Jump to content

Talk:Human penis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sources

Here's an interesting source from CNN:

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read about it. Interesting to note that monagamy is considered a reason for the human penis' appearance, when I've read otherwise that the relatively large average human penis size probably is due specifically to non-monogamy. Also, I saw a comment noting that the large glans was effectively creating a vacuum, and thus more useful for removing competition sperm than the more primitive spines. But I'm not a biologist. Further comments? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, not more useful perhaps, but efficiently similar. I have no certain info about the subject, myself, though. [1] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, the main source seems to be a Nature article, and it would probably be better referencing it, directly. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Other languages

Can someone please add the link to the German article?: de:Penis des Menschen Thanks 84.191.59.4 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. – RobinHood70 talk 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Past discussions from the Penis article

I know that this article was made to split it away from the Penis article. But that article originally largely dealt with the human penis. This means all the past discussions about the human penis are left there. Is there any way to merge that edit history here, so that we can archive those past discussions at this talk page? I've seen talk page merges similar to that before. Sure, it would take away from the Penis article edit history. But like I stated, most of that edit history belongs to this topic anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I know there's some ability to merge page history's, but I've never had any reason to do it on the wiki I'm an admin at, so I'm not familiar with what can and can't be done, exactly, or if there are any issues with that. I'd suggest posting on the Admin noticeboard or somewhere similar, since an admin would be required in order to do that. Even if they say there's some reason not to merge the edit histories, if you're just worried about archiving, you could probably just copy and paste the relevant discussions from that page into an archive here and make a note of it at the top of the archive. – RobinHood70 talk 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, RobinHood70. Yeah, I was thinking of doing the latter part of your comment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Abnormality of the penis curvature shown in the Erection Development image

Regarding the description of penis curvature on the wikipedia article about Human penis, the image shows a statistically abnormal case of upward curvature for a common human penis.

Human males in general are several times more likely to have a penis that is no greater than 30 degrees from the horizontal slant when erect than about 80 degrees upwards from the horizontal plane as shown in the image.

To show a penis that is extremely curved upwards can be misleading to the viewers who do not fully understand the statistics into thinking that this is an ideal representative of the human penis.

Therefore, I put forth a sincere request on the behalf of human viewers that an image of a different penis that fits more into the average (median) percentile of erection angle be used to replace the image currently used for depicting Erection Development. It would then be more likely that a male human being feels more comfortable with his own penis after seeing the image on this article that shows a more statistically sound representative of the Homo Sapiens penis rather than something far closer to what is more of an outlier, even if certain parts of the society view the outlier as the pornographic ideal. It would be akin to showing an image of an abnormally large clitoris on the clitoris article accompanied by a statistical chart that does not do much to prevent the effect of a large percentage of female viewers feeling inadequate with their average anatomy.

BoFox (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)BoFox

I would oppose the deletion/replacement of the current image. It is a high-quality image that serves its purpose perfectly and adds to the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to make "most" readers "more comfortable" with their body. Everyone knows that penises come in different shapes and sizes so we are never going to be able to have a one-image-fits-all. --TBM10 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The picture in question is being used to demonstrate erection development and angle, which it does quite well. Yes, the upwards curvature is statistically unusual, but that's not the focus of the picture. I don't believe the image shown in any way represents a pornographic ideal. Certainly image-Googling "human penis" and the various slang versions thereof shows a variety of penises, most of which are well within statistical norms in terms of curvature.
While I can see the argument of using an image of a more "average" penis, it could also be argued that it's appropriate for an article such as this to present a suitable variety. I think the larger issue is that even if we accept the argument that a different picture is needed, can we find one that's in the public domain or has similarly liberal licensing? – RobinHood70 talk 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the existing image is abnormal, and it also fails to show variation due to environmental considerations. I so have added another similar image in "variations". High quality images are difficult to obtain, and these are far from ideal, but they are the best available to me for the moment. Timpo (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The insertion of that image has been reverted. It adds nothing of worthy significance to the article and I suspect may just be an attempt to have the photos of six more penises featured on the article. The existing image is not abnormal, it does its job as per the description and is of much better quality and relevance. --TBM10 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

I'd like to propose that this image "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_penis_comparison.jpg" be added to the erection development section.

File:Human penis comparison.jpg
31-year-old Caucasian man's penis, in flaccid and erect states

I note that previous edit requests have stated that an image like this might be a worthwhile addition.

Word "grove" should be "groove"

Under "Parts," in the last sentence, the word "grove" is used where "groove" belongs.

JonRutherford (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! – RobinHood70 talk 01:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Image problems

The problem with this page is that it is used by young people. As a former teacher, I am acutely aware that boys in societies where nudity is rare and sex education superficial, can have serious misconceptions of what is "normal" and may not know that variations can occur with emotional and environmental considerations, or that viewing angle can affect perception. Such ignorance can have serious consequences. The apparent obsession with 'minimizing gratuitous indecency' is misplaced, although probably all that is needed is a link to [Wikmedia commons] where there is a wide selection of images and animations- which I have been editing but is a work in progress, but I would welcome any private peer review of that media page by anyone via e-mail from anyone - the page can also be edited by established users. Alternatively, to leave a more public message click on Timpo (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the image. Why did they use such an abnormally small penis in the images? People may see this page and think that that is normal size, but I believe a larger penis should be displayed to portray what is more average. Norbytherobot (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Its the best image available in the public domain on Wikimedia, and it does the job. It's not Wikipedia's role to make men feel more (or less) adequate about the size of their genitals. --TBM10 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I can agree with that. It just seemed strange at first, like choosing to use a picture of a pygmy hippopotamus on the main hippopotamus page. But based on the sorry images in the public Wiki domain, I can see why they might've gone with that one. Norbytherobot (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to concur with robot, I don't think this is an issue of adequacy; I think it is just not to give a misleading impression 129.180.166.53 (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This argument doesn't make sense. What is the "average" size of a flaccid penis, especially shown via a partial close-up photo without object of reference? In reality, the looking of flaccid penis can vary greatly even on the same man (depending on environment and hyperemia), difficult to illustrate objectively. This is also a factor why female nudity is more welcomed in human body art. Moscowsky (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead

