Talk:Human penis/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Human penis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Image for peeing while standing - again (sigh)
User Anthonyhcole removed the van Maële image of a boy peeing as being child pornography. Now, van Maële was undoubtedly a lewd old man, and the image is from an undoubtedly pornographic publication, but is it child pornography in and of it's own? It was the best image we could find, the result of quite a bit back and forth. I have no wish to start an edit war with Anthonyhcole, but I would like to ask for some directions of how to find common ground. Could we crop the image, removing the girl showing her genitalia to make it more acceptable? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- We could spend all day debating whether this is child pornography, but is it really necessary anyway? My !vote is not to include this, because it is another good example of "Hey, this is old and out of copyright, let's have it in the article!" I think we all know that men pee while standing up and women while sitting down, and the image adds nothing that text cannot explain adequately. Let's show a bit of decorum here, this is supposed to be a serious medical article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I personally like to have images in an article. The pint about being able to stand is not really "medical", rather a practical one. As for "old and out of copyright", it was the only reasonably clear picture with a decent resolution of the relevant point to be found. We really should have a picture, but I'm not married to van Maële. Ideally, we'd have someone standing in the snow with heavy winter clothing peeing, that will really show the salient point of practicality. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Martin van Maële was not known as a serious illustrator of medical textbooks, and his work is being used out of context in this article. The deliberate use of an upskirt view of the girl on the left of the image might run into legal difficulties today, but as the saying goes "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". An image illustrating urination should have a better source than Martin van Maële.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that this is the wrong venue for this discussion. If people seriously want this image banned from the internet because it is child pornography, then that should be a file deletion discussion, on serious legal grounds, immediately, at Wikimedia Commons. If it is not child pornography, then there seems to be no argument to expunge it from this article where it has been in use for some time. Equally, it is currently in use on 6 other language versions of Wikipedia. My point is that there can be no half measure, where it's a bit like something that might be wrong, so let's censor it away from here, but it's OK for Commons, the German WP. etc. Either it is child pornography, and having a copy in your hard drive cache places you in serious and imminent of arrest and imprisonment, or it is not, in which case there's nothing to discuss here, and the image should be linked here as elsewhere on Wikipedia and Commons. --Nigelj (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- In the previous contributions, I tried to avoid opening a discussion about whether this is a suitable image for Wikimedia Commons. Personally, I think that this is a silly and cheap image when it is used to illustrate urination this article, and that the (sigh) header is fully justified.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that this is the wrong venue for this discussion. If people seriously want this image banned from the internet because it is child pornography, then that should be a file deletion discussion, on serious legal grounds, immediately, at Wikimedia Commons. If it is not child pornography, then there seems to be no argument to expunge it from this article where it has been in use for some time. Equally, it is currently in use on 6 other language versions of Wikipedia. My point is that there can be no half measure, where it's a bit like something that might be wrong, so let's censor it away from here, but it's OK for Commons, the German WP. etc. Either it is child pornography, and having a copy in your hard drive cache places you in serious and imminent of arrest and imprisonment, or it is not, in which case there's nothing to discuss here, and the image should be linked here as elsewhere on Wikipedia and Commons. --Nigelj (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Martin van Maële was not known as a serious illustrator of medical textbooks, and his work is being used out of context in this article. The deliberate use of an upskirt view of the girl on the left of the image might run into legal difficulties today, but as the saying goes "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". An image illustrating urination should have a better source than Martin van Maële.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- An image of a prepubescent girl with her legs spread showing her vagina is completely inappropriate. I have no intention of trying to persuade anyone who doesn't see this is child pornography. Of course it is. Why do you think the dirty old man drew it? Anyway, if anyone restores it, I'll be recommending at the very least that they be topic banned from all nudity and porn images and all anatomy and medical articles on en.Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Describing Martin van Maële as a "dirty old man" has clear WP:NPOV issues. The real issue is whether a 100+ year old cartoon image by an erotic artist is suitable for illustrating the subject of urination.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Anthonyhcole was just over at User talk:Jimbo Wales crowing about this deletion as a success story in his efforts to censor Wikipedia. The idea that a mere line drawing of a little boy peeing is "child pornography" is ridiculous - and it conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of prohibition of simulated child pornography even for very realistic drawings of frankly sexual activity. He might try to claim that the material is "obscene" in the United States - but can he show us proof that this drawing has ever been declared obscene in the 110 years that it has been floating around, even when the laws had vastly less respect for the constitution? What I see searching "martin van maele" and "obscenity" online is that Larry Sanger claimed that some of the man's work was child porn in 2010 in allegations to the FBI - and here were are ringing in 2014 and there's been no action. That tells me that this is nothing but a POV crusade with absolutely no interest in improving the article. Wnt (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Wnt, claiming an old drawing is child pornography in the legal sense is ridiculous. We can discuss whether the image is ideal (it is not), whether it shows the salient point (it does) and whether a better could be found (we'll have to make one I suppose). Removing the image as an act of censorship should be discussed in the appropriate place first, and threatening a topic ban for anyone reinstating the image is an attempt at forcing censoring on other editors and is a break of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:CENSOR. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- If Anthonycole really thinks that this qualifies as "child pornography" then he should warn the FBI or something. In the meanwhile, removing with only this justification and without any replacement, it looks like just an attempt of censoring images where pee-wees are shown. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Wnt, claiming an old drawing is child pornography in the legal sense is ridiculous. We can discuss whether the image is ideal (it is not), whether it shows the salient point (it does) and whether a better could be found (we'll have to make one I suppose). Removing the image as an act of censorship should be discussed in the appropriate place first, and threatening a topic ban for anyone reinstating the image is an attempt at forcing censoring on other editors and is a break of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:CENSOR. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Anthonyhcole was just over at User talk:Jimbo Wales crowing about this deletion as a success story in his efforts to censor Wikipedia. The idea that a mere line drawing of a little boy peeing is "child pornography" is ridiculous - and it conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of prohibition of simulated child pornography even for very realistic drawings of frankly sexual activity. He might try to claim that the material is "obscene" in the United States - but can he show us proof that this drawing has ever been declared obscene in the 110 years that it has been floating around, even when the laws had vastly less respect for the constitution? What I see searching "martin van maele" and "obscenity" online is that Larry Sanger claimed that some of the man's work was child porn in 2010 in allegations to the FBI - and here were are ringing in 2014 and there's been no action. That tells me that this is nothing but a POV crusade with absolutely no interest in improving the article. Wnt (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Describing Martin van Maële as a "dirty old man" has clear WP:NPOV issues. The real issue is whether a 100+ year old cartoon image by an erotic artist is suitable for illustrating the subject of urination.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
- As a side note, that alternative image is not very good, you can barely see the stream of water against the background. Surely someone could peruse commons:Category:Manneken_Pis_(Brussels) and commons:Category:Manneken_Pis and find images that show the topic better? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Re this edit: Agreed, please find a better way of illustrating urination than an old cartoon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever. I am still waiting for Anthonycole to call the FBI and get this image removed from Commons. I'll just point out that, by this standard, Rembrandt's La femme qui pisse should be qualified as hardcore porn.
