Jump to content

Talk:Penis/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Not the same penis.

Penis_reduced.jpg shows two penises but looking closely at the picture I do not believe they are the same penis. The erect and not erect pictures should be of the same penis.--Gbleem 05:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you think they look like they are not, but I remember the person who uploaded the image stating that they were of himself so they are definitly the same penis. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not? Seems reasonable to me. Thue | talk 08:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The one on the right does not seem to have a foreskin and the testicles are a different size.--Gbleem 17:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Errr, when the penis is erect the foreskin does tend to look a lot different. The difference between circumsized and uncircumsized penises almost disappears during erection (just look at porn for confirmation). Also, the testicles do "shrink" while the member is engorged, in preparation for releasing their sperm. Again, refer to porn. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have uploaded to wikipedia that will serve two points. A) I can assure you that they are both the same penis and B) the current picture is of poor photographic quality. It has blur and discoloration. I am not some narssacist that believes his penis should be before everyone else's. SirGrok 19:44, 24 August 2006 (CST)
Not to be rude, but I honestly think, that the photo, that you just removed was of much better photographical quality than the new one. It looked much smoother, and I don't particularly like the oversaturated colors over the black background in this one. Add to that, that the one that was there before was uncircumsized, which might make it more suitable at that point. Just some impartial thoughts, the last one not even a real argument. But I do think that your edit was a bit premature. — Mütze 01:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed it as it is a circumsised penis, and therefore not appropriate for that section. There is a section "Altering the male genitalia" where the image would be appropriate but you will have to convince the other editors that the current image needs to be changed to your new Image.
Please also upload your image to wikipedia commons and put it in the penis category so it is in the commons link on the article page.--Clawed 02:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I take no offense at all. I am doing this with an objective attitude. I can see that it was premature for me to make the modification to the page without popular consent, but I thought that if that it was going to be contested, I would find out via the general populace (It has been contested, therefore I will bring it up here). I am not going to go into an elaborate defense of the photo that I uploaded. I find that when you enlarge the image there is an abundance of blur on the right side. I thought that by eliminating this blur it would increase the overall quality of the page. I also notice discoloration of the penis. If the general consensus is that my modification is unnessecary, then let it remain. SirGrok

Semi-protection

A large part of the edits to this article is vandalism of teh kind which would be blocked by semi-protection. What would people think about permanently semi-protecting the article? Thue | talk 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi protection is a measure we can now use against serious vandalism. Although this page does suffer quite a lot of vandalism I don't believe it to be serious enough to warrent semiprotection. Some pages, e.g. George W. Bush suffers periods of very intense vandalism that interfere with people's ability to actually edit the page. I've not seen that problem occuring here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

cleanup

could somebody please remove the pornographic images from this article--63.22.0.39 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend this too since the pictures aren't appropriate for kids and school studies. Ashs2005 01:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the definition of pornography. —Keenan Pepper 02:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The images will NOT be removed. The subject of the article is on the penis, and an image is there to render what it looks like to people who are ignorant on the subject. Wikipedia does not cater to schools, or sensitive people. Debating factual information is the only thing relevant to debate on these talk pages, not sensitivity issues. Lengis 05:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
They most certainly are suitable for kids. How are they going to learn about penises with photographs of them. School biology books contain photographs of naked men - have done since I was 11 - It was the first page I looked at when I was issued my secondary school science book. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

i have removed some evil, please don't put it back--64.12.116.139 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We do not censor on wikipedia, the images are relevant to the article, please do not remove them it is considered vandalism. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed it makes no sense to claim an article should not be illustrated with depictions of the very subject- so one should either allow that, or argue for the complete deletion of the page, which I don't - in this case it would make Wikipedia an utter laughing stock, as no serious reference work would carry prudish ostrich policy so far as to ignore exterior anatomy. By the way, does anyone still believe there are people able to open a Wikipedia page who never saw a penis? In a state of mind (which we have no control over) which makes one look for such images and text, it is better to find both (very easy, indeed) in a descriptive context then to feel forced to turn to actual pornography, where one is likely to get a sordidly distorted image of what is natural and normal. So in reality, the choice is not whether to let interested persons see the male body in the nude or not but whether it will be in a relatiely innocent (best scenario even educational) context or in a potentially perverting one, which happens to suit our lexicographic purposes as well.Fastifex 07:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not pornography! What the heck are you on? Go look up the word pornography before making such a stupid statement about a photo of a part of the human anatomy! TR_Wolf