We have a couple of different takes on why the new sentence shouldn't go into the lead, but just to explain my thinking more, stating that the penis gets erect to facilitate entry into the vagina is problematic on two counts: first, it only considers vaginal sex, where the body of the article uses the term "sexual intercourse" which, of course, doesn't necessarily have to be vaginal. Second, nowhere in the body does it state that that's the reason the penis becomes erect, simply that that's one effect of an erection. I'm no anthropologist, but I know in many species, sexual arousal is more about a display rather than facilitating intercourse itself. I suspect in humans, the "reason" for erections, if there is one, could well derive from both. – RobinHood70 talk 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How about the addition of "the penis can become enlarged during an erection" ? Pass a Method talk 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to butt in here real quick: During sexual arousal, the penis actually does become erect to facilitate entry into the vagina. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint. Yes, there are other sex acts involving the penis, but the penis is always trying to facilitate reproduction during sexual activity. It's not like sperm is meant to travel down the rectum or throat, for example. The Erection section says "Erection facilitates sexual intercourse though it is not essential for various other sexual activities." First, "sexual intercourse" can also (though rarely) mean outercourse, so, with the way this article says "various other sexual activities," it must be restricting the term "sexual intercourse" to either vaginal sex or all sex acts that entail penetration by the penis. And I'm not sure what "various other sexual activities" don't require the man's penis to become erect, except for those where he's performing a sex act to the exclusion of his penis (oral sex, fingering, handjob), but maybe the lead should be expanded to include these things. Looking at it again, it definitely needs expansion, per WP:LEAD. The only issue I saw with Pass a Method's edit is that it said "During an erection, the penis may stiffen or become enlarged." I take issue with the "may stiffen or become enlarged" part. How is the penis erect without stiffening and becoming enlarged? Are we talking about semi-erection or something? Even then, it's partially stiffened/enlarged. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


grammatical error

"Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that the practice has been and is still defended through the use of various myths; that it interferes with normal sexual function; that it is extremely painful; and that when performed on infants and children, it violates the individual's human rights."

It quite clearly states that the practice of circumcision is defended by myths of impaired sexual function,pain caused and violation of human rights involved in circumcision, this humble anon does not have access to the main page.

Shame this topic had to be locked, whilst this really should not be a controversial issue (so slashing up babies' genitals...controversial, what rubbish.) people have to refrain from moral bias in Wikipedia's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.238.145 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what change you think should be made. Also, getting yourself an account would solve the problem of not being able to contribute. – RobinHood70 talk 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Genital Entry Consistency

Please note I posted this comment on the vulva entry's talk section, but it is also relevant here.

The entries related to genitalia should be similar for both sexes. The penis entry leads first to the penises of all animals that have them, and then links to the human penis. The vulva entry should be similar.

On the human penis page, there is a helpful drawing of the stages of development of the penis. The vulva entry should contain something similar.

On the human penis page, there are fewer photos than on the vulva page. This should be corrected one way or the other to avoid the appearance of bias or problematic subtext.

All of the photos on the penis page show pubic hair, although some men remove all or part of their pubic hair. Including so many pictures of female genitals with hair removed is imbalanced, and unnecessary for educational or informational purposes.

On the vulva page, there are many images of different types of vulvas, but the penis page does not include a similar gallery. This should be corrected one way or the other. Additionally, if the vulva page includes a photo of pierced genitals, the penis page should be similar, showing piercing, tattoo, or some other adornment.

When showing variations in external genitalia, I agree with other readers that it is important to include pictures of people from various races. Both the vulva and penis pages are currently in danger of appearing biased toward providing information to a mostly white, male audience.

One other thing to consider is that there are not many representations of “abnormal,” diseased or ambiguous genitalia on either page. If one is going to include a gallery of variation in human genitalia, one should be less concerned with “attractiveness” and more concerned with accuracy in representing variation.

ProfJB (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Caucasian human penis (flaccid).JPG

This is a blurry self-shot image which adds little information to the article. Wikimedia Commons is overflowing with images like this one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

yeah, actually the image is being used in pubic hair page at the moment, maybe not quite matching. Moscowsky (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding a back-side view of penis?

This article is getting better and better, all the images looks professional, it's very encouraging. While it seems the back-side of human penis is never showed, but all front-view and side-view; and yes, it may not be easy to find a proper location/reason to add another photo, but I still want to point this out. Anyone finds a candidate photo/solution please suggest, then maybe the discussion can go further. Thanks. --PontMarcheur (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A small ventral view pic added. Moscowsky-talk- 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks great, thank you. --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is specifically about the erect penis, and should either get a disambig link, or a link from the section on erection.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A short link added in the "Cultural aspects" section. Moscowsky-talk- 00:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add to "erection" too, as Phallus is is specifically about the erect penis, and representations of the erect penis.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Phallus is only a culture term. About the erect penis, we already have the erection article. Moscowsky-talk- 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Phallus specifically refers to the erect penis, it does not refer to flacid penes, and should be linked to from the erection section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Photograph of ejaculation