- Also, I shouldn't have edit-warring, but that little "undo" link looks so tempting when someone gives an based-wholly-in-ones-own-opinion-and-not-in-any-real-world-fact emotion-appealing makes-you-look-bad-if-you-revert reason in the edit summary..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I won't be calling for its deletion from Commons. I can imagine more than one article that it would be appropriate for. Child pornography of Martin van Maële for one. It's not appropriate to illustrate this article with child pornography. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- But I never said that La femme qui pisse was hardcore porn, this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is supposed to be a serious article along the lines of a medical textbook, and there must be more suitable images than this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, textbooks use to include schematics of the urinary tracks, like here, but no images of the action of urinating. Either it's difficult to depict on a book, or it's less informative that the schematics and there is only space for a limited number of images, or there are cultural factors at work that prevent those images from being published. Similarly, they don't usually include images of the actions of vomiting, defecating, etc. (ugh, why am I here in the internet discussing such disgusting topics?) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Vomiting, defecation and urination are not disgusting topics in the context of a medical textbook. These topics should be dealt with in a serious way.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, textbooks use to include schematics of the urinary tracks, like here, but no images of the action of urinating. Either it's difficult to depict on a book, or it's less informative that the schematics and there is only space for a limited number of images, or there are cultural factors at work that prevent those images from being published. Similarly, they don't usually include images of the actions of vomiting, defecating, etc. (ugh, why am I here in the internet discussing such disgusting topics?) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Re this edit: Agreed, please find a better way of illustrating urination than an old cartoon.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- As a side note, that alternative image is not very good, you can barely see the stream of water against the background. Surely someone could peruse commons:Category:Manneken_Pis_(Brussels) and commons:Category:Manneken_Pis and find images that show the topic better? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What we were after with this image was showing how a boy/man is able to urinate standing without removing his garments. Ideally, I would like one with more clothing on, and preferably one with less balmy weather. The good thing about the van Maële is that it also shows a girl in the sitting position. Ideally, she should have been peeing too, just to show the difference, but that image was the best I found on commons, unless anyone want a picture hooligans peeing on public property. The little peeing statue does 1) not have any clothing of note and 2) does not show the practical aspect of peeing. If the old goat van Maële is unacceptable, I guess I could try to make a drawing myself. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Not opining on the above thread, but just for the record (I saw this thread via Jimbo's talk), community members are advised per mw:Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies#Office_Actions to delete actual or suspected illegal content on sight, then report it to LCA for review. They'll make the determination of whether the appropriate authorities need to be contacted, etc. ({{not legal advice}}, &c) However, these specific images were brought up by Larry Sanger in 2010 in a letter to the FBI, the US Senate and House. The images are still live. LFaraone 01:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- What needs to happen IMO is we delete the image too. I will consider requesting a Wikipedia:Files for deletion discussion and in the meantime do support it not being included here or elsewhere on the project (in terms of mainspace it is already an orphan♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- The image is on Commons, is public domain, is used on other language Wikipedias, and I'm pretty tempted to add it to Martin van Maële. --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whether it is on Commons or not is irrelevant to a discussion on deleting it from here. I would consider reverting were you to add it to said article befor trying to gain consensus on that article's talk page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't bother nominating the image for deletion from Commons because it is bound to be kept. Simply finding the image tasteless is insufficient grounds for deletion. This cartoon survived the Larry Sanger brouhaha in 2010, and nothing much has changed since then.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- You might actually want to read WP:FFD - What not to list here: "Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead." --NeilN talk to me 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- The file is orphaned, which is a legitimate reason to delete. Its going to be me (unless someone beats me to it) who will make this decision, your comments such as you cant do it, while not unhelpful, arent going to effect that decision♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- SqueakBox, you don't seem to get it. The file is not hosted on the English Wikipedia. There is nothing to delete on the English Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- It can still be deleted from Commons, can't it? Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. But as it's not orphaned there, SqueakBox's reasoning doesn't apply. --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- IMO WP:IAR could well apply here to NeilN's objection and could be mentioned in any deletion proposal argument. I dont volunteer at the Commons so they can do what they want, my only interest here (if at all) is in seeing this portrait not appear in the en or es wikipedias, the only ones I regularly work on, and while removing the image from en wikipedia wont do that (cos ppl can still link from the commons) it would still serve the purpose of removing a child pornography illustration from en.wikipedia and give the English speaking wikipedia community a say on a child pornography illustration image which is on en.wikipedia. I still havent yet made my mind up, though, and am unlikely to do so before the new year now♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you want to enforce your morality standards only on the wikipedias you work on. Good to know. And you still don't seem to understand there is no image to delete on en. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Commons or not, the picture is still inappropriate. The fact that you can see a boy's penis in the drawing, as well as a girl's vagina, both of whom are prepubescent kids, is enough that the picture should probably go to the WP:BADIMAGE list. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can see the boy's penis on the statue as well. Are you proposing to add that image to BADIMAGE? --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, it's just a metal penis, but the drawing depicts a real genitalia. Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can see the boy's penis on the statue as well. Are you proposing to add that image to BADIMAGE? --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Commons or not, the picture is still inappropriate. The fact that you can see a boy's penis in the drawing, as well as a girl's vagina, both of whom are prepubescent kids, is enough that the picture should probably go to the WP:BADIMAGE list. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you want to enforce your morality standards only on the wikipedias you work on. Good to know. And you still don't seem to understand there is no image to delete on en. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- IMO WP:IAR could well apply here to NeilN's objection and could be mentioned in any deletion proposal argument. I dont volunteer at the Commons so they can do what they want, my only interest here (if at all) is in seeing this portrait not appear in the en or es wikipedias, the only ones I regularly work on, and while removing the image from en wikipedia wont do that (cos ppl can still link from the commons) it would still serve the purpose of removing a child pornography illustration from en.wikipedia and give the English speaking wikipedia community a say on a child pornography illustration image which is on en.wikipedia. I still havent yet made my mind up, though, and am unlikely to do so before the new year now♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. But as it's not orphaned there, SqueakBox's reasoning doesn't apply. --NeilN talk to me 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- It can still be deleted from Commons, can't it? Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- SqueakBox, you don't seem to get it. The file is not hosted on the English Wikipedia. There is nothing to delete on the English Wikipedia. --NeilN talk to me 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- The file is orphaned, which is a legitimate reason to delete. Its going to be me (unless someone beats me to it) who will make this decision, your comments such as you cant do it, while not unhelpful, arent going to effect that decision♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Whether it is on Commons or not is irrelevant to a discussion on deleting it from here. I would consider reverting were you to add it to said article befor trying to gain consensus on that article's talk page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- The image is on Commons, is public domain, is used on other language Wikipedias, and I'm pretty tempted to add it to Martin van Maële. --NeilN talk to me 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
NeilN, how can opening up a debate be seen as "enforcing my morality standards". Anyway I am not here as an editor to enforce my morals or advanced my ideologies but to collaborate in writing a mainstream neutral encyclopedia for the early 21st Century and I put my morals to one side when I come here which means you have no idea what my morals or ideological viewpoints are anyway. The image is on en.wikipedia.org which means it CAN be nominated for deletion, it is not a technical impossibility although it might be subject to some wikilawyering, which is a very different kind of objection. And one for which IAR might be a very good defence not that I have ever used that standard before but this is an usual case. What I am thinking about doing is not to enforce any moral standards but to open up a debate and see what the English speaking community wants to do about this child pornography illustration hosted on en.wikipedia.org. I hope you can see that nobody can use IFDs or AFDs to promote an ideology even if they wanted to, that is to misunderstand what the deletion process here is all about, it can never be about the proposer enforcing anything. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- By repeatedly referring to the image as "child pornography" when it was pointed out above that child pornography is not hosted on Wikimedia and this image received great attention in 2010 and the image is still on Wikimedia servers you are making an argument based on your own personal morality rather than any legal/policy issue. And (not surprisingly now) you cling to the misperception to the image is "hosted on en.wikipedia.org". Why don't you believe me when I say it's not? --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow that was a clever use of words, it cant be child pornogrpahy cos wikipedia doesnt host child pornography is a weak and circular argument not worthy of refutation. And as for hosting, oh look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_04.jpg. Suffice it to say that you dont get to decide what is child pornography on wikipedia, especially when you in part base your decision on some allegations you have heard from 2010 which may or may not be true. As for your argument that cos I disagree with you I must be imposing my own personal morality, really that is a personal attack and a tired one at that, I dont need to bring my personal morality here to say this is a child pornography illustration (although what the UK police would likely call Level 1). Thus there is no point continuing this discussion unless you have some new coherent points to make♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sigh... From your link: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.". See the tabs at the top of the page? Hit Create. "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia." Coherent enough for you? --NeilN talk to me 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, this is unseemly. En.wikipedia covers a good number of countries on several continents, an it is the de-facto main version and draws editors from non-anglophone countries liker myself as well. We are bound to run into widely diverging cultures and legal standards, so that what images are inappropriate and what constitute child pornography varies quite a bit in is far from as clear-cut as several editors here suggests. One persons art is another persons child pornography and vice versa. Thus, what I, or you, or any single persons feels is an appropriate picture as such (and not only for this article) can not be decided by any sort of "this is obviously child porn and if you can't see that you are not fit to edit" type of arguments. Either we will need to agree on criteria for what constitutes child pornography and apply them universally (or find where such criteria has been agreed on before), or we need to have a mandate from Commons to form a committee and go through all potential child pornographic images and delete the inappropriate ones. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Couple points: 1) Despite Squeakbox's casual dismissal of LFaraone's input, Maele's drawings have been closely scrutinized. See Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons for more information. 2) I think the only definition of child pornography Commons would accept would be the legal definition the state of Virginia (where Wikimedia servers are hosted) uses. --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, it was the discussion, not the image, I characterized as unseemly. Considering the episode you linked to, the whole discussion is moot. If removing these pictures is what lost Jimbo his administrator status, then I guess anyone doing the same will suffer a similar fate. The only remotely feasible suggestion forwarded here is Epoigeneticus' suggestion of putting it on the WP:BADIMAGE list, but from my understanding images going there are those used as vandalism (and I fail to see this old drawing having any such use). The only thing that needs to be discussed here is if the image 1) is useful as an illustration for this topic and 2) if there are better ones. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Couple points: 1) Despite Squeakbox's casual dismissal of LFaraone's input, Maele's drawings have been closely scrutinized. See Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons for more information. 2) I think the only definition of child pornography Commons would accept would be the legal definition the state of Virginia (where Wikimedia servers are hosted) uses. --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, this is unseemly. En.wikipedia covers a good number of countries on several continents, an it is the de-facto main version and draws editors from non-anglophone countries liker myself as well. We are bound to run into widely diverging cultures and legal standards, so that what images are inappropriate and what constitute child pornography varies quite a bit in is far from as clear-cut as several editors here suggests. One persons art is another persons child pornography and vice versa. Thus, what I, or you, or any single persons feels is an appropriate picture as such (and not only for this article) can not be decided by any sort of "this is obviously child porn and if you can't see that you are not fit to edit" type of arguments. Either we will need to agree on criteria for what constitutes child pornography and apply them universally (or find where such criteria has been agreed on before), or we need to have a mandate from Commons to form a committee and go through all potential child pornographic images and delete the inappropriate ones. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh... From your link: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.". See the tabs at the top of the page? Hit Create. "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia." Coherent enough for you? --NeilN talk to me 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow that was a clever use of words, it cant be child pornogrpahy cos wikipedia doesnt host child pornography is a weak and circular argument not worthy of refutation. And as for hosting, oh look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_04.jpg. Suffice it to say that you dont get to decide what is child pornography on wikipedia, especially when you in part base your decision on some allegations you have heard from 2010 which may or may not be true. As for your argument that cos I disagree with you I must be imposing my own personal morality, really that is a personal attack and a tired one at that, I dont need to bring my personal morality here to say this is a child pornography illustration (although what the UK police would likely call Level 1). Thus there is no point continuing this discussion unless you have some new coherent points to make♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
A cross-section drawing would be useful
The bilateral corpus cavernosa reservoirs should be depicted along with the urethra to the lower center. It might be of interest to note that many pet supply stores sell 'bully sticks' as dog toys/treats. They are nothing more than the unsheathed penises of adult bulls that have been slaughtered. They would typically be of the Angus or Hereford variety. The cross section can be viewed readily in these examples.
A disorder that you did not mention
Pubic hair that grows on the penis itself, up to the shaft. There is some research that indicate it can be caused by a badly performed circumcision. An effective treatment is to permanently remove the hair via hair removal treatments, because of the sensitive nature of that area carefully performed electrolysis hair removal, under local sedative of the area will give the best results.
Erection photobox
The foreskin doesn't have to retract when the penis is erected. --2.245.114.155 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- What change are you proposing? --NeilN talk to me 15:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Infobox image
This edit was reverted. Past consensus is that the infobox should contain a photograph, not a diagram. The two diagrams added in this edit are not very clear at all, and at first sight it is not clear that they are of a human penis. Also, Template:Cleanup-gallery was added, because Wikipedia articles do not need multiple images of the same thing. This is for Wikimedia Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:MEDRS, there is no consensus, please present. This article falls under WP:Anatomy and is treated as such. CFCF (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- There also appears to be some self-promotion of user uploaded Commons images here. The gallery is mediocre and does not need to be in the article. Nor are either of the infobox diagrams very good. Why have two infobox images, when a man has only one penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmacm (talk • contribs) 11:53, 13 December 2013
- Mostly because this is what is normally done in WP:Anatomy, and because the images illustrate different perspectives. See WP:MEDMOS before adding more templates.CFCF (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Let's have some views from other editors. All of the images in this article require consensus. The black and white gallery images are mediocre and repetitive, and do not add greatly to what is already in the article. Please don't edit war on this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy
Additional images in a gallery format
- If you do not agree they are of high enough quality please replace them with something suitable. I am unaware there is anything. This article is an anatomy article, and will show detail as such. CFCF (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I took your advice though and removed 3 of the images that may not be all that important.CFCF (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- CFCF, it is best that you don't WP:Edit war over this matter, like you did here, here and here. You are at three reverts; be very wary of breaking the WP:3RR rule. I don't much care either way about this article (though it is on my WP:Watchlist), but there is indeed WP:Consensus to retain the infobox image you removed; check the archives. WP:Consensus is policy and the WP:MEDMOS guideline cannot override it. Furthermore, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections states: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition." There have also been discussions at WP:MEDMOS about not strictly following its layout recommendations; see here and here, for examples. There are times when those recommendations are not best followed. Ianmacm is right that galleries are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and a WP:Good article (WP:GA) or WP:Featured article (WP:FA) reviewer would likely request that the section be removed from this article if this article were under such a review; therefore, I or someone else should have long ago removed "Additional images in a gallery format" from the WP:MEDMOS Anatomy layout. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted all the changes in the past 36 hours. It is not acceptable to make those huge changes with ZERO people agrees with you. Please note lots of images used on the article represents lots of effort from many editors and lots of consensus after years of discussion. Please reach consensus on talk before removing them. Moscowsky-talk- 11:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Also, here is my opinion: I don't agree with the images CFCF tries to use at all. All the texts on those images are blurry and not informative. Also, It is very normal and usual to use photographs instead of diagrams as leading images on the article of human external organs, like foot, vulva, or human. Moscowsky-talk- 11:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, recycling what appear to be blurry old medical textbook diagrams simply because they are copyright free and can be uploaded to Commons is not a good tactic. The infobox image was chosen as a reasonably clear modern photograph, something the diagrams lacked. Also, Commons is the correct place for multiple images of the same thing, not Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Also, here is my opinion: I don't agree with the images CFCF tries to use at all. All the texts on those images are blurry and not informative. Also, It is very normal and usual to use photographs instead of diagrams as leading images on the article of human external organs, like foot, vulva, or human. Moscowsky-talk- 11:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted all the changes in the past 36 hours. It is not acceptable to make those huge changes with ZERO people agrees with you. Please note lots of images used on the article represents lots of effort from many editors and lots of consensus after years of discussion. Please reach consensus on talk before removing them. Moscowsky-talk- 11:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I may have gone out a bit rashly, if only because all my edits were removed indistinguishably, and reverting a large number of edits on the account that one or two are in your view not-favorable is more than anything else avoiding consensus. I have edited the page so that there are as of now; no repeat images, and no blurry images either that could be found objectionable (I had actually missed that the images were that blurry, as the images from other editions of the book are not). Images remain only that bring additional physiological information or information concerning various surrounding anatomical structures and blood-flow/innervation. I do not believe this should bring any new controversy. On the other hand I do suggest that File:Ventral and Dorsal View of Penis.jpg be removed as it does not add anything to the article. CFCF (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- NOT agree. The File:Ventral and Dorsal View of Penis.jpg shows the appearance of human penis in different perspective, in which way the penis looks very different; You may go on starting a new section and trying to proposing your diagrams added in the "Structure" section of the article, but change of leading image and deletion of long-time-stand images just because of your own favor is not acceptable at all. If you insists, please start more sections on talk page and reach necessary consensus first. Moscowsky-talk- 13:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Some more comments about the images you're trying to use: The upper part of image File:Figure 28 01 01.jpg is almost useless and are using bias terms "uncircumcised" to regular penises that without surgical modification; the captions of it is without reference and may violate WP:NOR; About the 2 ones you're trying to add in the "Additional Images" section: The first one File:Sobo 1906 490.png is apparently off topic, it shows the anatomy of scrotum/testicles, not penis; the second one File:Sobo 1909 571.png adds no information than the existing diagram File:Gray1158.png. About the erection image File:Figure 28 01 06.jpg, it is very detailed, maybe the erection suits it better. Moscowsky-talk- 14:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Images have now been cropped and will be added:
As for WP:NOR it does not apply, I have not created these images, they are sourced from a reputable text-book.