Wording of first sentence

I don't know if it's just me, but I find "Other terms for it are: the (male) member or - for the erect state - the phallus. " to be very cludgy/clunky as a sentence. I suggest a rewording, but am not sure how important leaving in the male member reference is. I do agree with leaving the phallus. Gordon Bonnar 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the intro--Clawed 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

image captions

In the circumsicisian section there are two photos showing the difference between a circumsided and uncircumsised penis.

User:Masalai recently changed the caption from

Uncircumcised penis (L), circumcised penis (R). to Uncircumcised penis (L), uncircumcised penis with foreskin retracted(R).'.[1]

and after I reverted then placed this on my talk page

I am perplexed at your continued restoration of the incorrect label of a photo of an uncircumcised penis with the foreskin retracted as a circumcised penis which it plainly is not. You will note that the source of the photo is a Russian article; doubtless the latter is considerably less well known there than in Western countries. There is a photo of a circumcised (albeit mis-spelled) penis at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circumsized_penis.gif and perhaps you would like to substitute that photo for the inappropriate one that appears in the article. It would be better to have a photo illustrating what the subsection of the article is discussing anyway. Masalai 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The image in question was was first uploaded to the russian wikipedia and can be forun here [2]

For the moment I have replaced the two images with another single photo from wikipedia commons--Clawed 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adult Content tag

I removed the Template:adult tag, on the basis that this is completely POV. If younger readers can't handle information about the penis, then they shouldn't read an article with that title. Benami 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Penile trauma

I removed a sentence about pediatric penile trauma that cited a study done by M.S. EL-BAHNASAWY and M.T. EL-SHERBINY of The Urology and Nephrology Centre, Mansoura University Mansoura, Egypt. The study specifically states in "In our region, ritual circumcision and hair-tie strangulation injuries are the most common causes of penile trauma in children." The sentence in the article left out the words "In our region" - that is, the area served by the clinic at Mansoura University in Egypt- thereby making the conclusions seem stronger and more universally applicable than they actually were. Benami 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibberish?

Relation to female genitals

The glans of the penis is homologous to the clitoral glans, the corpora cavernosa are homologous to the body of the clitoris, the corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs beneath the labia minora, and the scrotum is homologous to the labia minora, labia majora and clitoral hood. The raphe does not exist in females, because there the two halves are not connected.

I'm seeing a lot of big words but they're all gibberish to me. Without the aid of a diagram or some other aid to tell what it is each term is talking about, is it really helping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airconditioning (talk • contribs) .

A few remarks...
  1. Please sign your comments with ~~~~
  2. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia, occasionally it uses multisyllable words that aren't used in everyday speech :-p
  3. All the "gibberish" in there is wikilinked, it's an encyclopedia, read and learn...read back to the previous subsection if you need a wikilink to raphe
Tomertalk 14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Penis pics?

Is it really apprioprate to post pictures of erect male penises? I think it should be taken down.

