Talk:Penis

Too anthropocentric.

Make this article about penises. Not human penises. Most of the content currently in this article should be in its own article, Human Penis. Animal and plant penises should be topic of this article. --65.92.54.164 (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree a separate article should be created, good idea. 99.249.228.146 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Penile sensivity graph

This graph, which contains some interesting information, is probably best located in this article. I have tried in the text to avoid this getting dragged into a pro/anti-circ dogfight Johncoz (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition, which gave an extraordinary amount of weight to Sorrells et al. If sensitivity/sensation studies are to be included, then a representative selection should be included (and illustrated). There is no justification for giving special treatment to one study, especially given the controversial subject area. Jakew (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be the only study that has tested all areas of the penis. I think excluding it is unfair to the public.--Studiodan (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The text and graph are fully within the letter and spirit of NPOV. The text also linked explicity to the sexual effects article which summarises all the main studies, and explicitly stated that interpretation of the data was a matter of debate. The use of WP:UNDUE would preclude Wikipedia ever graphically illustrating ANY study unless we illustrated ALL of them. Finally, there is nothing particularly controversial here, regardless of one's position on circumcision, imho. I would be interested in the views of other editors. Johncoz (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with displaying results of other studies. However, their is no other study which has tested all the areas of the penis, so it doesn't seem to be a concern for clutter at the moment. There seems to be interest in censoring the details of this study, which doesn't seem to follow NPOV at all. Selective use of language to remain neutral is important, but omitting information is unfair to the reader.--Studiodan (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't discuss every study in every article: it's simply impractical. Even if we could include every study of penile sensation and circumcision here, doing so would mean that we have essentially the same content in two different locations, meaning twice the maintenance burden. So, as a practical matter, it's beneficial to keep information in one place, and consequently it is inevitable that information will be omitted from this article. The best approach is to include a sentence here along the lines of "There is ongoing controversy regarding the sexual consequences of this procedure; see sexual effects of circumcision". That avoids giving undue weight to any one study, while informing readers where information may be found. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, being that you also removed the graph from sexual effects of circumcision. However, I disagree, these results are relevant to the anatomy of the penis, and (as I said prior, regarding your concern of a need to add other studies) there is currently no other study that has tested all the areas of the penis, so clutter isn't a current concern at the moment. We shouldn't censor important information from the reader.--Studiodan (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been about fifty or so studies of the sexual effects of circumcision, and I completely agree that the precise methodology chosen by Sorrells et al. is unique. However, that doesn't mean that their results are more valuable than those of other studies. They're no more and no less valuable. For NPOV treatment, their results should be presented alongside other studies, in order to avoid giving the reader a misleading impression. Their study should not be given special treatment. Jakew (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here: the graph is not some sort of advertisement for the study, but an illustration of the data, which as you have pointed out, Jake, is subject to different interpretations, a point explicitly made in the proposed text. Why this data? because it is the most comprehensive in the current literature. Johncoz (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Johncoz, it is not the "most comprehensive". It is no more and no less comprehensive than other studies. It is more accurate to say that it is the study that included the greatest number of points when measuring the sensitivity to the lightest touch. But sensitivity to the lightest touch is not the only thing that matters. What about sensitivity to vibration? What about spatial perception? What about sensitivity to hot and cold? What about sexual sensation or pleasure? Sorrells et al. are not comprehensive in these respects, because they did not even include them in their study. Other studies did, and in terms of these measurements, those studies are the most comprehensive.

By arguing that special treatment should be given to Sorrells et al. on the basis that it is the "most comprehensive", you are effectively endorsing Sorrells' belief that sensitivity to lightest touch at various points is the most important issue, the one worth assessing. But that's just one of many viewpoints, and we need to treat them all equally. Jakew (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not endorsing anything, including what's "most important". Fine-touch sensitivity is at least susceptible to some kind of empirical measurement, unlike woolly, subjective concepts like "sexual pleasure", hence such a study produces hard data that can be graphed. No claim is made in the graph or the proposed text that this data has implications beyond itself: that's up to the reader to decide. We are simply presenting the data. And I repeat: the results do not seem controversial, at least in terms of the circumcision debate. The biggest surprise for me was the sensitivity of the circ scar, but I guess that unlike the foreskin no histological studies have yet been performed on this area. Johncoz (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I implied it was your intention, Johncoz, but nevertheless the choice of illustration does represent an implicit judgement about what information is felt to be important about a subject. For example, imagine for the sake of argument that Marilyn Milos and Edgar Schoen both had a choice of a single image to illustrate a brief article about circumcision. Who would you expect to choose this particular image? I would expect Milos to do so, because she believes that the sensitivity of the penis to light touch is an important issue. I'd be astonished if Schoen would choose to do so, however (though he might choose a table showing the results of the HIV RCTs). So the choice of illustration can say quite a lot about what the author considers important, and so there are NPOV concerns. Similarly, we need to consider the amount of weight given to a study. To take one extreme, suppose that a reader just looks at the headings and pictures: the only information about circumcision (s)he would receive is the light-touch sensitivity of various penile points, the importance of which is itself controversial.

