefs about the legal pitfalls have no bearing, as similarly explicit images are found in many educational works (or more so, anyone got shown at school the video of a couple having sex from inside the womans Vagina? This isn't porn, and doesn't come close to the definition of such. Erections and penetrative sex are now allowed in general release films in the US (eg, Shortbus).Yobmod (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

2257 concerns are kind of besides the point... while 2257 might apply to 1 or 2 images across all of Wikipedia (and even then, maybe not since it is "educational"), the exhibitionistic penis posters of pics tend to be all very very well past the age of 18. 2257 might be something WMF should be concerned about, but don't want anyone summarily closing this RFC thinking it is a wikilawyering orgy, heh. Outsider80 (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the homemade photos clearly detract from the quality of the article. And, Locke Cole, no, the face of the person (or full body) does not need to be in the photo for it to be self promotion. It is totally conceivable that a person would be promoting himself even without having his face in the photo. After all, there's only one part of the body here that these users are trying to promote. ask123 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong agree - one might argue that vanity images of the penis are even more subject to vanity-motives than images of the face. There are people on Commons that have single-purpose accounts for the sole purpose of uploading pictures of their penises and ejaculations. If these were high-quality photos of a more varied set of body types maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but apparently most Wikimedia penis uploaders tend to be of a certain demographic (white males with non-notable penis sizes who should probably lose some weight). & these people are passing themselves off as scientific examples of the average male of the human species. There are many many websites for sharing of penis self-pics, but the unique nature of Wikipedia is that such images can be passed off with psuedo-educational presentation, to all readers, male/female, child/adult, from all parts of the world. I'm not a prude, pro-censorship, anti-small penis, or anti-fat people, but this exhbitionistic orgy of small penises on fat people should probably come to an end.... :-/ Outsider80 ^{(who would at least get in shape before he started passing himself off as an encyclopedic naked specimen of the human race on wikipedia)} (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"who would at least get in shape before he started passing himself off as an encyclopedic naked specimen of the human race on wikipedia"... would you not agree that the typical human male at the present time is more likely to be obese or suffering from the effects of famine than to be "in shape"? If so, the depiction of an obese male as a representative would be more accurate! Nevart (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree that this article has too many images. And it's clear that "hurr hurr, everybody look at my penis!" is often a 'vanity' use, and has been a continuing and ongoing problem for Wikipedia in general, and this article in particular. We absolutely should have appropriate photographs on this article. We absolutely should not litter the article with a distracting number of photos. That's not censorship. That's editing. Nandesuka (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The article has tried to exclude "shameless self-promotional pics" and has been reasonably successful. No matter how many pictures were in the article, some people would still be arguing about them.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree I imagine that better-quality pictures can be found that don't violate copyright laws. What's going on in this article is indeed shameless self-promotion. While I wish I could help out, I'm in a public place at the moment and don't consider it tactful to open up a google image search for "penis". Themfromspace (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. First of all self-promotion would only detract from the educational value of this article if it were marketing something and therefore undermining the point of wikipedia by introducing bias for a certain brand, or if it grossly distorted the truth about a certain subject; I think that's the original reason for the rule. However, whether you think a picture of someone's penis is an act of self-promotion is totally subjective and therefore uncontrollable regardless of what image is put up, and moreover totally unavoidable in the context of what this article is about: PENISES. If the penis picture in question does a good job of representing an average penis, and has no unusual features that detract from one gaining an accurate understanding of what a penis looks like, then it should be kept. But arguing on the subjective basis that "I don't like how this guy is showing off; his self-promotion is detracting from my learning experience" really isn't grounds for removal because its an uncontrollable personal reaction. There are probably trillions of personal reactions people have to reading something on wikipedia (i.e. about god, race, politics, hitler), which could "detract" from the learning experience, but it is not wikipedia's job to try to nullify their reactions, because in most cases it would undermine the educational content and the articles would be rendered meaningless pages that nobody learns anything from because there is that 1% chance someone might think..."hmm, that penis looks larger than mine. he must be promoting himself. my learning experience has just been ruined", or "hmm..that penis might be a case of self-promotion. even though it does not detract from my understanding of an anatomically correct penis, just that possibility is enough to ruin my learning experience!". Rules are rules, but they were created for sensible reasons, and if we forget that then they lose their point :) 24.150.156.219 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

too many pics

one pic is enough to properly show this part of the male anatomy. I feel that this article is a bit excessive in displaying the penis. Also consider that too many pics might discourage readers from viewing this article. Metroid476 (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Metroid476. Please see the previous section on this talk page for a discussion of this issue. ask123 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree - you can never have too many examples of something, only too few. Especially when you are talking about such an important and sensitive topic. I think it can only help to show many different examples of the penis, varying by color, age, health, size, species, whatever. There needs to be a lot more pictures of the penis, otherwise you are implying that there is a certain "standard penis" that everyone should be comparing to. Nevart (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Disagree I agree with Nevart. It would be far more educational to show a variety of penises to show that indeed there is not just one "standard penis". 24.150.156.219 (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Exclusively human

Non-human penises received only a fleeting mention. There needs to be more about the function and physiology of penises in other animals. 129.173.162.58 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. An hi-res picture of an erect horse would be a nice addition to this article and it would also be of good auspicious for the readers according to some oriental cultures. -- Femmina (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not really the job of Wikipedia articles to be auspicious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest File:Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg which provides coverage of multiple species.Geni 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that the description page of this image does not say what species are pictured here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well other pics can be found here and I think lableing them as "a selection of penises from different species" would be enough.Geni 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be two separate articles, one specifically for the human body part and another for the part common to many different species. That is how many Wikipedia articles on anatomy do it.