Is there a reason why one is not included? It would add to the article, and I see no discussion on this issue.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why there is no photo about the "Normal variations"? Why there is no photo about "Disorders"? Why don't we paste all kinds of penis photos together in the page, so it can represent different people better? Why don't we REMOVE all the articles that related to penis and paste all their contents together into this article so people don't need to go to any other pages any more? Moscowsky-talk- 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Normal variations" would be much harder to illustrate in one foto than ejaculation. This page should provide a summary of information relating to the human penis. A photograph or video of an ejaculating human penis would help this article depict and describe the human penis and its functions and make the page more engaging. I am unfamiliar with the concept of deliberately limiting relevant material to sub pages, and I think this page should not only describe, but illustrate all the functions of the penis. This is NOT adding penis fotos for the sake of it, but improve the penis article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what wikilinks do. We link to ejaculation so we don't need to say much more about it here. I think you need to edit other subjects. This penis fascination of yours is getting out of hand! (pun intended.... -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
There are two paragraphs about ejaculation in the article, with space for a small image or video link to the right. Similar images are used to illustrate other subjects that are briefly described here, and wikilinked to. I don't understand why ejaculation or urination should be treated differently from erection in this regard. While it is a funny subject to some, I can not see any reason other than censorship not to include a small image or video on ejaculation in Human penis. At the moment, there are no pictures of human penes on the Penis page, because they are available on Human penis, and no pictures of an ejaculating or urinating penis on the Human penis page because they are on the Ejaculation and some consider them not suitable for the Urination page. While I understand that some people object to certain bodily functions, and would prefer to minimise perception of their existence, ejaculation and urination are the two primary functions of the human penis and I do not understand why they should not be shown on the human penis page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You wrote: "At the moment, there are no pictures of human penes on the Penis page, because they are available on Human penis, and no pictures of an ejaculating or urinating penis on the Human penis page because they are on the Ejaculation...." Thank you. You have just provided the reason why we don't repeat lots of detail where it isn't needed. We wikilink to the detailed articles and that's usually enough. Your childish penis crusade is getting tiring. You're getting rebuffed everywhere and a mature adult would have caught the hint by now. Further attempts are only disruptive, and you'll just end up getting blocked for disruption. You're wasting our time. Try editing other subjects for a while. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not a reason for excluding pictures from this article, but a description of how they have been excluded. Please explain why this specific detail is not needed here. I would also be grateful if you would read WP:Civility and concentrate on the merits of this specific issue.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest. Do you understand? I'm really trying to make the HINT understandable by painting with large letters. I hope to see some understanding soon. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is called Human penis. You say it is not a relevant place for a photograph of a human penis ejaculating or urinating because they may be offensive. Those will be found where the signs saying "penis" point. I am confused. WP:NOTCENSORED includes "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content"93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Possible offensiveness isn't the only thing to consider, but it makes relevance more important. My recent reply in the next section covers this matter. If a wikilink says "ejaculation" (the sign on the "tree", get it?), then when one gets to the ejaculation "tree" you'll find a picture illustrating it. It's not necessary to place an image along with every wikilink. We reserve images for where they are most relevant, and if they are potentially offensive, we generally reserve them for use ONLY where they are MOST relevant, which is the article dealing with the subject.
Relevance and staying on topic is a main point here. The topic of this article isn't ejaculation or peeing, it's penises. So images of penises are relevant HERE. Images of ejaculations are found where this sign points. That's the purpose of wikilinks. Use them liberally, but still only when relevant. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Altering the genitalia

Genital piercing and Genital tattooing should be added to this section - at the moment this article makes no mention of modern aesthetic alterations.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is already a independent paragraph "Altering the genitalia" for this. Moscowsky-talk- 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That is where i suggest references and a short description of both Genital piercing and Genital tattooing. At the moment that section describes circumcision and various primitive practices, but ignores the more mainstream genital piercing and genital tattooing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Those subjects are covered at the main article Genital modification and mutilation. The link to that main article is in the section mentioned above. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
They are not covered in Genital modification and mutilation. Read it. In any case, that does not preclude summarising them in the article. Perhaps you have some other reasons you would like to share?93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse my sloppy language. They are wikilinked there, and that's enough. All the details are in their respective articles. You seem to think that we should duplicate anything related to penises and genitalia all over the place, but that's not how an encyclopedia works. We're not here to satisfy (your) childish curiosity and fascination, and yet we have plenty of uncensored articles. We wikilink to them and often leave it at that. The main articles have all the details. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Why should they not be summarised, and wikilinked directly from this article on the human penis. This is the main article on the human penis, I think it the appropriate place for summarising everything related to human penises. I was unaware that wikipedia was intended not to satisfy childish curiosity and fascination. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Summarisation and wikilinking is what we do. We don't add sensitive images to every single summarisation or wikilink on Wikipedia. The (very graphic and uncensored) images can be found at the target articles which mainly deal with the subjects. That's perfectly fine and the way it should be. UNCENSORED doesn't mean we litter graphic images where they aren't absolutely necessary. It means we aren't afraid to use them where they ARE necessary.
You apparently didn't understand my facetious comment above, so I added a word to indicate it was "your" fascination I found childish. This penis fascination of yours is drawing attention. Bringing it here to Wikipedia isn't a good idea. If you're trying to make a point violation, you're succeeding, because such attempts are considered disruptive and any negative reactions they get are your own fault. (If you wish to stretch the limits of UNCENSORED, do it by changing policy, not be creating disruption in articles and talk pages. That's a POINT violation which wastes too many people's time.) The AN/I thread may end up getting longer if you can't heed the reverts, rebuffs, advice and hints you've been getting. I'm considering a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Which policy talk page do you suggest this issue be raised on? More importantly, what exactly is the issue you consider to be violated? May I respectfully sugest, that if you dislike penes, you don't look at pages such as human penis which deal with penes, and refrain from deleting, or opposing the addition of, relevant material to penes related articles.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Development before puberty

Currently this is not mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_reproductive_system#External_genitalia should be linked to, ideally with a summary of the relevant material.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Effects of Aging

Not mentioned are the effects of aging on the penis. It is regarded that the male penis does shrink with age. Also that this shrinkage does not stop even with administratin of anabolic steroids, an issue cited in the article on steroids. No significant discussion of the effects of aging on the penis is brought forth in this article, though it is most relavant to the subject.

Urination as a physiological function

There should be a section under physiological function. The easiest way to add this would be a modified version of the lede from Urination.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Urination link is already in the first sentence of the article, i don't think it's necessary to add anything more. Especially the photo of urination, for me it will be very offensive. Moscowsky-talk- 00:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? It is a physiological function, and should be dealt with in a similar way to ejaculation or erection - that is to say with a couple of paragraphs - such as
Main article: Urination

, Urination in men, also known as micturition, voiding, peeing, weeing, pissing, and more rarely, emiction, is the ejection of urine from the urinary bladder through the urethra in the penis to the outside of the body. In healthy humans the process of urination is under voluntary control. In infants, elderly individuals and those with neurological injury, urination may occur as an involuntary reflex. Physiologically, micturition involves coordination between the central, autonomic, and somatic nervous systems. Brain centers that regulate urination include the pontine micturition center, periaqueductal gray, and the cerebral cortex.

