Talk:Penis

Fellatio

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

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

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

Pluralis

first sentence is "The penis (plural penises, penes, penii) [...]" and later in the text it says ""Penii" is sometimes facetiously or mistakenly used as a plural form of "penis" instead of "penes" or "penises," its correct forms.".

Which one is correct?

Talking about the erection angle

The article talks about the erection angle, but only on a vertical axes. Many men have penises who curve left or right, and a table with the percentage of this type of erection would be interesting. Qubix 81.180.224.38 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a natural phenomenon. This is caused by circumcision. I believe the book "Say No to Circumcision" By Dr. Thomas Ritter (And several others I can't remember at the moment) covers this but I could be wrong, it's been a while since I read it. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can say, from personal experience, that this is not only caused by circumcision, almost every penis bends left or right. Zeusden1 (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No... many uncircumcised penises curve left and right. Fitz05 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL erection angle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.33.231 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, almost all penes have a slight left- or rightward curvature when erect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. Circumcision is not the reason for the curvature. The reason is biological and happens to both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. Also, the Thomas Ritter book, "Say No to Circumcision," is a POV book that has little to do with medicine. It exists to simply push Ritter's agenda and has no place as a source in this article. ask123 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

opening pic

Suggest replaceing with File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg to make the article less human centric.Geni 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to be reading this? not a dog or a duck. a human —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's a legitimate question. Wikipedia is about knowledge and information. There are other Wikipedia articles on anatomy that take a broader view. But this isn't one of them. In this case, the article is priamrily about the human gland, not those of other animals. ask123 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Should there then be separate pages, one for the human penis and one for penises in general? --Casdious (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, though I would be concerned that there'd be an enormous amount of source material to wade through. My best suggestion would be to look into some more recent zoology texts, which should discuss male reproductive organs from an evolutionary perspective instead of on a species-by-species basis, which is what I fear a normal attempt at a general treatment of the topic would degenerate into. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Erection development series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

too many pics

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

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

Exclusively human

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circumcision should have a section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

labels?

Can someone or the original uploader of the main picture, add labels to the Penis as it was on the black and white picture? It would be more informative. Thanks. --Juan D. (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the old B&W image as not only do I agree the labeled version is far more informative, but the new color version was added unilaterally without any discussion among the community. Per what appears to be a preexisting consensus here (as evidenced by the pretty obvious failure of the uploader to heed question 3 above), I think a change to that image should continue to be reverted unless it is discussed here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. --Juan D. (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about size

Why is it that this article claims that most penises are smaller than the average, but all of the guys I have seen are bigger than what the average is on this article? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Button_reflink.png (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.1.113 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No, I only added the word "unsigned" to separate it from my comment below. The unsigned comment itself came from an unknown person. 98.115.1.113 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Speaking of size, the article makes a terrible statistical mis-statement when it says "the average erect human penis is approximately 12.9–15 cm (5.1–5.9 in) in length with a 95% confidence interval of (10.7 cm, 19.1 cm) or (4.23 in, 7.53 in)".

4.23 to 7.53 is not a 95% confidence interval for the average size. That is absolutely preposterous. What I presume they mean to say (which is perhaps possible, at least) is that 95% of sizes are found within the range of 4.23 to 7.53.

98.115.1.113 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Doctor Robert L. Dickinson" seems suspicious to me. Is this even a real doctor? 83.183.21.45 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about insulting a respected scientist. --Koolahawk (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i tried to revert this but i edited the wrong page.

Could someone please fix this. im such a noob wont try to fix anything again.

Its fixed already. Themfromspace (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed pictures

Pictures of actual human penises are unnecessary on Wikipedia. You can find something like that on numerous other sites, therefore, I introduced a drawing that is actually more detailed and anatomically correct than the previous one.

Problem solved.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. You may have a problem with pictures of penises, most don't. This topic has been had before all over wiki. the consensus is that wiki isn't the place for censorship. The erection pics are particularly helpful. Real penises are much more informative than a diagram. It is also more interesting for the reader. Tremello22 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines are here: Wikipedia:Profanity. Please read through tell me what you make of them. Tremello22 (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not have any objection/problem with pictures of penises. I assure you I take no offense to any aspect of the male form. However, this new picture is more anatomically correct, and it is also more detailed. If you like looking at pictures of penises, you can feel free to do it on Google in your spare time, but this picture is quite more appropriate, in terms of detail, information and content. As such, the other picture is able to be replaced. It doesn't have anything to do with censorship. Do you see me removing all pictures of real penises on here? No, you do not. I repeat, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's no censorship policy. It's a matter that the picture currently presented is more informational. Also, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies, thanks. -Axmann8 (Talk)

My opinion, for what it's worth: given that the image issue is an ongoing topic of controversy and incurs frequent vandalism, it would have been wise to discuss and obtain consensus beforehand.

Your claim that "Pictures of actual human penises are unnecessary on Wikipedia" is incorrect and also a WP-is-not-censored red flag.

