From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mammals (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Some transmen indeed do have bones via Phalloplasty#Graft_from_the_leg. Jidanni (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that about skin? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Unique to English?[edit]

The article says that 'The phallic meaning of the term is unique to English', but just by looking at the names of the articles in other languages that link here, you can see that that can't be completely true. French, Spanish, Portugese, Slovenian and Tagalog all have articles that are either named 'baculum' or something very similar. I can't read Cyrillic, but it looks like Russian and one other Cyrillic language use the term too. Was this a mistake, or does it mean something else but is badly phrased? If you think this is a mistake, it might be a good idea to take it out. (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

And Catalan. I forgot to mention Catalan. (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I was about to make this comment; I'm glad to see someone beat me to it. I suspect what the author meant was that the word doesn't mean "penis bone" in Latin. However, it is clear enough that the term is used in many languages besides English, so I propose the following re-wording: "Baculum is Latin for a cudgel, stick, scepter or stick, as in the phrase argumentum ad baculum. The "penis bone" sense did not exist in Latin." (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Of course I meant to write "cudgel, staff, scepter or stick". Sorry. (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

'Adam's Rib'[edit]

I have deleted the section titled 'Adam's Rib' first introduced by Kokopelado in March 2013 that other editors have removed and restored repeatedly over the past several weeks. This section, as can easily be established by comparing its content with that of its immediate source, is a partially edited and improperly cited direct quotation, in which only a final, closing quotation mark was given, contrary to standard citation practices; the user who first added the section made some clumsy attempts to paraphrase the material, saying, for example, 'Authors think it is far more probable', without, however, clearly indicating that most of the material is quoted directly (nor who the authors are). As it stands, this section is almost undoubtedly in violation of copyright law, as its immediate source may also be. The relevance of the section is also far from clear, in stark contrast to the prominent place that it has occupied in the article (almost twenty percent of total length of the article prior to my edit!). The cited source is a blog (hardly an authoritative work) which is itself quoting part of a letter to the editor (Gilbert, S. F. and Zevit, Z. (2001), Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2:21–23. Am. J. Med. Genet., 101: 284–285. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1387; note well, this is not a peer-reviewed journal article, but merely a letter!) that contains the speculations of a couple of scholars regarding the interpretation of Genesis 2:21-23. One of the authors is a faculty member in a Biblical Literature department and is, therefore, probably qualified to engage in detailed exegesis of Genesis, but absolutely no lexicographical sources, commentaries, journal articles, or other peer-reviewed works regarding the interpretation of Genesis 2(of which there are a vast number) are cited in the letter. We are therefore left to assume that the letter is engaging in (albeit erudite) speculation uninformed by any prior scholarship on Genesis; in any case, it cannot be taken as representing the consensus of qualified scholars on the interpretation of the biblical passage, and should not be given so prominent a place in a Wikipedia article, unless its validity can be demonstrated independently. Spurius Furius (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)