While you present valid points, there are clearly forces simply meaning to refute edits for the sake of doing so. The images in the Additional images section are relevant and show both structures in the area immediately adjacent to the penis as well as structures of the penis such as the fascia of the penis which are not present in the Grays image.
Concerning the last comment about File:Figure 28 01 06.jpg this image is the only one currently on here that illustrates the physiological processes underlying erection. Instead there is a drive to explicitly show the way in which the penis erects from all possible angles? This article should not be treated differently from other articles on human anatomy, and should most definitely not decline images that show physiological processes on the account that there are other articles that do so. CFCF (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The current form of the article has now combined changes to a number of images to give proper account to all the comments above. Please do not simply revert any of the recent changes, rather discuss them here. CFCF (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, all images showing on this article should clearly focus on nothing else but human penis. Other organs like testicles, prostate, bladder has their own article to illustrate them; There is also specific articles to systematically detail human male reproductive system, and also functions like Erection and Urination. It's not helping to paste all the relevant organs and systems info into human penis article just because they're relevant, else the article will be redundant and confuse readers; only with such necessary separation, can each article be meaningful to exist. The Erection article doesn't have any detailed diagram yet, maybe it's better to add the erection diagram there. Moscowsky-talk- 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really see this happening, this article is very much on topic. I have condensed the image so that it is very small and does not take up to much space. Certainly the erection article could use better imagery, but I am only one person and haven't gotten around to anything of that sort yet. CFCF (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I have yet again restored the images, please do not revert again, especially when reverts lead to the article becoming incomplete or repetitive. See WP:3RRCFCF (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- You receive no supports on this talk page about those images, but 3 clear objections already. Please stop edit-warring. All your images are problematic, blurry and not informative effectively ---- the female-headed side-view hairless super-long-foreskin childish crop work File:Penis_location.jpg is temporarily the only one which has a little meaning to stay on the page since showing the location of the penis adds to the topic more or less, but I guess someone else may disapprove with it and removes it very soon. Moscowsky-talk- 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- You realize you have broken WP:3RR, a rule that if broken can lead to a block from Wikipedia. I'm not seeing anything of these three clear objections you speak of. Any objections have been dealt with. Please revert your latest edit. CFCF (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I went ahead and deleted it ... I'm sorry, but I honestly don't believe that there's even one person on Earth who can figure out what a "lateral view" is but doesn't know where the penis is. And some of the other illustrations make it kind of apparent anyway. It's just wasting the time of people who read the article and end up wondering "what the heck is this image trying to show?" before they figure out it's nothing. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- You realize you have broken WP:3RR, a rule that if broken can lead to a block from Wikipedia. I'm not seeing anything of these three clear objections you speak of. Any objections have been dealt with. Please revert your latest edit. CFCF (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Archived a few threads
I've archived a few threads, as old/undated/unsigned/addressed/resolved. — Cirt (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Need for Cross Reference to Altered Penile Function Caused by Spinal Cord Injury
Nerve damage from spinal cord injury alters erectile function and bladder sphincter control, as well. I will check on cross referencing to neurogenic bladder, spontaneous erection, and other specifics.Homebuilding (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
textual error
Urination
Main article: Urination ... ...
During erection, these centers block the relaxation of the sphincter muscles, so as to act as a physiological separation of the excretory and reproductive function of the penis, and preventing sperm from entering the upper portion of the urethra during ejaculation.
/////
I believe that the word urine should be substituted for the word sperm above.
- Fixed, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- The wording was correct as it stood before the edit. The "upper" urethra is the part closer to the bladder and farther from the penis. See the first paragraph of this same section and the article Retrograde ejaculation. A sphincter normally prevents semen from entering the pre-prostatic urethra and bladder while urine is prevented from leaving the bladder during ejaculation. 72.145.215.253 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2015
 | This edit request to Human penis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following image:
to the info box at the top right of this article, as it includes anatomy (such as circumcision scar, corona, pubic hair) not visible in the existing image. Please include the following caption with the added image: "A flaccid penis with labels showing the locations of shaft, circumcision scar, corona, glans, and meatus. In this image, the models pubic hair is visible."
Additionally, please consider possibly replacing the image "File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg" under "Circumcision" with the proposed image above (File:Flaccid Penis on Sheets 102373 Labeled.png), as the discussed anatomy and labels are easier to see.
Lanceinator (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not done: I don't think swapping the infobox picture for this one makes sense - the infobox one has a foreskin, which is the congenital state of the penis, and a circumcision scar is obviously acquired. Between the current circumcised penis photo and this one, I'm not sure which is better so if anyone agrees with changing them out I have no objection, but I will say the currently used photo has a more obvious circumcision scar. Cannolis (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
<RESPONSE>Oh, I'm not asking for it to be swapped, I was hoping it could be *added*. I thought it would be beneficial to have both images in the info box, so that both circumcised and uncircumcised, shaved and unshaven could be demonstrated here. --Lancinator.
- There only needs to be one image in the infobox. Photos in this article need to be used sparingly to avoid the "me too" effect.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Cross section image
There should be a cross sectional diagram showing the location of the corpus cavernosa. This is a particularly useful diagram for men with ED who use penile injections, as you can see where the needle will enter at various positions around the circumference, and which areas to avoid and which ones to use for safe injection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Rewrite the first sentence
The first sentence is way to technical. Linking to articles which explain the terms is not enough; we should replace the technical terms with less technical language - in most cases we can take this from the first sentence of the linked article.
Current version:
The human penis is an external male organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct.
Proposed version:
The human penis is an external male organ used to deliver semen to a woman's vagina when a man and a woman have sex. Men also use it to pee and to masturbate.
OK? filceolaire (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't approve of your proposed wording. For example, "pee" is not encyclopedic. And why should masturbation be mentioned in the lead? See WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- If I were to propose a change to the WP:Lead sentence, it would be "The human penis is an external sex organ that is part of the male reproductive system. After that, I'd state, "It is used for urination, and allows for the delivery of semen and sperm to a woman's vagina during sexual intercourse for sexual reproduction." Or I'd word the sentences similar to those examples. One thing to be cautious of with the "man and woman" part is that we sometimes get complaints about heteronormativity even when we are simply reporting on sexual reproduction. At Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", you can see that we once got complaints about not considering transgender and intersex viewpoints. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2016
| This edit request to Human penis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am requesting to edit a statement in the second paragraph in the introductory section - "The penis is homologous to the clitoris."