I agree that the results themselves do not seem to be controversial by themselves, although their interpretation is, as is the importance of their results (relative to other studies). And it has been questioned whether their data can be generalised to the wider population. As an aside, I'm not sure why the circumcision scar should be a surprise: if you use t tests to compare the circumcision scar with other areas, there's little evidence of a statistically significant difference between it and other points. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are very concerned about implications, instead of the data. However, would you feel better if the results of Bleustein or Payne were also displyed right next to Sorrells?--Studiodan (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a start, but I think studies that have assessed overall sexual sensation & satisfaction (Masood, Krieger, Kigozi, etc) should also be represented. Jakew (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then that's progress. Let's all agree to make a graph with Bleustein or Payne's results as well. Then we can decide if a sentence on sexual sensation, from a perspective of medicine (you know, nerve endings and the like) is appropriate, or under weight given circumcision in this article. My personal view is that the reader can go to circumcision to read that stuff, but these results are interesting and useful enough to show different response zones in different areas of the penis. Blackworm (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you (anyone else reading, or anyone you may know) can pass the full report of either Bleustein or Payne (not just the summary/abstract) to me so I can input the raw data into Excel, that would be greatly helpful (let me know if you need an email). Thanks.--Studiodan (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have both, but will have to look through my files to see whether I have them in electronic format (I usually use paper for reference). As noted above, I think we also need to incorporate studies such as Masood, Kigozi, etc., to avoid giving preferential treatment to one type of study design. Thinking about it, though, I think that this is the wrong place to illustrate such studies. The reason is that there is only a very brief summary regarding circumcision in this article, so it is comparatively easy to introduce undue weight. It seems rather non-neutral to illustrate the summary in the circumcision section with studies of penile sensitivity, which is an issue raised by opponents of circumcision. What about studies of, say, HIV, which is an issue raised by proponents? Illustrating the subject of circumcision with one but not the other seems to introduce bias. I would therefore propose that we continue discussion at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I think it would be useful to have this data for analysis in illustration, if it so ends up being used here (somewhere on wiki in general, not specifically to this article).

As to where these illustrations can (or should) be located, that depends on the reason for illustration. i.e., it might be best to illustrate in an area regarding function and/or anatomy, instead of regarding the circumcision debate. My original idea (for Sorrells') was to place it next to mention of the study (since that seems most immediately relevant), and then see where the wiki project takes it from there.

Regarding studies that are not based on direct measurements. I feel those are best suited for the circumcision debate, and those based on direct measurements are of interest to anatomy and/or function in general (not limited to the circumcision debate at all).

However (for the time being), I otherwise agree that it might be best to take this to Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision.--Studiodan (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's Penis

If it was up to anyone you should get a pictures of all the different "types" of Penis'.

Uncircumcised and circumcised penis.JPG

The .JPG reads "A circumcised penis (right) compared to an uncircumcised one." Should be rewritten as "A circumcised penis (right) compared to a natural one."

The word uncircumcised is discriminating. We do not put the prefix "un" in front of body modifications and label people with them if they have not had it done. We do not say some one is un-rhinoplastied if they have not had a nose job. We do not say someone is un-castrated if they have a scrotum. We do not say a woman is un-footbound for having normal feet. The word uncircumcised should read "natural" or "normal". Hypochristy

No. The purpose is to compare the two types of penis, so in fact the purpose is to highlight the fact that one has not been circumcised. The correct term for a penis that has not been circumcised is indeed 'uncircumcised'.

The terms 'natural' and 'normal' are both problematic. Neither penis is artificial, so both are 'natural', and whether either is 'normal' depends on context: in some societies uncircumcised is the norm, in others circumcised. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Natural" is not problematic. Circumcision is a body modification and is therefore unnatural. In any case, I'm happy about the change that was made. It now reads "Two different penises. The one on the right has been circumcised." It does without the words "uncircumcised" or "normal/natural". Hypochristy

You're failing to discriminate between the process and the end product. Circumcision is a human decision to modify the body, but the photograph isn't of circumcision. It is of a circumcised penis, and a circumcised penis is natural (it certainly wasn't constructed in a factory). Similarly, cutting one's fingernails is an act that modifies the body, but a hand with trimmed fingernails remains perfectly natural.