, and a photograph, such as that cited above. ( I realize that the text is very much open to improvement.)93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, maybe you can go on arguing about adding a short text paragraph (which seems redundant and not focus on the penis), but excretion photo is absolutely unnecessary, currently nobody supports this except yourself. Moscowsky-talk- 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I slightly modified the lede from Urination as an example. I could write a better, more penis focussed paragraph if you accept that it is necessary and will not oppose it's addition to the article. I do not understand your opposition to the photograph which is clearly focussed on the penis, and I would be grateful if you would try to explain your reasoning again.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Moscowsky Urination is in the lead only as "Urinary Duct" which doesn't exist as an article, but links straight to urination. The lede should summarise the content of the article, so i see no reason not to add the text above or annother similar section. 87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (prev 93.96.148.42)

Two questions: Should there be a short section on Urination, or is it suficent to mention the urinary duct in the lede, and urination only in relation to a damaged penis, as is the case at present. If included, should it be illustrated by a photograph?87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  1. Yes, to both questions, as long as a compromise can be reached as to the content of the written information. In regard to the photo, I would remind Moscowsky that Wikipedia is not censored. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 07:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe there can be a short text section about urination. But I can't agree to add an additional photo about this, excretion is a higher level of offence, there is already Urination page for it, that's enough. You can't include everything into one page. That's why this article doesn't have photo about ejaculation either. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean we should welcome offensive photos without hesitate; Such photo should only exist in its exclusive article with proper consensus. Moscowsky-talk- 12:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"Excretion is a higher level of offence..." This is your opinion and I respect that. However, Wikipedia is not censored does not distinguish any certain "level of offence" that should exclude any form of material from the encyclopedia. I can not and will not support any decision that eliminates the inclusion of a photograph simply on the rationale of "it's offensive to me". If an editor should happen to wish to include an image and it otherwise meets all requirements for inclusion, so be it. As the note at the top of this talk page reminds us, there are ways to set our individual browsers to mask or otherwise hide certain images, should we find them to be "offensive". StrikerforceTalk Review me! 06:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your argument, but I think excretion photo is offensive to the majority of Wikipedia readers, which is impossible to "meets all requirements for inclusion". Such photo should not be added unless a good consensus is reached. Moscowsky-talk- 14:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
"...but I think..." You think, but you do not know, nor can you speak for anyone other than yourself. Without further participation in this RFC, I do not see how you can properly deny an image's presence in the article. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 16:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right, everyone else loves excretion photos except me, they'll further participate this RFC and make the pee picture added soon. Moscowsky-talk- 11:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • RFC comments:
  • Agree there should be a short section on urination, with a {{Main|Urination}} at the top.
  • Unconvinced a photo or other image of human male urination is indicated. What is the encyclopedic value of such an image? Citing "WP:NOTCENSORED" is not a sufficient argument for including such an image. WP:NOTCENSORED means that an image should not be kept out of an article for the sole reason that some people might find it offensive; it does not mean that if someone finds an offensive image, they get to include it without regard to the encyclopedic value of it. Per WP:PROFANE, we do indeed take into account the offensiveness of images when considering them for inclusion, and the educational benefit has to outweigh the offensiveness. The questions that have not yet been answered adequately are:
  1. What educational, encyclopedic function is served by including such an image that sufficiently outweighs the offensiveness of such an image that including the image is a net benefit?
  2. Why can't the information in such an image be provided in words? I note that Human mouth has no pictures of eating, Human anus has no pictures of defecation, and Human skin has no pictures of sweating. Why should this article be any different regarding urination?
  3. Which specific image is being considered for inclusion?
Without solid, Wikipedia policy- and guideline-based answers for these questions, the case for including such an image has not been made. Zad68 13:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support summary, per WP:SS. Support inclusion of an appropriate photo, per WP:IUP. This subject is directly relevant to the human penis. Inclusion would be encyclopedic, for obvious reasons particularly for females. I fail to see how its inclusion here could be regarded as offensive. -- Trevj (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question WP:IUP actually says next to nothing about the selecting of images for use. What WP:IUP covers is the technical uploading and placement of images on a page. Which exact image are you suggesting should be included in this article? Please provide the link to the file. And it's not obvious, at least not to me, what the encyclopedic net cost-benefit would be of such an image, as explained previously. Could you answer my 3 questions above? Thanks. Zad68 00:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Well,that policy does include Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text, which is appropriate. File:Urin.jpg seems to be of relatively high quality and is informative. As to your questions:
  1. The proposed photo shows the urine exiting the penis in way that cannot be described in words alone, and could not be reasonably considered offensive, particularly given the subject matter and title of this article.
  2. Because it's clearer in a picture: that's why we include pictures on Wikipedia. There's nothing stopping editors adding the pictures you describe to the other articles on human body parts, even in the case of defecation.
  3. Already answered.
-- Trevj (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, a section on urination is needed. It could well be a bit prominent too. This article seems strangely centered on erection and the reproductive use of the penis. Considering how often a penis is used for urination versus reproduction, I find the current emphasis curious. As for picture, isn't it possible to find a nice picture of someone peeing, preferably one showing how the penis allow boys and men to stand while conducting their business. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC seems conclusive on section. Please create the section- as IP I cant. With regard to photographic reference material, the debate is still open. I argue that a photograph of a urinating penis would conveys information on the penis that cannot readily be conveyed in words. I think this is of particular relevance to our female readership, and a common sight for the male audience. That images are lacking from other articles should be discussed on their pages. I suggest [[2]] as better than no image, but that is on the grounds that it is simple and shows the whole penis, that the man is standing, and the strange shape of the stream. This may be better described in words, but I do not see how. 87.194.46.83 (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the suggested image a bit misleading. Doesn't a man normally hold his penis with his hand while peeing? I personally find an image like this just as enlightening. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that even the Urination page doesn't have any real human photo of peeing but only some abstract illustrations. There is no reason for this page to display any urination photo that is more explicit than the Urination page itself. Moscowsky-talk- 11:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
From the foregoing discussion I get the feeling that your opposition is mostly because you don't want the article to include a photo of an urination male, am I right? I thought the picture I linked to was kind of cute and inoffensive, but I guess you see it otherwise. The idea of having a more explicit than the "Urination" article is that this one is actually about the penis' role in urination, not in urination per se. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I have taken the liberty of adding a short section on urination, mainly based on the lede from urination and added some male specific points. I hope this can serve as a starting point. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I was invited over by RfCbot, so here I am. Since urination is a key function of the penis, but not a function limited to penises, I think that it deserves mention in this article, but not a great deal of attention. A quick mention and a link to the main urination article are all that is needed, IMHO. I don't see a strong reason for a photograph, but if consensus dictates otherwise, I would have no problem with such. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: As others know, the IP has suggested more emphasis be put on the topic of urine or urination during sexual activity at a number of article talk pages. If anyone here is interested in weighing in, he's also suggested a Urination section at the Vulva article (see Talk:Vulva#Urination)...and the vulva aspect has also been discussed at Talk:Urine/Archive 1#Urine in Sex - Consensus discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The current text on urination do actually mention erection, but perhaps not in the way IP had envisioned. You guys are welcome to edit my text if you find it lacking. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I appeciate the effort of developing this article, and now the Uriation section is even biger than the Erection section. For the male urinary system, isn't the main role of penis nothing but the meatus (urethral opening)? Here is an interesting way to summize the funciton of something: Assume it is removed, see what will happen. Erection? Gone. Ejaculation? No way. Uriation? hmm... Moscowsky-talk- 11:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you find the section overly long, I am sure it can be edited down a bit (particularly the first section which is mostly a copy of the lede from urination. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the paragraph "Physiologically, urination involves..." should be wholy removed, it is redundant. Moscowsky-talk- 23:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
What brain centers are involved is possibly a bit outside the scope, but the physiological separation if erection and urination is important. Also, I feel the length of the current section is OK if compared to other sections, e.g, the length of the section on circumcision. Circumcision is really a marginal phenomenon only applicable to a small segment of the planets male population, while urination is universal. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Most versus Majority