I am requesting to change this statement to the following - "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the clitoris."
Source: First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 (2015). Tao Le, Vikas Bhushan, and Matthew Sochat. p. 568
Spartan13002 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Done --allthefoxes (Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Controversy section
There should be a controversy section. —User 000 name 23:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why. Also, separate criticism/controversy sections are discouraged.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposed section on Penis Adaptations
This article may be further improved with the addition of this section. A specific adaptation in mind is that of how the shape of the human penis is evolutionarily adapted to deal with Sperm Competition.[1] Additional evidence comes from Gallup et al. (2003), demonstrating that only dildos with a coronal ridge remove another's sperm from the vagina. [2] Alternatively, this information could be displayed under a current section, such as Anatomy or Physiological Functions. NC1328656 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Done
References
- ^ Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 47-50.
- ^ Gallup, G. G., Jr., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parvez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., et al. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277-289.
Expansion of the penis adaptations section.
We would like to expand the section on penis adaptations. We will do this by splitting penis adaptations into 3 types:
1. Testis and penis size (references below)
Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.
Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Little, Brown and Company: Boston.
Mautz, B. S., Wong, B. B. M., Peters, R. A., & Jennions, M. D. (2013). Penis size interacts with body shape and height to influence male attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 6925-6930.
Weijmar Schultz, W., van Andel, P., Sabelis, I, & Mooyartm E. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal. British Medical Journal, 319, 18-25.
2. Ejaculate adjustment
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1989). Number of sperm in human ejaculaes varies in accordance with sperm competition theory. Animal Behaviour, 37, 867-869.
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123-138.
Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9, 228-248.
3. Semen displacement
Burch, R. L., Gallup, G. G., Pervez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., & Zappieri, M. L. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277-289. (Although already mentioned, more detail can be added).
Burch, R. L., Gallup, G. G., & Mitchell, T. J. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: Multiple mating, self-semen displacement, and timing of extra-pair copulations. Human Nature: An interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 17, 253-264.
Let us know of any suggestions or queries! User:123hs User:JS.Chester
- @123hs: Please go ahead with your suggestions, your edits will be reviewed by other editors and adjusted accordingly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Article name
Please either change the name to penis, or change the name of the vagina article to human vagina. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- There was a consensus a while back to split off this material into a separate article and name this one Human penis. There is now a separate article Penis for other species. Previously the article was a bit confused as the information about human biology was mixed up with biology from other species.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Human penis. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160221114041/http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912 to http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1999/02/17912
- Attempted to fix sourcing for //http:/www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Peer review
R.g.rooney25
The addition of a section on evolved penis adaptations is good. Overall, the content is well presented and cited with appropriate research. The subheading titled 'semen displacement', in particuilar can be credited for including interesting information and appropriate hyperlinks to related pages such as 'sperm competition' and 'cuckholdry'. I have thought of a few possible ideas to improve your article further:
-perhaps include a section relating the the social influence of penis size, maybe linking it to social judgments of manhood etc.
-perhaps introduce the idea of semen displacement having evolved for the purpose of avoiding cuckholdry with the concept of promiscuity
-In order for the layperson to understand the full content of your article, it may be advisible to provide a breif explanation of certain terminology. For example, it may be worth elaborating on the 'counter-insemination strategy'.
-more hyperlinks within other subheadings. For example, under the 'testis and penis size' subheading, it may be advisible to hyperlink words such as 'penetration'. (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
- @R.g.rooney25: thank you for your suggestions! I have incorporated your idea on penis size and social influence and social judgements.JS.Chester (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Update: I have hyperlinked 'penetration' under the the testis and penis size heading. Under the heading 'testis and penis size, I have edited the sentence 'To achieve this the penis needs to be a sufficient' to 'To achieve this, the penis must be a sufficient' (added comma, wording slightly changed). (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC))
Psunco
Proposed changes to Penis Adaptations:
1. Could include a sentence about ejaculation and how sperm travels up to 30-60cm when ejaculating, hence, there has been an evolutionary adaptation that focuses the release of semen at the uppermost portion of the vaginal tract
Gallup, G. G., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.
2. Also, including sperm competition or maybe just a hyperlink would be helpful because it is an overlapping topic.
3. Could also include a couple of sentences talking about the implications of premature ejaculation and include a hyperlink about that. References that could help:
Hong L. K. (1984). Survival of the fastest: On the origin of premature ejaculation. The Journal of Sex Research, 20, 109–122.
Grenier G. and Byers E. S. (2001). Operationalizing premature or rapid ejaculation. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 369–378.
Psunco (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Drey02
Some suggestions for the evolved adaptations of the human penis:
- maybe explain briefly what the sperm competition is? (even if it's another page, just a quick explanation to outline what is it?).
- on the ejaculate adjustment section: "This variation is hypothesised to be a male's attempt to eliminate, if not reduce, his sperm competition." maybe add a reference here to support this hypothesis?
- on the same section, maybe find out if condoms affect the ejaculate adjustment? Do men still ejaculate more when they have been separated from their partner when using contraception?
Those are just some quick ideas, otherwise the article is really well explained and structured. Hope you find this useful.
Drey02 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
NicoleKPascoulis
The addition of the Evolved adaptations section is really thorough containing lots research and clear information. I have a few suggestions for further improvement but overall it's a great section.
In the first sentence of the evolutionary section it may be beneficial to add the glans penis alongside semen displacement as this term could then be hyperlinked if people wanted more information about that specific area. The glans penis page also contains some brief information on evolutionary adaptations. The article is very clearly written but is quite scientific so it would be helpful to add explanations next to some of the more complicated terminology to ensure all readers will understand, for example fully explaining what a semen displacement strategy is. NicoleKPascoulis (NicoleKPascoulis) 17:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the photo
Why must it be noted that "this model has removed body hair"? Is it not showing? Is it so rare it must be noted? Because the photo of the vagina also has removed body hair yet it is not noted. Double standards for women? These thing always freak me out to no end. Be consistent please. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is not entirely necessary to say this. However, not all penises are shaved (mine isn't, if you really want to know).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, it looks as though the lead image is of an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted. Should this detail be added for accuracy? DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly, although it might make the caption rather long. The infobox photo clearly shows an uncircumcised penis, and this is the "natural" state. For religious and other reasons, not all penises have a foreskin.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Would it really make the caption too long? I think the labels in the caption are completely redundant, and possibly "flaccid" is redundant, leaving plenty of room for "A flaccid, uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted". DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- That looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers - edit done. DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why do we need to state that the penis is "uncircumcised"? Perhaps then we should describe the lead image of the female equivalent article as being "uncircumcised" also. I know that some people find the adjective "uncircumcised" as not being particularly neutral, as it implies something has been "undone", and that circumcised is the norm. If anything, the fact the pubic hair is shaved is more worth pointing out than the fact the penis is in its natural state, i.e. not circumcised. --TBM10 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I personally do not care in the slightest. "Uncircumcised" is possibly redundant anyway as you cannot retract the foreskin of a circumcised penis. "Shaved" could be introduced. e.g. "A (shaved) flaccid human penis with the foreskin pertly retracted".
- Why do we need to state that the penis is "uncircumcised"? Perhaps then we should describe the lead image of the female equivalent article as being "uncircumcised" also. I know that some people find the adjective "uncircumcised" as not being particularly neutral, as it implies something has been "undone", and that circumcised is the norm. If anything, the fact the pubic hair is shaved is more worth pointing out than the fact the penis is in its natural state, i.e. not circumcised. --TBM10 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers - edit done. DrChrissy (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- That looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Would it really make the caption too long? I think the labels in the caption are completely redundant, and possibly "flaccid" is redundant, leaving plenty of room for "A flaccid, uncircumcised penis with the foreskin partly retracted". DrChrissy (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent edit
I recently reverted a recent edit and I have been asked at my talk page to explain this?