No it shouldnt be taken down, of course it's appropriate, you're looking at an article about the penis, why shouldnt there be a photo of it? TR_Wolf
It is really quite relevant... I say (and consensus seems to be) that it stays. Thue | talk 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe would be a good idea to at least give a warning that there are "explicit" pictures here? A number of ppl probably would find it objectionable. Ikh (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
But they probably aren't looking for articles about penises. Mark1 17:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, most people that go ranting about indecency and penises and stuff generally go to certain webpages about those things on purpose so they can complain about it.--70.125.21.96 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fears

I removed the following passage from the "Fears and Reassurance" section:

As mentioned earlier, the raphe is the visible ridge between the lateral halves of the penis, found on the ventral or under side of the penis, running from the meatus (opening of the urethra) across the scrotum to the perineum (area between scrotum and anus). This ridge is actually the "biological zipper" that closes the urethra during the normal course of fetal development. When the urethra does not close normally, the resulting condition is called hypospadias. Surgery is required to close the urethra. Treatment may involve multiple surgeries and attendant pain.::

This describes a birth defect, not something along the lines of penis hysteria. It seemed to be badly placed, and the last sentence seems like fluff. Benami 05:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

images

dose this page really need 2 pictures displaying the male penis, i think its quit bold and may disgust some readers

Wikipedia is not censored. Most anatomy-related articles have pictures. Ohnoitsjamietalkcontribs 08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
As concerns images - although Wikipedia is censored, I think we also have to take into account respecting the many different belief and moral systems represented here. I would suggest the tact used on the condom page, which was to have a link in-line to photos of a condom being put on; similarly, one could have in-line links to flaccid/erect penis and circumcised penis in line. In this way the images are available for those who want to see them, and not visible to those who don't. The argument that "if you don't want to see a penis, don't look up the penis page" is not a valid argument, as there are those who may legitimately want to learn more about the anatomy for a variety of reasons (including personal health reasons) without desiring to look at the photos. Barring any comments, I will make the change in a few days. DonaNobisPacem 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object. The reason the condom link was in-lined was because it's a "how-to" image which doesn't need to be instantly displayed. A penis is simply... a penis. It's an anatomical thing, not something to hide with "tact." We have a picture of a condom atop the Condom page, a picture of an airliner atop Airliner and we should have a picture of a penis at Penis. In fact, I think arguably the diagram should be moved up to provide at least some sort of graphical element in the otherwise-empty upper right hand corner of the article. FCYTravis 06:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not referring to, nor do I have issue with, the penis diagram; in fact, I agree with you that it would be beneficial to move that image to the top. What I am referring to is the photos of penises; and although I agree we are not trying to censor, I also feel one needs to respect the differing comfort levels and belief systems one is going to encounter here. The discussion about in-lining the condom picture revolved primarily around the offense some took over the image, and I would strongly argue that is the reason it was done. DonaNobisPacem 07:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If it had been done for that reason, I would have strongly opposed it. Instead, I agreed on the basis that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and that indeed the entire how-to section would be best simply replaced with a link to Wikibooks. WP:NOT censored for the protection of anyone's sensibility, and such a move creates an utterly unacceptable precedent. Do we then remove all pictures of women's faces to avoid offending fundamentalist Muslims? FCYTravis 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You do have to take in account your target audience. The fundamentalist muslims probably would be at the arabic wikipedia not the english one, and if they are here they are the minority and not the majority. Chooserr 07:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
And the majority of people here have no objection to an inline image of a penis on the Penis page. FCYTravis 08:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I second FCYTravis's objection. Removing the images sets a bad precedent, and the "sensibility" issue is a slippery slope. I I imagine that one could find similar find pictures of human genitalia in any number of anotomical reference books. OhnoitsJamie 07:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with removing all photographs of genitals and such - not the diagrams, but the photographs. I don't think many of the other encyclopedias have pictures of peoples "private parts" but even if they do - As I was curtly told by another Wikipedian. Wikipedia isn't encyclopedia Britannica (subsitute "Any number of anotomical reference books" and you've got it). Chooserr 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I will also address the issue of the Wikilinked photo at Autofellatio. I think it is reasonable and legitimate to Wikilink photographic depictions of actual sex acts. However, here we are not talking about an actual sex act - we are simply talking about an image of a part of the body. The image in question is not prurient, is non-sexual and would not offend any reasonable person looking for information about penises. FCYTravis 08:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Under WP:Profanity, we have the following:
"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
While some may not view the images to be profane, others do: I would not even begin to speculate on proportions. I do not think the images cause the article to be less informative, particularly as one could use a diagram for an erect penis (similar to the diagram of a flaccid one that is on the page). Accuracy and relevency are not even issues with these images.
At the same time, I read carefully over the WP:NOT, WP:Pornography and various other policies/guidelines, and this article fits within those guidelines as well as the consensus on the clitoris images. In this regard, the only point I might make is that the diagram itself is probably the best image for the penis article; the flaccid/erect and circumcised images probably best belong on the sub-pages devoted to those topics, as the images are repeated there (I read somewhere, and can't find it now, that if there is a a sub-page/main article devoted to a topic, that the majority of info should be there, with a minimum amount of reference info in other articles; and with as little repetition of info/images as possible. However, that may have been a consensus on a particular page, rather than in a style guide). DonaNobisPacem 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone comes to an article about the penis, I'm sure that's what they expect to see. The article on the ear should have a picture of one, as well as diagrams, because pictures and diagrams both give useful but different information. So should this article. Thumbelina 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Penis article without images would be less informative. The article is written in an informative and tasteful manner. There are people without easy access to libraries that may need this information.--FloNight 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