In the section on size, it says that "most" penises are below average. It would be more correct to say that "the majority" of penises are such. Thesquaregroot (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? I don't see much difference between "most" and "majority", and isn't "majority" usually used for people instead of an organ or object? Please further explain if you have good reason for this change. Thanks. Moscowsky-talk- 13:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean? If the average used is a mean that could be possible if some are much longer. If the average used is a median half will be longer, and half shorter.87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The way I've always understood it is that "majority" means, quite literally, over 50%, while "most" would be an overwhelming majority, maybe starting around 60 or 70 percent. --Thesquaregroot (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 Not done This is an old request, and it has no source to change this. Personally I agree with the explanations above. Sorry. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo for urination?

Per my suggestion above, I've added File:Urin.jpg to the section of the article. -- Trevj (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your change. There is no consensus reached to add any urination photo to the article. Please reach consensus first. Moscowsky-talk- 10:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Which admin's comment are you referring to, please? -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you read all above comments excluing yours and mine (maybe it's my misunderstanding that some comments are from admin), you'll find there're very few support to add a real human urination photo, which means, there is no consensus reached for it. The urination paragraph is already added, which can be considered as a victory of this talk section; but if you want to go further by pushing a more explict urination photo (than Urination page itself) to this article, i believe a good consensus is necessary, since real human excretion photos almost never exist in any Wikipedia article before. Thanks. Moscowsky-talk- 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
There's some support from Strikerforce and Petter Bøckman for inclusion of a photo. And there's no consensus to exclude either. Inclusion of a photo is clearly educational for curious females (e.g. those without brothers or other close relationship with males). The proposed photo is encycloedic rather than being explicit. As for consensus, The obligation on talk pages is to explain why an addition, change, or removal improves the article, and hence the encyclopedia (emphasis added). How is the encycolpedia improved by excluding a photo? -- Trevj (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

[[Martin Van Maele - La Grande Danse macabre des vifs - 04.jpg|thumb|right|100px|The penis allows males, contrary to females, to urinate while standing.Martin van Maële, 1905]]Actually the pic on the left was added by Petter Bøckman to the urination section already, which is relatively subtle and can provide some answer to "curious females". What do you think? Do you believe articles about an organ with meatus must show the products coming out from that meatus via a real photo? For articles like anus too? You're absolutly supportive for that? From another aspect, even a real human photo can be added, the one you suggested is really not the best choice, maybe you can view wikimedia commons and suggest a better one, post it here for everyone to comment. I won't have any problem if everybody else likes it. Moscowsky-talk- 10:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a new section, the older one was becoming longish.
I put in the picture I did because it shows the salient point of male urination, i.e. the ability to conduct ones business standing. Ideally I would like a photo. I agree with Moscowsky the photo in question is not ideal. Personally I'd like something like this. I'll see if I can persuade my son to model (as soon as he's properly potty-trained...). Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I had a bit of a look around Commons and consider File:Urin.jpg to be a good choice because it's informative and detailed. I don't plan to investigate further at the moment but think it would be most appropriate for any alternative image to be of similar encyclopedic value and detail, without being unnecessarily subtle because this is an encyclopedia. Regarding defecation, if an editor wanted to add an suitably appropriate photo/video to that article, I don't foresee objecting. While such graphic depiction may be viewed as lightly disgusting, I wouldn't be viewing it while eating and would expect it to add encyclopedic detail which is currently lacking. Anyway, that's off-topic for this discussion so I'll leave it at that, I guess. Cheers. I'm off to empty my bladder before going out. -- Trevj (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_04.jpg This image depicts a girl spreading her legs and showing her Genitalia. While the image also include a boy urinating, the inclusion of the girl's spread legs offers no value in communicating the fucntion of the Human penis for urination. The artsist, Martin Van Maele, is most noted for his erotic art, so it is my opinion that this drawing was also intended for the purpose. File:Male urination - on white - 2.jpg This drawing shows all that is important. I do agree that an actual photo would be better, but I'd suggest it be of a man rather than a child.

Remove the diagram "Stages in the development"

Stages of the development

I suggest to remove the diagram on the left, it is unclear and obscure, doesn't have any informative text. Most readers won't understand what it is illustrating at all. Moscowsky-talk- 11:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a nice medical illustration. If a lack of text is the problem, then we'd rather add text than delete the image. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Original graph
Well, actually it is a derivative work, see the original pic on the right. Can anyone explain it? Why the order (A to F) is marked like that? Maybe for male, it's A->B->C->E, and for female, it's A->B->D->F? If there is a explanation, then we may modify it to a new pic with clearer tags. Moscowsky-talk- 11:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The order is just to have a reference, by convention the upper left picture is A. A and B are early stages of the development before gender dichotomy is much developed, C and E are male, D and F are female. I think the figure would be clearer if B-C-E are used rather than the current A-C-E. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth"

The first sentence of this article is not inclusive of trans or intersex people. Having a penis is only the reason people are assigned a male sex at birth. Thus, the first sentence of this entry should ideally be changed from:

"The human penis is an external sexual organ of male humans."