- The edit inappropriately changed British English to US English.
- The edit changed what is a theory to a statement of fact (re penis size)
- What is a "prime example"? Why not just "example".
- Change of "testis size" to "testes size" - these matters are usually discussed in the singular, e.g. we talk about foot size, not feet size.
- Use of "likewise" in the first sentence of a para. To what does this refer?
- (in semen displacement) What is a "primary way"? Are there other "ways"?
DrChrissy (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments clarifying the reverted edit, we are new to Wikipedia editing and still trying to get to grips with the things you have outlined above so your comments have been very useful! We will be sure not to make such mistakes again in future edits. Thank you again JS.Chester (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Adding on from @JS.Chester: I would like to thank you for your comments! We have written the Evolved Adaptations section as a part of a Wikipedia project we are currently doing for a Human Sexuality module as part of our university course (our other group member is @Rcuf235:). The changes were therefore those we had made in order to refine what we had previously written, our apologies that some of these were incorrect. Since it is part of our project, we are looking to add to and edit this section in the near future, however, we shall do so in light of your comments. We would like to make changes to the language used within this section, as there is now a mixture of both British and US English. With respect to your reversions, we will ensure British English is used throughout.
Thanks again --123hs (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
On January 13, 2016, Allthefoxes changed "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." to "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the clitoris."
Today, I was made aware of this mistake, by ArnoldReinhold, in a discussion at Talk:Vagina, and I noted that I had remedied the text. See this edit I made, stating, "The penis is not homologous to the vagina; it is homologous to the clitoris." With this edit, SheriffIsInTown came along to revert me, stating, "That was correct, i will add the source!" I reverted, replying, "It's not correct, no matter the source you add." As seen here, SheriffIsInTown reverted me again and then self-reverted while indicating that he will source the content.
In short, the "penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina" content I removed needs to stay removed as it is incorrect and furthers misunderstanding of female sexual anatomy. I will alert WP:Med and WP:Anatomy to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wow... I'd like to review the source that supports changing it away from "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." The very serious problem we've got is all that content is currently unsourced... please get some sourcing for that.
Zad6802:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC) - (edit conflict) Flyer22, why haven't you added a pair of gold-plated sources to that already? You know that almost always ends such disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- WhatamIdoing, in this case, the editor was vehement that he could source the content. If I had sourced my reversion, I felt that my addition would still be contested by this editor. After all, sources can conflict. But WP:Due weight is something we must also consider. And the due weight is with the clitoris and penis being homologous. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- As seen here, the editor just added a source which he says supports his reversion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- A guess that an editor might still disagree doesn't really exempt you from the need to provide sources for contested material that you restored.
- It's really helpful that this editor added a source and refined the text to match it, because it helps us be certain about what we're talking about. The source says "thus, until the very end of the seventeenth century, there seemed no difficulty in holding that women had an organ homologous, through topological inversion, to the penis inside their bodies, the vagina, and another one morphologically homologous to the penis, outside, the clitoris". That bit about "until the very end of the 17th century, of course, is the fatal flaw in the assertion that this is still believed to be accurate. But this information and the source might be very handy in a ==History== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- As seen here, the editor just added a source which he says supports his reversion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you WAID for finding value in perhaps one of the POINTyest edits I've come across. Zad68 02:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, while I am a big believer in WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, I recognize that this is not a "sky is blue" case. I wasn't stating that I was exempt from providing a source, but when something as detrimental as this is added to the lead of an article and the editor vehemently defends it, I will revert (once or twice) and bring the matter to the talk page for clarification. I am stating that simply adding a source for the information is not what was needed in this case. Discussing it here on the talk page is what was needed since the editor was, or is still is, convinced that he is right. I do not see that my adding a single source, or even two, to the statement in the lead would have resolved this dispute. When I bring a matter to the talk page, I am fully prepared to defend my reversion with WP:Reliable sources, as seen in this, this and this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Adding a source was not only "needed" but also "required", as we discussed recently.
- You were dealing with an editor who made an honest mistake while he was trying to do the right thing, not some vandal or a kid who heard something from someone on the playground. If you'd handed him a pair of great sources the first time, then he'd probably have actually read them and immediately stopped reverting you. As it was, you were basically asking him to leave something that he sincerely believed to be wrong in a high-traffic article on the grounds that some random Wikipedia editor said she was right and he was wrong. "Trust me, I know better than you" is exactly the kind of practice that Wikipedia does not want to encourage for a content dispute. Next time, please try adding the sources the first time you restore challenged material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Like I just stated in that recent WP:Burden discussion, "I fully intended to provide sources for the material. There is nothing in WP:Burden that states that a source has to be immediately added; in fact, it's clear that time for providing a source is dependent upon the situation (it's a case-by-case basis). I was explicitly clear that I felt that the matter needed discussion and why. And, indeed, the other editor came back with a source, which he no doubt would have used to challenge any source I would have added. Taking the time to discuss matters, including educating editors while I'm at it, and providing sources there on the talk page, is what I do. [You don't] like my approach, but I can't, and won't try to, do a thing about that." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks, I apologize for the bad SPER! --allthefoxes (Talk) 03:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here are two on-line references I found: http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/meded/grossanatomy/pelvis/homology.html https://www.dartmouth.edu/~humananatomy/part_6/chapter_38.html Perhaps you have better ones. Add some references and I, for one, will be happy to back you up.--agr (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I found a relevant, up-to-date academic textbook Human Reproductive Biology and added it, that should take care of it.
Zad6814:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)- [1]good references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I found a relevant, up-to-date academic textbook Human Reproductive Biology and added it, that should take care of it.
urogenitial fold
Jytdog, like I just stated here of your edits, "I'm not sure about going with the 'Most of the penis' wording since sources simply state that they are homologous, and since the labia minora is an aspect of the clitoris." From my extensive research of the clitoris, which helped me write the Clitoris article, I know that sources don't usually state that "most of the penis is homologous to the clitoris"; they usually state that "the clitoris and penis are homologous." And for what I mean about the labia minora being an aspect of the clitoris, see, for example, this 2006 Jones & Bartlett Learning source, page 85, which states, "The anterior aspect of the labia minora forms the prepuce of the clitoris and also assists in enclosing the opening of the urethra and the vagina." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes so no controversy around most of this:
- The vagina is developmentally distinct from the penis and it is the vulva and penis+scrotum that all arise from the same tissues in the developing fetus. I also think we are not disagreeing about the following:
- Genital tubercle >> clitoral glans in females and Glans penis in males, as well as the swelling tissues inside Corpus cavernosum of clitoris and Corpus cavernosum of penis
- Labioscrotal swelling >> Labia majora in females and scrotum in males; the scrotal raphe is where you can see the fusing of the two sides of the original swelling.
- So its really just some other bits. I'd like to turn this around and go from predifferentiated tissue, to what they become.
- Sources first
- Manual of Obstetrics. (3rd ed.). Elsevier. pp. 1-16. ISBN 9788131225561 says on page 2 : "The labia minora (homologue of the penile urethra and the skin of the penis in the male) are thin folds of stratified squamous epithelium that arise from the urethral folds. These folds are continuous with the epithelium of the vestibule lying between the vaginal orifice and the labia majora, The labia minora vary greatly in size and shape. They split anteriorly to enclose the clitoris, forming its prepuce anteriorly and frenulum posteriorly. The labia minora contain sebaceous glands and are rich in blood supply, but are devoid of hair follicles. They fuse posteriorly into the fourchette or posterior ring of the vaginal introitus".