less imformative? if you dont have a vague idea what a penis looks like then your porbally to young to be reading this article. I say keep the diagram but toss the pics, would any encyclopedia contain pictures of the human penis? --Joe dude 23:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is going to go in circles, but I will repeat my view and then leave this discussion for a while:
1.) The current images do not violate WP:NOT and WP:Pornography; at the same time, one could argue that by WP:Profanity, as quoted above, the photos (not the diagram) are probably not necessary and therefore could be removed (or placed inline) to avoid objection from a large percentage of Wikipedia users/viewers.
2.) The images are in the main articles on Circumcision and Erection - therefore probably not necessary in the main article on Penis. In fact, the amount of info devoted to both topics could probably be reduced, due to the very developed main articles on the topics
Other than that, there's not much to say. Hope we can find a consensus here, though! DonaNobisPacem 06:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll throw my "vote" behind keeping the images in the article. The number of photographs, etc. is a separate topic, but the core issue is that censorship of this kind doesn't belong in wikipedia. Indeed, I can't think of anything inherently offensive about an image of a penis. I could understand outrage at pictures of sexual acts, or purposely disturbing things like "tubgirl" or whatever - but as about half of the readers of wikipedia are bound to have seen a penis (their own) every day of their lives... I just don't see what the fuss could possibly be about.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's infantile to be afraid of viewing (or others viewing) an image of any part of human anatomy. "Offense" is not an argument, it's just a label for dislike. I have not seen anyone actually present a rationale in support of censorship that does not amount to "I or other people may not like this." Postdlf 00:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's how WP:Profanity works.....if a significant portion of viewers "do not like this," ie, find it objectionable, than it should not be included. Anyways..... DonaNobisPacem 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment From WP:profanity: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. Regarding pictures of body parts; a precedent (for inclusions) has already been set regarding Clitoris at Wikipedia:Pornography#Some_examples_of_debates.2C_decisions_and_non-decisions. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
DonaNobisPacem, I do value your opinion. But, I think consensus is to keep these pictures because they do have an educational value. IMHO, a straw poll or Rfc would be a waste of time. --FloNight 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't actually mean to drag on the debate anymore, I was responding to Postdlf's comment above re:offense as an argument. I realize consensus is to have the pictures stay, and personally I hate polls - consensus is best reached by discussion. If you look at my comments above, I already noted that the pictures do not violate WP:Pornography, WP:NOT, and that they fit the consensus on the clitoris page. At that point, I had figured the pictures were staying - my only question at that point was should they duplicate photos on the Erection and Circumcision pages. No one commented on that, so I assume they are wanted on both pages. 'Nuff said about that! DonaNobisPacem 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There are now three pictures of a flaccid/erect penis - two uncircumcised, one circumcised. Should one of the uncircumcised be removed to limit file size/redundancy? DonaNobisPacem 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree

If people are too insecure about their own sexuality that even seeing a picture of a penis leads them to question it, that who am I to force them?--—The preceding signed comment was added by Bob Saget (talk • contribs) {{SUBST:{2|}}}. 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

animals

why is there a section dedicated to the animal penis, most of the information for the section is crude and unnecessary

Believe it or not humans are animals too, hence we also have animal penises. And anyway, the vast majority of the penises in the world are nonhuman, so it only makes sense to cover them as well. --Cyde Weys 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't an article on the human penis - it is on the penis in general...regardless of what species it belongs to.

protected page

Does anyone have any idea about why this page is currently protected from being edited?

The article is protected from being edited by unregistered, anonymous users and new users. You need to sign up and edit legitimately for a short time before being allowed to edit articles such as this that are frequently vandalized by anons. FCYTravis 05:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


broken image

The thumbnail picture under erection is broken and I can't fix because I don't have an account. Please fix, thank you.

The picture looks like it works to me. Please consider creating an account.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Modification and Mutilation

I reverted this version:

The most prevalent form of genital alteration in some countries is circumcision: removal of part or all of the foreskin for various cultural, religious, and more rarely medical reasons - it is argued and heavily supported that with proper hygiene, there is no medical advantage to a circumsized penis - even though some believe that it will better protect them from sexually-transmitted infections, which is false. In many cases, such as in some United States hospitals, the frenulum and part of the shaft skin is also removed.

back to:

The most prevalent form of genital alteration in some countries is circumcision: removal of part or all of the foreskin for various cultural, religious, and more rarely medical reasons. In many cases, such as in some United States hospitals, the frenulum and part of the shaft skin is also removed.

The first version is too argumentative and the topic is better left to be dealt with within the main article (genital modification and mutilation).   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 06:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The latest image

An image, Image:Penis3ym.jpg, has been being added to the "Size" section by User:Poona. This image doesn't seem to add much, if anything, to the article, which already has various illustrations, and certainly seem to add anything to the section on penis size. I, and others, have removed this photo for this reason. -- AJR | Talk 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And I've listed that image for deletion. It's a low quality picture and possibly a "vanity" pic. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

semi-protection and image removal

what's going on here?--Alhutch 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

actually, User:My Cat inn did not semi-protect the page, it has been protected since January 30th! I'm unprotecting since there hasn't been much recent vandalism.--Alhutch 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

IDEA!

Hows about we make a censored page of this, without all of the {{NAMEOFPAGE}}

Is censoring possible?

Even though the pictures on this page are appropriate to the topic, I think that for some, even the 2 or 3 photos on this page may be a little too graphic. Perhaps you can remove the photos and just create links to them with a warning for mature audiences only.

for mature audience only? why is that? --tasc 20:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


As a child, other children had power over me because of what they knew and what I was not permitted to know. It does not hurt children to see "the real thing." What hurts is ignorance and fear. And, let me ask, do you think a sign will keep a curious eleven year old from accessing the information s/he is desperate to have? 金 (Kim) 23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there summat offensive about a part of the human body? When SHOULD children see a penis or vagina? The day they get married? Nah, you make summat rude by making it rude. It's just a body part, so these pictures wont be going anywhere thank you very much

  • It might be better if rouge editors didn't come along and change the size values this high, they were a perfectly NPOV image size until someone came along and made them really big--205.188.116.133 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
the sizes seem pretty appropriate to me. you didn't actually change the sizes on those edits you made. you don't understand how to change image sizes. there is nothing wrong with the size of these images. they are not "giant".--Alhutch 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Presto!

So, whilst doing some research on music, I wanted to read Wikipedia's description of a 'presto'. Clicking on it brought me to 'Penis'.

On this occasion, I'd have settled for a stub, rather than penis.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.86.11 (talk • contribs) .

Perhaps the unsigned one entered "Presto Change-o!" Sometimes computers have a sense of humor, even if sarcastic. ;-) 金 (Kim) 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

two functions into one: how'd they come up with that?