to

"The human penis is an external sexual organ of humans assigned male at birth." 157.127.239.146 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is politically correct nonsense.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
This needs a reliable source, and should be added to the article if one can be found. It is a valid point.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It is absolutely pointless to use words "assigned at birth", it helps nothing to the article. Moscowsky-talk- 11:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The description of the penis as the male sexual organ is consistent with reliable sourcing. One of the few sources that I could find with the phrase "assigned male at birth" was here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Such a change in the opening sentence of the lede would require very good sourcing. Not "if one can be found" as above - being able to find one obscure source does not change the everyday definition of an everyday object. The social and biological issues that trans and intersex people face deserves coverage, but not everywhere/all the time. When the main sources agree. --Nigelj (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
(previoulsy 93.96.148.42) I do not understand "change the everyday definition of an everyday object" in this context. There are lots of sources to support the idea that female children are born with "male" genitalia. For example -
Reiner WG (1997) Sex assignment in the neonate with intersex or inadequate genitalia. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Oct;151(10):1044-5. PMID 9343017
Reiner WG (2002). Gender identity and sex assignment: a reappraisal for the 21st century. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;511:175-89; discussion 189-97. PMID 12575762
Shaw, Alison; Ardener, Shirley (2005). Changing sex and bending gender, p. 21. Berghahn Books, ISBN 978-1-84545-099-1
Diamond DA, Burns JP, Mitchell C, Lamb K, Kartashov AI, Retik AB (2006). Sex assignment for newborns with ambiguous genitalia and exposure to fetal testosterone: attitudes and practices of pediatric urologists. J Pediatr. 2006 Apr;148(4):445-9. PMID16647402
Mieszczak J, Houk CP, Lee PA. Assignment of the sex of rearing in the neonate with a disorder of sex development. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009 Aug;21(4):541-7. PMID 19444113
Ora Hirsch Pescovitz, Erica A. Eugster (2004). Pediatric endocrinology: mechanisms, manifestations, and management, p. 253. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, ISBN 978-0-7817-4059-3 87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Each one of these is written for the extremely rare medical cases of ambiguous genitalia or gender identity disorder. The wording of our articles conforms to what is applicable for the great majority of the cases. We do not word the articles toward the very tiny minority, it would be undue weight and make for awful prose. Zad68 17:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup. And Wikipedia isn't here to right the wrongs of the world by confusing the hell out of our readers... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So you think it correct to write something that is mostly accurate, and will onlycause pain or distress to a small minority of people? Who, exactly, will be confused by the idea that a girl can be born with a penis - and what about hermaphrodites ?87.194.46.83 (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your question is irrelevant. It does not matter what I think or what you think is correct or whether it might or might not hurt the feelings of certain readers. What matters is Wikipedia policy. The Wikipedia policy guiding this is WP:WEIGHT. Article content is written to reflect the relative representation of ideas in reliable secondary aources. In this case, reliable secondary sources overwhelmingly consider the penis to be the "external sexual organ of male humans". Please familiarize yourself with WP:WEIGHT and be prepared to back up any further suggestions you have regarding article content with Wikipedia content policy and an appropriate number and selection of reliable sources. Zad68 17:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Zad68 and the others who state why we should describe the penis as a male sex organ. I've seen this discussion since it started back in August, but am only now just weighing in on it. The IP asks who, exactly, will be confused by the idea that a girl can be born with a penis. My answer is "most people," which is seen time and time again when the topic of transgender and/or intersex is brought up; but that is beside the point. Like I just stated at Talk:Fellatio#“of a male's penis”?! What about a female's penis then?, basically, it's what all sources call the penis -- a male sex organ. And even in the case of people who are transgender, the gender identity disorder that's been spoken of above, or those who are intersex, it's still considered a male sex organ by those individuals. For example, this is why someone who is physically male (was assigned male at birth) but identifies as female usually feels very uncomfortable in the body she was born in -- because it is indeed a male body. Sex reassignment surgery of course exists for this reason -- to bring the body in harmony with the gender identity. Other transwomen never get sex reassignment surgery, but they never consider the penis to be "not a penis."
As a compromise, however, since there are people with a penis who don't identify as male, I don't see a problem with changing "The human penis is an external sexual organ of male humans." to "The human penis is an external male sex organ." It's redundant to state "of male humans" anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
There is one reason for which the penis is the male sex organ, even if belonging to an individual psychologically and/or physiologically female: the penis fulfills the function of the biological male, which is production of sperm cells. That, and a transsexual woman is nonetheless biologically male before transitioning. With hermaphroditism it's different: the individual, albeit a penis-possessing individual, can be biologically female. Thus, as confusing as it is, it's valid to say, “The penis is the male sex organ,” but not quite valid to say, “The penis is the sex organ of males.” EIN (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Flyer22 has provided a suitable rewording. The current wording of the article does not cover non-male humans who possess this organ. It's a biologically male organ when viewed separately from the body and in relation to the female vagina, but when it is incorporated into a human body sometimes the body is not male. The article should be edited to reflect this, correcting the blind view it currently presents regarding hermaphroditism, intersex anatomy, and transgender identities.Helloweb (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Well said! I would like to point out that the penis does not produce sperm, but sperm and urine are emitted through it. Sperm are produced in the Testes and urine in the bladder.87.194.44.183 (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I CANNOT PUT SOMETHING IN WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE DO IT FOR ME. YOUR PENIS CAN GET SMALLER AFTER CANCER

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

"After prostate cancer, the penis can become smaller." reference: http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295(12)01152-1/abstract

excerpt: Reduced Penile Size and Treatment Regret in Men With Recurrent Prostate Cancer After Surgery, Radiotherapy Plus Androgen Deprivation, or Radiotherapy Alone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reducedsizeafterprostatecancer (talk • contribs) 23:19, January 15, 2013

This is a single primary source, so it has some issues with WP:MEDRS. Also, the summary says that "Of 948 men, 25 (2.63%) complained of a reduced penile size." This suggests that it was not a common complaint after treatment. This would be more relevant in prostate cancer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we use a new penis picture less controversial?

File:Penis with Labels.jpg
new penis picture suggested

The current main picture of human penis has good quality, thanks to the donator and editor. While some features it indicates, like blonde hair and pink skin seem unnecessarily specialized, which may confuse readers. The article already received challenges like racism and/or ethnocentrism.