- Keith L. Moore, T. V. N. Persaud, Mark G. Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 10th Ed. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2015 ISBN 9780323313483, pp 267-69 says
Up to the seventh week, the external genitalia are similar in both sexes (see Fig. 12-37.4 and B). Distinguishing sexual characteristics begin to appear during the 9th week, but the external genitalia are not fully differentiated until the 12th week. Early in the fourth week, proliferating mesenchyme produces a genital tubercle (primordium of the penis or clitoris) in both sexes at the cranial end of the cloacal membrane (see Fig. 12-374). The cloacal ectoderm is believed to be the source of the genital initiation signal that involves FgfH expression. I.abioscrotal swellings and urogenital folds soon develop on each side of the cloacal membrane. The genital tubercle elongates to form a primordial phallus (penis or clitoris). The urogenital membrane lies in the floor of a median cleft, the urethral groove, which is bounded by the urethral folds (see Fig. 12-374 to D). In female fetuses, the urethra and vagina open into a common cavity, the vestibule of the vagina (see Fig. 12-37H).
Development of Male External Genitalia. Masculinization of the indifferent external genitalia is induced by testosterone produced by the interstitial cells of the fetal testes (see Fig. 12-37C, £, and G). As the primordial phallus enlarges and elongates to form the penis, the urethral folds form the lateral walls of the urethral groove on the ventral surface of the penis (Fig. 12-38A and B, and see also Fig. 12-37Q. This groove is lined by a proliferation of endodermal cells, the urethral plate (see Fig. 12-37C), which extends from the phallic portion of the urogenital sinus. The urethral folds fuse with each other along the ventral surface of the penis to form the spongy urethra (see Figs. 12-37E and G and 12-38C; and C3). The surface ectoderm fuses in the median plane of the penis, forming the penile raphe and enclosing the spongy urethra within the penis (see Fig. 12-37G). At the tip of the glans penis, an ectodermal ingrowth forms a cellular ectodermal cord, which grows toward the root of the penis to meet the spongy urethra (see Figs. 12-26A and 12-38C). As this cord canalizes, its lumen joins the previously formed spongy urethra. This juncture completes the terminal part of the urethra and moves the external urethral orifice to the tip of the glans penis (see Figs. 12-26B and C and 12-37G). HOX, FGF, and Shh genes regulate the development of the penis. During the 12th week, a circular ingrowth of ectoderm occurs at the periphery of the glans pen is (see Fig. 12-26B). When this ingrowth breaks down, it forms the prepuce (foreskin), a covering fold of skin (see Fig. 12-26Q. The corpus cavernosum penis (one of two columns of erectile tissue) and corpus spongiosum penis (median column ol erectile tissue between the two corpora cavernosa) develop from mesenchyme in the phallus. The two labioscrotal swellings grow toward each other and fuse to form the scrotum (see Fig. 12-37.4, E, and G). The line of fusion of these folds is clearly visible as the scrotal raphe (see Figs. 12-37Gand 12-38C).
Development of Female External Genitalia. The primordial phallus in the female fetus gradually becomes the clitoris (see Figs. 12-20G, 12-37B to D, F, and H, and 12-38B). The clitoris is still relatively large at 18 weeks (see Fig. 12-21). The urethral folds do not fuse, except posteriorly, where they join to form the frenulum of the labia minora (see Fig. 12-37F). The unfused parts of the urogenital folds form the labia minora. The labioscrotal folds fuse posteriorly to form the posterior labial commissure and anteriorly to form the anterior labial commissure and mons pubis (Fig. 12-37H). Most parts of the labioscrotal folds remain unfused but develop into two large folds of skin, the labia majora.
- from this I take away,
- the urogenital fold >> Labia minora in females and in males >> the part of the urethra inside the penis, and the skin around the penis. The raphe on the underside of the penis is where the fold fused.
- The external genitalia (vulva in females and penis +scrotum in males) arise from the same embryological tissues. The mapping of clitoris onto penis is mostly accurate but not exact. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- In terms of explaining this to readers, I think you need to drop the "homology" language in the first mention. They're likely to get a more accurate education if we say something like "During embryonic development, this part of the penis comes from [thing you've never heard of]; in females, this embryonic structure produces the clitoris instead of a penis". Using plain English and simple words will increase the likelihood that someone will actually understand it (rather than believing that the penis and clitoris are basically the same thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I love that. done here Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- In terms of explaining this to readers, I think you need to drop the "homology" language in the first mention. They're likely to get a more accurate education if we say something like "During embryonic development, this part of the penis comes from [thing you've never heard of]; in females, this embryonic structure produces the clitoris instead of a penis". Using plain English and simple words will increase the likelihood that someone will actually understand it (rather than believing that the penis and clitoris are basically the same thing). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, even though I'm not fully sure what you meant above with regard to your reply to me, thanks for the sources and for taking the time to discuss this. What I meant is that the clitoris and penis develop from the genital tubercle and are very much the same organ, except manifested in different ways due to sexual differentiation. This is why they are called homologous rather than "mostly homologous." And, of course, I noted that the labia minora is an aspect of the clitoris; it is not completely distinct from it. As for not using the word homologous because readers might not understand it, this is why, in the lead of the Clitoris article, we state "Unlike the penis, the male homologue (equivalent) to the clitoris." The word equivalent is obviously used to briefly clarify. In this anatomical case, I think it is important to link to the Homology (biology) article, even if it's a pipelink. But I agree with clearer wording. Simply stating "homologous" does not help our readers unless what that word means is clarified. Anyway, as for this edit you made, I'd change the "human development" link to "development of the reproductive system" as a pipelink. The "human development" link is a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed that pipe. Are we done here? Jytdog (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, even though I'm not fully sure what you meant above with regard to your reply to me, thanks for the sources and for taking the time to discuss this. What I meant is that the clitoris and penis develop from the genital tubercle and are very much the same organ, except manifested in different ways due to sexual differentiation. This is why they are called homologous rather than "mostly homologous." And, of course, I noted that the labia minora is an aspect of the clitoris; it is not completely distinct from it. As for not using the word homologous because readers might not understand it, this is why, in the lead of the Clitoris article, we state "Unlike the penis, the male homologue (equivalent) to the clitoris." The word equivalent is obviously used to briefly clarify. In this anatomical case, I think it is important to link to the Homology (biology) article, even if it's a pipelink. But I agree with clearer wording. Simply stating "homologous" does not help our readers unless what that word means is clarified. Anyway, as for this edit you made, I'd change the "human development" link to "development of the reproductive system" as a pipelink. The "human development" link is a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I was going to bring this up earlier, but I held off on it because I was busy. A mischaracterization by WhatamIdoing has resulted in me addressing this now. The article currently states in the lead: "Most of the penis develops from the same tissue in the embryo as does the clitoris in females; the skin around the penis and the urethra come from the same embryonic tissue from which develops the labia minora in females." And, lower in the article, it states, "In the developing fetus, the genital tubercle develops into the glans of the penis in males and into the clitoral glans in females; they are homologous. The urogenital fold develops into the shaft of the penis in males and into the Labia minora in females."
- I'm not necessarily objecting to the current wording, but I want to make the following very clear: Like I just noted to WhatamIdoing, besides the fact that there are an abundance of sources simply stating that "the clitoris and penis are homologous," including those that do so without any need of stating that "the shaft is homologous to the labia minora," sources are not always consistent in how they address the genital tubercle and urogenital folds matter with regard to the development of the clitoris and penis. This is likely because the urogenital folds aid the formation of the urethral groove on the ventral portion of the genital tubercle. Some sources simply state that the genital tubercle forms the glans clitoris and glans penis, while other sources state the genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis, and that the genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris. In other words, sources do not only state that the genital tubercle only forms the glans of both organs. Nor do they usually state that genital tubercle only forms the glans of both organs. See the sources below:
Click on this to see sources for differences in explaining the genital tubercle and urogenital folds matter.
|
|---|
|
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed the body to match the lead; forgot to do that. So what is there now matches. What content change are you proposing? Jytdog (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, regarding that, it's better to be consistent.