However, I'm inclined to agree that an anatomical diagram is the best initial image, but a photograph should remain elsewhere on the page. —EqualRights (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the photograph of the image per WP:BRD (which Tremello attempted to follow, but Axmann has begun to edit war over). It's been consensus on this article for some time that the first image on this page should be a photograph. Due to the way it was cropped, the photograph we've been using is far more suited to an infobox than the anatomical cut-away Axmann has provided. Furthermore, the text labels on the anatomical drawing are far too small to be read as displayed. In all, it's a piss-poor replacement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; there is a long standing consensus to use a photograph for external anatomy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that the current infobox photo is in black and white. Any colour versions available?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The current photo is based on this one from Commons. The creator of this version claimed that somehow making it black-and-white improved the contrast, something like that. I didn't agree, but didn't think it was worth arguing about at the time. I'd support a color version as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

←I wouldn't mind a color version either, though I think it should be of a comparable aspect ratio and probably flaccid. Text labels would also probably be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is exactly the same picture in colour: [1]. Is this OK?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Might want to choose a different color for the text labels and/or give the letters an outline so it's more contrastive. Solid red set against a mostly flesh-tone background isn't the best choice, IMO. Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles and this tool might prove helpful in choosing a more contrastive color. Also, since it's free content, you'll probably want to transfer the image to Wikimedia Commons at some point. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking it's not entirely necessary to show the testes, since they're not part of the penis itself. That would give us more leeway in vertical resolution for the infobox, thus giving us bigger text labels. While I don't think it's crucial, I think it'd be best to have the text labels be nice and readable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to photograph a human penis in a flaccid pose without photographing the testicles as well. The real question here is whether the current infobox photograph is OK, or whether it should be replaced. Personally, I do not believe that the text labels are essential, as they are likely to be too small to read in the thumbnail version in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the current picture does a pretty good job of depicting the penis and having the testicles cropped out. You're right though, text labels aren't essential, and in some cases may be frowned upon (since they effectively limit the use of the image to English wikis for example). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed images again

Well, it looks like the image has been changed yet again. File:Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg depicts several non-human penes in jars of what I assume is formaldehyde. I disagree with this change as it's significantly less useful in the infobox position. The prior image (File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg) worked as it was labeled, close in, and to the readers of Wikipedia (who I assume are currently all human), most obviously a penis.

I think it's rather unfortunate that this change wasn't at least discussed first. I'm not reverting it, but I really wish it were discussed as I believe the merits of the prior image outweigh those of the new one. That said, I think it's an interesting image and should definitely be featured later in the article in the discussion of non-human penes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed. Twice. See the opening pic and Exclusively human sections.Geni 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the opening pic section; the exclusively human section only briefly discussed it, and in fact there was disagreement with the use of the image. I don't see how you saw consensus to change, but that's not the point. I strongly disagree with the change for the reasons stated above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd suggest you read the other discussions on this page which discuss the use of the human penis image, which show a wide consensus for the use of the image that was already there. That consensus taken into mind, I've decided to revert to the human penis image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the two words above the image in the infobox? ^anemone│_projectors 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point... and that the information within the infobox is all about the human penis. If the Iceland image is used for the lead, it should not be used for the infobox, and the infobox should be moved down to the "humans" section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Zee article needs to be less human centeric. If that means moveing the infobox down so be it.Geni 11:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Circumcised/Uncircumsised

There seems to be some confusion on the posted pictures as to what constitutes a circumcision, as many uncut penises are labeled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.97.21 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? The only image this could apply to is File:Flaccid-erect.jpg, which, frankly, looks circumcised to me... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deserving

The person who made "Deserving" link to washington monument is a fucking genious. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKvamm (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can thank Caveman80, who apparently created that FAQ and made the link here. I'm not too sure if it's appropriate, but whatever, it's just the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont get why its there if its not appropriate--Wooras12345 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By inappropriate I meant that it seemed like a joke link which would just encourage fooling around in the article. Maybe I'm just being picky though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Penus from the Latin word Penātēs

Etymology studies will not support that Penus means Penis. Because you can penetrate to impregnate does not mean a narrow understanding of Penis. There are many words of Pen- "almost" and "head".

Now read about Latin suffix: second and third declensions.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis

From that web site. "Part of the problem is that when unaccented, the singular endings -us and -is tend to be pronounced the same in English".

"One other group of Latin nouns in -us is different. These are fourth-declension masculine nouns".

I am asking for someone to link Latin Penus to Lares (Penates: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions). (hope I did this on the correct page and forum, thanks).65.66.155.37 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you getting at? The word "penus" does not appear anywhere in the article, which says that the word penis comes from the Latin for "tail". This is supported by the etymology given in the Oxford English Dictionary: "< classical Latin pēnis tail, the male genital organ < the same Indo-European base as Sanskrit pasas, ancient Greek πέος. Compare French pénis (1618 as penis; subsequently from 1753)." The OED supports the two plural forms given in the article ("penises" and "penes") and also mentions that the irregular form "peni" is in use. -- AJR | Talk 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)