To resolve this, I would suggest to use below new picture with comparable quality and more neutrality on racial characteristics. The looking of penis in the picture is more common among wider scope of different human races. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing much wrong with either photo, but the issue should not be reduced to one of race. People have said in the past "Why is it a white penis?" but this does not really matter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see the new picture "reduce the issue to one of race"? It can be a photo of latino, black, white, asian. It reduces the controversy. But everyone can see which race the picture used in the article belongs to, that's why it gets racism challenges. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The words "if a non-white person did the necessary..." at section racism and/or ethnocentrism may have come true, it's really a good opportunity to review what we can do and how Wikipedia will behave. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the new picture is better, why not free the article from suspicion of racism and make everyone more comfortable Moscowsky (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the non-white argument, but I see no reason for the lead image to show shaved genitals, the vast majority of men do not shave their pubic hair. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I also agree that the shaving is less than ideal, it is not typical to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Since pubic hair and scrotum is NOT a physical part of penis, this should not be a blocking point. Pubic hair modification should be discussed in the pubic hair page instead of penis page. Also, even if your "vast majority" theory is true, men with blonde pubic hair should be more rare than ones who trims. Which photo should we take then? Moscowsky (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
And i believe the blonde pubic hair is a major reason why this article gets racism troubles, why should we let a unnecessary part of a photo bring troubles instead of make everything less racial Moscowsky (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The wikipedia human main page is also showing human nudity without pubic hairs, i don't see it gets any troubles, because hair trimming is necessary to show a human organ clearly. The human page also cleverly prevented racial suspicions by using photos from multiple races Moscowsky (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The change should be made, a new pic compatible for all races, why not50.93.205.6 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about race, but image here owns a more friendly copyright lisense, it also looks more sophisticated in organ illustration without distracting people to anything other than penis itself, so i assent to the replacement too, it's an improvement. --65.49.68.187 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, the article has been renewed per this discussion. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to state my concerns over this new image. The argument is that it reduces controversy because it could belong to a man of a range of races, but it also completely alienates the majority of people who do not shave their pubic hair. --TBM10 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The pubic hair issue is already clearly discussed in above paragraphs. Moscowsky (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is real racism against blonde white people more acceptable than ambiguous/perceived racism against other groups? For that matter why does the race of the model matter at all?----72.198.211.245 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's related to some historical incidents i guess, it will be a black hole to argue races (too bad for human), that's why we want the photo "compatible". Moscowsky (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


The only real issue of race, is that people of differing races are attacking the in-every-other-way excellent photo because they personally do not like its presumed race, but would rather substitute a photo of their preferred race for this otherwise excellent photo. Criticisms of that nature are exactly the historical basis of racism, more to the point, it is the criticisms of the photo that are racist, exactly as though a user had posted that the photo should be changed because it is of an "_____" (fill in the blank). This is exactly the nature of the racism implired in the criticism.

Further, my own personal race is that of Polish and, since the issue has been raised, I would strongly prefer that the photo be of a Polish male penis.

I don't think you get the point of this topic. The current photo does NOT have a explicit presumed race, that's why it is chosen, to reconcile controversy and make the article more welcomed. Moscowsky-talk- 23:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I really can't believe there is a debate about whether using a picture of a white man's penis is racist - or if showing a man with shaved pubic hair will "alientate" people. We're not trying to modernise the admission policy of a deep South country club here. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New Photo

File:22 year old's flaccid penis.jpg I got tired of all the arguments about photos, so I have uploaded a photo of my own. Let me know what people think, I hope it is seen as an improvement of the last image, thankyou!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the photo in use at this article has been stable for quite a while now, so there is no need to replace it. Also, the picture you uploaded is very low quality, and will probably be deleted. At this time Wikipedia does not need any more human genitalia images. Zad68 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I prefer this latest one, shows penis in natural hanging state, no shrinkage, no erection, not having been shaved, nor is the hair running wild. I'd say that this is much more representative. This penis just looks more natural and appropriate!81.149.185.174 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
...One of the above is a sockpuppet... Or Sheffno1gunner and 81.149.185.174 just happens to edit the same articles. Old picture where better btw. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Racism and/or ethnocentrism

Why all pictures of penises and testis in Wikipedia's articles about the male's body are from white men?
Specially the blonde-haired penis in the infobox.

Perhaps there are not any high-quality, copyright-free, relevant images of black men available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. The image of male pubic hair on the pubic hair article is of a black man, though. --TBM10 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a tanned white man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.244 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide some high-quality images of men of other races under a creative commons license. In other words, perhaps you could improve the encyclopedia instead of complaining about its current shortcomings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look like racism, but if a non-white person did the necessary then the image would be considered.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
A solution is available on this topic, anyone read this can show your support at the section Why don't we use a new penis picture less controversial?. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The colour is irrelevant. Smurfmeister (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this rascism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christianblueeyes (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

About the image "male sexual response cycle"

Male genital anatomy - male sexual response cycle

The newly added image seems confusing. The stages B/C/D & A/F look same and the 6-stages model mentioned in its description page seems like original research. Wikipedia has a Human sexual response cycle article, but it only mentioned 4 stages. Moscowsky-talk- 12:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The image lists the following on its description page:
   A - Relaxation phase
   B - Excitement phase (arousal phase)
   C - Plateau phase
   D - Point of no return
   E - Orgasmic phase
   F - Resolution phase
The image is describing six aspects of the topic as documented by Masters and Johnson. There are times that the relaxation aspect before the human sexual response cycle starts is mentioned in the sources that discuss the human sexual response cycle. The fact that there is a state before sexual excitement is obvious, considering that people are not sexually excited 24-7; that, and because the state is not directly a part of being sexual, is why it's not discussed as a part of the human sexual response cycle by most sources. The "point of no return" isn't considered a distinct phase of the human sexual response cycle, and, as you can see, it's not called a phase in its D listing above. Some sources, such as this one (page 143, while attributing the description to what Masters and Johnson noted) and this one (page 500, currently unavailable), call it (or imply that is) an aspect of the plateau phase, while other sources, such as this one (pages 134-135) and this one (page 284), describe it as an aspect of the orgasmic phase. Basically, "the point of no return" is the point that orgasm cannot be avoided; it's usually described in relation to men, though (as seen in those last two sources), when describing the point that ejaculation cannot be avoided. So the list above is actually presenting the four-stage model of the human sexual response cycle, with the image showing two additional shots of the state of the penis. I would still describe parts of the image as WP:Original research, however, because I doubt that man was in a lab when his stages of sexual arousal were documented...and therefore we cannot, for example, say if the image showing "the point of no return" is actually "the point of no return" for that man.
On a side note, though the human sexual response cycle is usually described as a four-stage model, there are, as the Human sexual response cycle article addresses, other models of the cycle. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Flyer, that is good information for the article, and should be added.