Anyway, the new caption is slightly problematic, because it describes only one of the two penes, which isn't quite WP:NPOV. However, I don't intend to fix it just yet. Jakew (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any (even slight) WP:NPOV problem, however, we could say something like "Two penises, the one on the left has a prepuce, while the one on the right does not". Personally, I think the way it's currently labeled is best, and I don't expect to see any complaints.--Studiodan (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, then, you would not see an NPOV problem with (when describing a group of schoolchildren) saying "here is a girl, here is a boy, and here is a black girl" (assume, please, that the first two children are white)? I would: it carries the implication that white skin is to be expected and that black skin requires mention. If one is truly neutral with respect to skin colour, one would either comment on the color of all children, or of none of them. Similarly, one should do the same with respect to circumcision status. As I indicated, I intend to fix this in future. Jakew (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a rather strange analogy. If black children were modified white children, then such a comparison might make sense, however that is not the case, and so the analogy doesn't apply. I think not circumcised would be better than uncircumcised, however I don't see the need.--Studiodan (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV applies whether or not one is a modified form of the other. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, there are issues of amelioration and pejoration when dealing with the terms "natural" versus "unnatural" that go far beyond the academic definition that's being asserted here. One needs but look to advertisements for food and medical products to see that the words have potential bias attached. Furthermore, we're dealing with something very controversial. It would be quite a different matter if, for instance, we were discussing a "gibbon in its natural state" or "margarine's natural coloration". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur that advocating the word "natural" in this context is, transparently, intended to push a point of view. Nandesuka (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The caption in article currently says, "Two different penises. The one on the right has been circumcised." Is there a problem with that? --Nigelj (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See my comment dated 12:01, 20 February 2010. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a strange analogy, because the whole point of these two photos is to show the circumcision. If the purpose of the children was to show their clothes, and the caption mentioned skin colour, that would be odd; if the purpose was to show their ethnicity, it would not. The rest of your discussion above revolves around the word natural, but the caption currently uses the word circumcised. What is wrong with that? --Nigelj (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose was to contrast their ethnicity, then one might say "here is a white girl and here is a black girl". One would not (I would hope) say "here is a girl and here is a black girl" — if the purpose of presenting both girls is to compare and contrast their ethnicity then the fact that one girl is black is no more and no less an issue than the fact that one girl is white. Similarly, both penises are presented because the purpose is to compare the two, to illustrate the difference between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis. Consequently the correct thing to do is to restore the previous caption, which described the state of both penes: "A circumcised penis (right) compared to an uncircumcised one."

There is no problem with the word currently used. The problem is that only one type of penis is described. Jakew (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a compromise because you and others couldn't agree between the use of uncircumcised and natural or normal in one case. The point about a compromise is that everyone is equally (un)happy. --Nigelj (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My personal feelings are not at issue here. The issue is one of WP:NPOV, and as I stated, I intend to fix the problem at some point in the near future. Jakew (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's such a big problem that only one is described. Look at the examples in WP:CAP; image captions do not need to be self-references. In fact, one might argue that they might technically be discouraged (WP:SELFREF). Might a caption that, in very plain language, describes circumcision work better? For instance, "Circumcision is a common procedure in which part or all of the foreskin of a penis is removed."

Another suggestion I might have would be to consider "not circumcised" (or "has not been circumcised") as a less irking form of "uncircumcised". Apart from that though... I might simply ask why the side-by-side is even necessary, and what it really adds that a standalone pic of a circumcised penis cannot offer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I worry about the wisdom of trying to accomodate a viewpoint that correct usage of a perfectly ordinary and neutral adjective is, in some way, upsetting. It seems to me that English speakers who find part of the English language irksome should really expect to be irked. Similarly, if someone finds the word "and" upsetting, I have every sympathy for them, but I will oppose any attempt to use contorted language in the encyclopaedia in order to avoid using the word. Nevertheless, I agree with your point that a side-by-side comparison is unnecessary, and I've replaced the image with one of a circumcised penis. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Image Upgrade

Proposed

Current image is simply useless as it only show the shaft of the subject of the article. Everything else not shown or blurred so it can be a photo of a finger body. I propose to replace it with another labeled image, which is sharp and good. What rationale is there to keep old blurry image? WP:NOTCENSORED - Yestadae (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. Huge improvement on previous. --Nigelj (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections here; agree that it's an improvement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The old picture was in black and white for no obvious reason. This image should be OK for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In its favor, I see that it is color, instead of black and white, and so more realistic looking in my opinion. From a medical or scientific perspective it is roughly equivalent to the previous image, perhaps slightly better. My description would be that the image is of a white male probably in the mid thirties with an average sized, uncircumcised, non-erect penis. Although it is as fairly representative of the topic as is possible, it would be nice to have images that show other aspects of the topic. Having said that, I see that there is an image of an uncircumcised penis on the article, as well as an erection development image. Perhaps images of the topic that are towards one end or the other of the bell curve, as well as men of other races? But -- those would be elsewhere in the article, and we are discussing the lede image.