- I wasn't proposing any content changes. I just wanted to reiterate (especially given WhatamIdoing's claim elsewhere) that relaying that the "clitoris and penis are homologous" is not wrong; this is explicitly clear in anatomical and medical sources. And I wanted to note that sources do not always only state that the genital tubercle forms the glans clitoris and glans penis; some sources extend the description by stating that the genital tubercle elongates and forms the shaft and glans of the penis, and that the genital tubercle forms the glans and shaft of the clitoris. They sometimes note the shaft aspect, which means that the genital tubercle is not solely attributed to development of the glans of both organs. Sources call these two organs homologous, plain and simple. Due to how homology (biology) is defined with regard to sexual differentiation, and due to accuracy, your "most of the penis develops from the same tissue in the embryo as does the clitoris in females" wording is more accurate than your "most of the penis is homologous to the clitoris" wording. So I can go along with that. I'm not looking to change the text you have there now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Human penis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060701200434/http://www.free-condom-stuff.com:80/education/research.htm to http://www.free-condom-stuff.com/education/research.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724144101/http://www.businessweek.com/1998/30/b3588001.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/1998/30/b3588001.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
I find the first picture very disturbing and inappropriate. I know it is related to your article but there is no need for anyone to have to look at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlitterPeace (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTCENSORED. It isn't disturbing or inappropriate in the context of an encyclopedia article about the human body.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- This might be a better lead picture since it shows the glans: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Human_penis_with_labels.jpg which is the lead picture for https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis Tetsuo (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. The natural position of the natural penis is with the foreskin forward and covering the glans. --TBM10 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- "Natural" is one criterion. In an encyclopedia, more often the criterion is which option reveals more of the interior. Human eye shows an open eye. Flower shows an assortment of flowers with open petals. At classic automobile shows, cars are quite often displayed with the hood (bonnet) open so the visitor can see the engine.Tetsuo (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- No. The natural position of the natural penis is with the foreskin forward and covering the glans. --TBM10 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Remove that ugly pictures
U know children can go there. This is not good for them. 194.228.13.218 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Why was a good image of an erect penis removed?
I added a good image of an erect penis, which was reverted by @ArnoldReinhold: with the stated reason "We already have two such images".
- However, the article does not contain one quality photograph of a single erect penis. Having a good photo like that helps users to instantly recognize and see what a penis looks like in erect state. It is very relevant to the article and I hope we can put it back in. Amin (Talk) 14:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Having three erection images in a general encyclopedia article about the human penis seems excessive. The first image in the Erection section helps users "recognize and see what a penis looks like in erect state" quite well, better than the image you added, imho. The second image I agree is not as helpful. We have over 1000 images in Commons:Category:Erect human penis, including 102 in Commons:Category:Flaccid and erect human penises in comparison. Feel free to suggest a better replacement.--agr (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's repetitive, and unsurprisingly Amin is the likely owner of the item in question. This isn't Instagram and there are many similar images on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ianmacm: @ArnoldReinhold: The counter-arguments are valid and sensible. We'll leave it out. Amin (Talk) 16:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's repetitive, and unsurprisingly Amin is the likely owner of the item in question. This isn't Instagram and there are many similar images on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Having three erection images in a general encyclopedia article about the human penis seems excessive. The first image in the Erection section helps users "recognize and see what a penis looks like in erect state" quite well, better than the image you added, imho. The second image I agree is not as helpful. We have over 1000 images in Commons:Category:Erect human penis, including 102 in Commons:Category:Flaccid and erect human penises in comparison. Feel free to suggest a better replacement.--agr (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Male intromittent organ
The article says that "the human penis is an external male intromittent organ", but this is needlessly redundant since an intromittent organ is inherently male. Can I suggest removing the "male" adjective due to it being redundant? 104.10.208.186 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Penis shape
I was hoping to see something on this page about the shape of the penis, in particular something about the cross sectional shape of the penis when erect - across the shaft not along the length. I realise that there are sections on "Structure", "Size" and "Erection" but none covers this. The Hatnote says "The erect penis may be straight or curved …"
Is shape information hidden on another page in Wiki? I have seen schematic diagrams on some pages, but nothing to say that they are more than schematic diagrams.
That aside the section on "Size" seems to be confusing length with size.
Additionally, the paragraph that says "The longest officially documented human penis was found by physician Robert Latou Dickinson. It was 34.3 cm (13.5 in) long and 15.9 cm (6.26 in) around.[13]" is rather odd. I suspect the penis was not "found" by Robert Latou Dickinson, but "recorded" by him. And in what way would his recording make this an official documentation? The citation given for this information "The sex life of the unmarried adult" seems not to reference this "find". Floripa 09:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
get this thing out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.2.75 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
First of all the citation 16 is cited incorrectly. Dickinson only wrote a paragraph in the book published by Ira S. Wile. Furthermore the claimed numbers don't exist in the book. So it's false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.225.127.209 (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Link to commons category|Human male urination commons category|Human female urination
There was a discussion here a long time ago, now archived, which endorsed photographic illustrations of urination. For some reason, these images were censored. I decided to reinstate them in a more discreet way, using links to commons, as on the right here. This addition has been reverted 4 times by three editors (User:MetersUser:JohnuniqUser:Flyer22 Reborn), on the following grounds - 1. "Do not start your disruptive editing regarding urination again." 2. " We don't do this. Stop it. I will see you indefinitely blocked again. You should never edit this site.) 3 "no encyclopedic value; nothing on talk" and 4. "I see nothing in the talk page archive about htis or by this editor. Take this to the talk page and if there is a previous discussion please link to it." I do not understand why anyone would oppose this, given the previous discussion, and believe that there is encyclopedic value in making such links available.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk♥ 20:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Seriously? What purpose do these links serve, other than to workaround removal of images that other editors had determined did not belong in the article? (Most of all the human female urination one, which seems even more inappropriate than the male one.) -- The Anome (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand how those editors arrived at that conclusion, since there does not seem to have been any discussion further to that linked to above. Why do you think illustration is inappropriate in an encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- They've just been blocked for a month. We already have Urination with images. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't take a position of the suitability of the material. L'Origine du monde claimed that the issue had previously been discussed on the talk page but I was unable to find such a discussion and another editor had also said there was no such discussion. The archived thread linked to earlier did not discuss adding commons categories. I simply uindid the current edit pending talk page discussion, asked them to discuss it on the talk page, and warned the user for edit warring since he or she had made the edit four times. Meters (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- It might be possible to make a case for the male category, but female urination has nothing to do with the human penis, (the subject of this article) and the only image in that category is of a woman wetting herself. Trying to include the female one takes this out of WP:AGF territory for me. Meters (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. L'Origine du monde seems to be very, very interested in urination-related topics. Images of urination would arguably be appropriate in both the urination and urethra articles, on the principle that they are informative (for example, many people, including a substantial minority of women, are reportedly unaware of where the female urethra is located), and that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but I can't see any reason to put them anywhere else. -- The Anome (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- Images of urination, including real-life images, are already in the Urination article. We don't need L'Origine du monde stuffing that article with more. And something that editor did not understand in the past is that WP:GRATUITOUS goes along with WP:NOTCENSORED. I can't state that an image of urination is needed in the Urethra article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. L'Origine du monde seems to be very, very interested in urination-related topics. Images of urination would arguably be appropriate in both the urination and urethra articles, on the principle that they are informative (for example, many people, including a substantial minority of women, are reportedly unaware of where the female urethra is located), and that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, but I can't see any reason to put them anywhere else. -- The Anome (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- It might be possible to make a case for the male category, but female urination has nothing to do with the human penis, (the subject of this article) and the only image in that category is of a woman wetting herself. Trying to include the female one takes this out of WP:AGF territory for me. Meters (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't take a position of the suitability of the material. L'Origine du monde claimed that the issue had previously been discussed on the talk page but I was unable to find such a discussion and another editor had also said there was no such discussion. The archived thread linked to earlier did not discuss adding commons categories. I simply uindid the current edit pending talk page discussion, asked them to discuss it on the talk page, and warned the user for edit warring since he or she had made the edit four times. Meters (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)