But, getting back to the composite: Visually, I cannot detect any significant, informative differences of an encyclopedic standard between the state of the penis in images B-C-D-E, and A-F. If there are any differences, they need to be highlighted and labeled clearly, because they are not obvious. The article already has other images of flaccid and erect penises. As this composite does not provide unique encyclopedic value to the article, and is surely WP:OR, I suggest that it be removed per WP:GRATUITOUS. The one thing that this composite has in it that is not already covered by other images in the article is the image of ejaculation, and because that image E is cropped, it's not a very useful illustration of it. Surely Wikipedia has better ejaculation images that could replace this composite. Zad68 15:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Zad. Some information about the use of the description "the point of no return" should also be in the Human sexual response cycle article. I forgot to mention that I consider the aforementioned image redundant to File:Erection Development V2.jpg that is in the Erection section of the Human penis article. I've also had to make a similar point about WP:GRATUITOUS to the same editor who added that same image at the Orgasm article as well, though, as seen in that discussion, I stated that I don't much mind the images he added and that "I can understand how the sexual arousal images make [that] article more informative." Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Good, sounds like we're all in agreement the composite isn't useful. I have removed it. Flyer please do add the content when you get a chance, the article could use it. I'll take a look at the Orgasm article and comment. Zad68 16:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.49.170.130, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} After the second paragraph under ====Circumcision====, add the following, which will serve as a link to a pertinent article, namely "Gomco clamp":

173.49.170.130 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The Gomco circumcision scar should be used as the picture for the example of the circumcised penis, as it is how the vast majority of circumcised men have had the operation performed. The picture that is currently provided (penis-stitch-scar.jpg) is NOT a typical circumcision; it's really poorly done (with a chainsaw?) and is arguably a demonstration of a bias against circumcision rather than keeping the goal of a neutral stance.
  • I couldn't agree more. This type of circumcision is very rare and is usually only photographed and distributed as a way of discouraging the procedure. The Gomco clamp creates a less noticeable scar, but most significantly, it is lower on the shaft. The picture shows a crude scar that is much higher on the shaft than normal. I mean that the scar is much closer to the head than normal. Circumcision scars are most often found on the shaft close to the base of the penis. 71.225.105.104 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

While I think the current picture of a circumcised penis is an improvement, it still does not accurately reflect the majority of circumcised penises. The color difference between the shaft and the area above the scar line is extreme. Most circumcised males have scar lines that are much lower on the shaft and with much less discoloration. Also, the scar line appears to be ragged in an uncommon manner. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The current picture is a joke. It is not representative of most circumcised penises. Likewise I have found much of the article fairly biased against circumcision, surely Wikipedia is not the right forum for these biases. I think at the very least a new picture should be put up of an average circumcised penis. 22:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Complains won't help. Please start a new section and suggest a better circumcised penis image if you find one. Moscowsky-talk- 12:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

uncircumcised?

The label "Uncircumcised penis" shows a circumcision bias. The name of the organ is "penis". There is no other body organ labeled with the prefix "un" then the name of a body modification. For instance, we don't call a nose un-rhinoplastied if there wasn't a nose job. The word uncircumcised is used in circumcising cultures and does not represent a wold perspective. It's a discriminatory word and does not show a neutral point of view. The word uncircumcised should be dropped. Hypochristy (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these points and have made some amendments to improve neutrality. --TBM10 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I've partly reverted these changes, as they introduced some neutrality problems. The caption for File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg does identify the penis as circumcised, so to be neutral we should also identify uncircumcised penes as such. The alternative would be to identify the circumcision status of neither image. But we wouldn't ordinarily caption a photograph of one black and one white child as "a black boy and a girl", because that would create the non-neutral impression that one requires comment while the other does not. Similarly we shouldn't create the impression that one kind of penis is noteworthy while the other isn't. Jakew (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hypochristy is right in saying that we wouldn't normally identify unaltered organs as such specifically, but circumcision is still common enough that I think it's appropriate to use it as a descriptor. This, to me, is just like using "a Caucasian person" as opposed to just "a person" in a Caucasian-dominated culture - even in most Caucasian-dominated cultures, there are still enough people of other ethnicities that identifying the person as Caucasian isn't biasing for or against any particular ethnicity, it's simply a descriptor. – RobinHood70 talk 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Jakew is wrong about neutrality. Calling it an "intact penis" wouldn't be neutral. Calling it a penis is. People are born Caucasian or black and such but no one is born circumcised. It is man made and does not reflect natural anatomy. RobinHood70 is wrong about commonality. Over 80% of the world is not circumcised. This article is about natural anatomy (without defect or modification). The word uncircumcised is discriminating. Hypochristy (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
From the Circumcision article: "Global estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males are circumcised." Roughly one out of three people makes it common. Even if we accepted your figures, 1 out of 5 is still pretty common. I rather doubt, to use your comparison to rhinoplasty, that 1 out of 5 people in the world have had nose jobs. What is it in the article title that makes you think this article is about natural anatomy? The title "Human penis", to me, suggests that the article should cover all aspects of it without presumption. – RobinHood70 talk 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Commonality is just another way of saying biased. WP is about truth, not cultural relativism. Using the racial comparison above, that's like calling a black person a "non-white." The text should be changed to "intact penis" or simply "penis" since these accurately and without bias describe the natural condition. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, while it's a third of men on a global basis, the distribution is uneven, so in some countries the uncircumcised penis is rare, while in others it's the other way around. Consequently in some situations an uncircumcised penis might be more noteworthy than a circumcised one. Regardless, we need to caption images from a neutral perspective, so either we should include both "uncircumcised" and "circumcised" in the respective captions, or we should include neither. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion of commonality is irrelevant. There are unaltered penises and there are circumcised/pierced/subincised/tattooed penises. If the need arises for comparisons to be drawn, these terms provide distinction while preserving unaltered status as a neutral baseline. The term uncircumcised does not. Helloweb (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I don't get the link being made between commonality and bias, so I can't respond to that. My problem with "intact" is that that's an even more biased term. It implies that a circumcised penis is "broken", and while many people think of circumcised penises that way, many also do not, and WP is not the place for activism. I think Jakew's point makes sense - either both words should be used, or neither. – RobinHood70 talk 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times on the Circumcision talk page.[3] My 2 cents worth is that some people are likely to read POV into the word uncircumcised, even when none is intended.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "uncircumcised", when referring to a natural penis, is simply inexact. A penis can also be infibulated, pierced, subincised, bisected, and so on. "Natural penis" is precise and neutral. 37.159.76.24 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Smegma is not mentioned

I am surprised that the article does not even mention Smegma. Editors please add it at a suitable place in the article, Since I am not allowed to. 106.51.70.141 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --ElHef (Meep?) 14:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_penis/Archive_1&oldid=1142439676"