As a lede image, I find this image to be acceptable until some better image may arise.

I think that the proper procedure given the past history of controversy with images on this and other sexuality articles is that we should revert back to the consensus image until it is clear that there may be a consensus for changing the image. I think that is what editor Nadesuka meant in his edit summary, and he was correct. At this point a clear consensus for the new image does not seem to be apparent. I am not being critical of editor Yestadae, as it appears that he is being bold. Since there has been some objection though, including reverting back to the conseus image, that is where it should be for the moment. Atom (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg. My reasons are as follows. Firstly, there is better contrast, so the shaft is more clearly defined. Secondly, it is better cropped, showing (for the most part) only the penis and (in the background), a leg. Appropriately, the penis (the subject of the photograph) is in sharp focus, but the leg is not. In comparison, File:Labelled flaccid penis.jpg has relatively poor contrast, shows the penis as well as a large portion of public hair, scrotum, and legs. All parts are in focus, making the intended subject of the photograph less than obvious. Jakew (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely undecided on this (I have no current, definate opinion as to which image I prefer). That said, I do slightly prefer File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg esthetically (though mostly from the standpoint of photography), but that shouldn't be a factor here. I do think the new image might be better for educational purposes. However, your mention of "sharp focus" brings to my attention one of the problems I can find with File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg (though very minor), and that has to do with the fact that the camera seems to have lens focus on the scrotum and pubic region, not the penis itself. Just my personal analysis, in case it helps anyone here.--Studiodan (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were down to me, the proposed new image would definitely get the vote. The current black and white image looks like something out of a 1950s text book, and it is misleading to say that there is a consensus in favour of keeping it when it the new image has received a fair amount of support. To put it another way, is there anyone here who hates the new image and would definitely veto it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not heard anyone claim there is a concensus for keeping the old image. It has been in the article a long time, and has gained consensus by that virtue alone. I don't see any edit wars on the issue, just a calm discussion of the proposal. We should give it more time and see what many people think. Atom (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the arguments from Jakew, I was thinking about cropping it as tightly as possible, but that will not leave any space for labels, or they will be forced to cover the subject, which is clearly unacceptable. Hate and other emotions are against WP:NPOV and should not be used as an argument here. Yestadae (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I much prefer Yestadae's newer photo. If we are toting up votes mine would be for his replacement. Body parts — and especially intimate body parts — are seldom very attractive when pictured in isolation unless rendered by assorted Renaissance artists. The longstanding photo is mildly repulsive: his proposed replacement, whatever the issues as to photographic expertise, is vastly less so. And, may I say, more informative. I say go ahead with his replacement image and delete the b&w one And no, don't crop it further: it's cropped quite enough. Masalai (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Masalai wrote: "mildly repulsive". Sometimes I feel as if I simply cannot understand peoples personal opinions on beauty. I don't see anything "mildly repulsive" about either of these photos.--Studiodan (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the new image over the old one. The old one is in black and white, and it's slightly out of focus. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 06:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "hate" was not intended to be used in an emotional sense. The main issue here is to prevent revolving door edits to the infobox image. I would like to put back the new image, but not if someone is going to revert it very quickly. Any objections?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I counsel patience. Ask yourself what level of urgency this has, and the potential risk of not changing the image. I think the risk of a problem or mis-information if we wait to gain consensus (assuming that happens) is extremely low. I don't think some woman will be shocked when she has sex for the first time to realize that a penis is in color and not black and white like she saw in Wikipedia. Do you feel there is a consensus? It is not a vote -- but two out of six or seven people in the recent few days have said they like the black and white image better. Atom (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is worth waiting a few days for some more comments. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, the votes so far are broadly in favour of the new image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support proposal - new image is far clearer, in colour, and (indeed) more representative, in its dimensions, of the average --Jubilee♫clipman 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BRD As there weren't any serious objections against the new image, I going to replace it now. Yestadae (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done. We'll never have unanimity but we certainly had consensus there I think. --Nigelj (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with no further cropping too. Apart from the labels, having a bit of context is no bad thing. If the image were (or could be) cropped to remove any skin that was not technically part of the penis, then we'd have no idea what we are looking at, how big it is, or where it is in relation to the rest of the body. Wikipedia is not paper, and if someone wants to have a really close look, they only need to click on the image, follow the 'Full resolution' link, zoom their browser with Ctrl-+, whatever they like. Nothing is lost by not cropping. --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Penis

My penis has a name. Why not talk about penis nomenclature?