Regarding your suggestion, Femmina, are you being serious? Yes, Ianmacm is right. Wikipedia isn't in the business of being auspicious. In fact, it's in the business of doing quite the opposite: providing articles that use empiricism, science and evidentiary citations to back up information. Auspices are voodoo here. Try another Wiki Portal if that's what you're interested in. ask123 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You wanted horse penis? Well, now you've got it. ;) Man, the things I do for WP... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was semi-serious. I don't know of any particular oriental culture that considers erect horses the way I described but since the article name is "Penis", there is no reason for it to be centered on humans, so yes... I vote for the horse's picture to stay and for the circumcised guy to go. -- Femmina (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An image to illustrate the morphological differences between species is indeed very helpful, and while we could in theory have an article that is separate on the matter, there is no point in splitting the article unless it can be shown we'd have anything to put into said article. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have both pictures of the horse and the man, as this clearly illustrates the point that there are (normally!) differences between man and horse (or at least of the penis!). If you can get them, it would be good to have pictures of other species like gorillas, rhinos, kangaroos etc. Obviously that is a difficult job to track them down because I guess most available pictures of erections are of humans and then horses, as both will quite readily present an erect penis for inspection. Other species may tend to be more reluctant to display. The preserved specimens in the jars is an interesting (but gross) picture, but useless without more information identifying the species that are in the jars. Also a dismembered penis is not as educational as an attached one, so that it can be seen in relation to the body that encompasses it. BTW you get bonus points for not allowing that horse to "shamelessly self-promote", eg. his face is not shown! Well done! Nevart (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision should have a section

I know the topic of circumcision can be a controversial, but I think it's worth looking at, particularly because there's a lot less controversy over it in the medical community than among lay people.

First of all, I believe that information on circumcision is worthy of its own section, not just two sentences in the section on genital mutilation. Piercing ones penis is not even remotely similar to circumcision. The latter is a medical procedure performed by a doctor/surgeon, whereas the former is a fashion statement performed by your local tattoo artist. Putting them together is like saying shirts and bulletproof vests belong in the same section in the article, Garments, because they're both worn over the chest. That would be obviously absurd.

Second, such a section should note the facts surrounding circumcision -- that is, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-cited studies on (a) the risks to uncircumcised males of contracting various health conditions & diseases and (b) the potential risks associated with actually being circumcised. Regarding the former, the Centers reported a number of large research studies on the medical reasons behind circumcision and the probabilistic risks associated with not being circumcised. And, regarding the latter, the risk is heavily affected by the fact that the procedure is often performed by persons without a medical degree, which raises the probability of infection significantly. However, statistically, when the procedure is performed by a specialist doctor, the probability of infection becomes infinitesimal.

You may read all of this information published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention here: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm.

I welcome your thoughts... Cheers, ask123 (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision should be clearly classified for what it is: a mutilation and violation of human rights when performed on infants. Alleged benefits for this procedure, if any, are very controversial. What gives for real is scare tissue on the penis, many sensitive nerve endings missing and increased incidence of vaginitis for women. -- Femmina (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Femmina, that is absolutely untrue. The amount of wrong in your argument is amazing. First of all, your claim of increased vaginitis is incorrect. The medical journal Sexually Transmitted Infections or STI (sti.bmj.com) published studies as far back as ten years ago, demonstrating that the circumcision status of the male sexual partner has no effect on the transmission of vaginitis.

Second, circumcision does not diminish nerve endings unless it is performed incorrectly. In fact, there are numerous studies from the past ten years in the Journal of Urology (www.jurology.com) and the International Journal of Urology (www.bjui.org) indicating that sexual functioning is either unaffected or improved by cicumcision.

On top of these facts, there is real evidence that the procedure has medical benefits. There are plenty of large studies from, for example, the journals, STI and Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey (or OGS, www.obgynsurvey.com), indicating that circumcision decreases an individual's likelihood of contracting/spreading certain illnesses. In fact, the American Journal of Pathology or AJP (ajp.amjpathol.org) published a study in '02 (picked up by the CDC) indicating that the preputial mucosa (foreskin) has a "higher density of target cells for HIV infection than other penile tissues." There are further studies on increased suceptibility to a multitude of illnesses in the journals BMJ (www.bmj.com), STI, AJP and OGS. You can also find research at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC Literature), any of the numerous other medical journals devoted to the field or any one of America's accredited obstetrics organizations. There is, however, some controversy over whether circumcision is an imperative procedure, one that should be recommended for all men. Many doctors feel that it should be elective -- that is, an optional procedure, the administration of which is determined by the child's primary or the adult patient. But that does not diminish the results of the large-group evidenciary studies. It just means that circumcision and its benefits are optional, just like many other salubrious medical procedures.

And, lastly, your colorful description of circumcision is only your own; there are no credible medical organizations that characterize the operation as "mutilation." It's a surgical procedure with medical purposes performed by licenses doctors.

So these may be your personal opinions, but they do not represent the consensus of the medical community. ask123 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take your agenda to the appropriate article? -- Femmina (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask, we have a separate article about circumcision, and there is no need to produce a separate section that would have very little information in it, especially when the section it is in clearly encompasses the discussion of the procedure.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 03:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Honeymane! I didn't even think to check for a separate article. That takes care of that! Cheers, ask123 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)