Mention how Mother Nature ever figured out how to make two functions into one unit, i.e., urine and sperm use same hole. Also if all other animals are like that. Hmmm, eating and breathing use same throat, also multi-function...

It's simple, it was designed by a civil engineer[4] ;-) -- AJR | Talk 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. If I recall correctly there is at least one kind of mammal that has a prehensile penis. That idea came up on the Babylon science fiction TV program, which had the only picture of a humanoid penis in action that I've ever seen on network TV. Regrettably it was being used in cheating at cards rather than a more noble cause. 金 (Kim) 17:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
uhm, how do you use your dick to cheat at cards? 82.171.195.140 23:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Sexual Records

Can someone familiar with the topic of anatomical records see if there's anything worth merging from this article to here? Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin Roots?

The Latin word for "tail" is cauda... I do not see how this is relevant to the word penis. Should this bit in the entymology section be removed?

Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language says that the word 'originally meant "tail" in Latin. Sometimes words get borrowed to speak of something unspeakable (as in "Get some tail!") and later the word ceases to be a euphemism. At that point people don't know whether the guy is saying his goat has an infected tail or an infected penis. So then they have to find another word to use. That sounds like what happened with the Latin. Anyway, the article is accurate as is. 金 (Kim) 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Penis wider than it is long

I have 2 questions about it:

  1. Is it possible to have one?
  2. What is the term for it?

The Republican 03:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes
  2. A chode

--Cyde Weys 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalised image too?

What happened to the image 'Penis reduced.jpg'? Someone had defaced it with a large black rectangle. I have tried to revert it to an original version, but it is confusing, what with browser caching. I needed 'Shift-Ctrl-R' here on Firefox/Linux to see my changes. I believe 'Ctrl-F5' and 'Shift-F5' work on other clients. But looking at the history of the image, this is a regular sport it seems. Maybe if the article needs protecting then so do the images? By the way, I'm not sure that I finally reverted to the best previous version as there are so many. This one was "17:27, 18 September 2005 . . Nickptar", and looks fine to me. --Nigelj 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

organs in non humans

I think non human penis section should be removed (or separted), otherwise, it's appropriate to be placed with other articles about human organs 86.16.112.143 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That section gets me excited --24.167.241.163 04:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning of images?

Maybe we should issue a warning about the pictures below.... I don't mind it but some people might. Pseudoanonymous 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Images of penises seem appropriate for an article with the title penis. If you read the text above this has all been discussed before. Biggishben 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One has been implemented on Circumcision.--BerserkerBen 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Semi-protection

Is there any need for this article to remain semi-protected. It has been protected since 5 May.--Clawed 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Male Genital Infection Picture

Im removing that male genital infection photo.There is no need for it and i nearly get sick looking at it.--Dermo69

Cry us a river, and drown in it. That's enclyopedic information. Deal with it 65.125.133.211 20:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

semiprotection again, please

There has been another vandalism in this article. I think you need to have it semiprotected again, or vandals might ruin the integirty of this page.

Proposed de-inlining of pictures containing graphic nudity

{{linkimage|Penis_reduced.jpg|A penis in both flaccid and fully erect states (larger version).}} I suggest that the photographs of phalli be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown in the example here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human genitalia. John254 05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No, no no. No thank you. Needless hassle in order not to offend imaginary prudes (who also like to read articles about penises) is not a good idea. HenryFlower 06:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Please direct any further discussion on this proposal(s) to Talk:Vulva#Proposed_de-inlining_of_pictures_containing_graphic_nudity --Clawed 11:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would christians or any religion be offended by this article? Didn't jesus have a penis? Honestly, its npov encylopedic information about the penis, thats it, of course it has to have pictures,it would be an insufficent enclopedic entry otherwise, and wikipedia is an encylopeia.

No censorship on wikipedia Janviermichelle 04:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penis/Archive_5&oldid=1137077767"