Talk:Penis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The circumsized image

The "CIRCUMSIZED" image in clearly mislabeled. It is actually a non-circumsized penis with the foreskin pulled back. The foreskin is plainly visible. Please find a circumsized picture, for the sake of accuracy.

Penis (photo)

Apparently most of you prefer picture of an anormal penis. When I include the photo of a natural one (the french picture) instead of the picture of an anormal one you revert it to the old version. What's wrong with you ? You prefer that your childrens see diseases or a elephant's penis when they come here ? Think about your hypocrisy. User:Béa 23:34, July 19, 2005

That picture has too much foreskin. Only like one in thirty uncircumcised people has anywhere near that much, I say we pick a picture that better represents uncircumcised penises. [1] CI8 or CI6 on that chart look the most normal, and really are the most normal.

-- Isham

There are too many photographs. One is more than enough.

Penis (photo) enlargement

The flacced/erect photos seem a little small. I'm making them bigger. Eyeon 03:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Size doesn't matter. (sorry - I couldn't resist) Jez 4 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

Keep the disclaimer out

I should point out - we used to have individual article tagged with individual disclaimers. When we created the general disclaimer, we removed the individual tags in favor of having every page in the database link to the general disclaimer (which, in turn, links to the content disclaimer - Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Cantus' suggestion to the disclaimers back goes against the previously-decided policy. →Raul654 02:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

That policy is a legalistic policy. What i mean by this is that, medical disclaimers, legal advice disclaimers, safety disclaimers and the like are there to both warn and to prevent wikipedia getting sued by people who follow dodgy medical advice and harm themselves. This warning is entirely different. IMO it is more akin to a spolier warning on an article about a book. Just as some people might read an article about Harry Potter without expecting to have the plot revealed, it is also true that some people might visit a page on a sexual organ without expecting or wanting to see a photograph.There is currently a very active debate on talk:clitoris about this. Rather than do it again here would people who are interested please comment there. There is also a vote going on that you might like to put your name too. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 13:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Come on, please. This is an encyclopedia. When you look up "penis" in an encyclopedia, you expect to see pictures of penises. Can we please assume a reasonable degree of maturity on the readers' side? Kosebamse 20:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we take this to the mailing list, as it affects several other pages on the project. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest it is done in public, where everyone can see and judge.--Jirate 21:09, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I agree it should be public. But it needs to be all in one place. So can we all argue on the clitoris page please. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 21:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we add two other tags to wikipedia: {{Boys only}} and {{Girls Only}}. C'MON! Kids see genitals all the time - their own, for example, and possibly the genitals of others in public restrooms. Also, when the article name is "Penis" what do people think they will find?!--Deadworm222 18:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

(Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. →Raul654 00:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Please reprotect as Cantus is vanalising.--Jirate 02:12, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Phimosis

I wasn't too surprised to find the discussion of phimosis a teensy bit doom-laden. It can be a serious condition. However I've never once been able to retract my foreskin, and have a perfectly healthy penis. The condition is not painful, indeed the foreskin is quite sensitive but is amply elastic and provides enough freedom for masturbation and sexual intercourse. --Minority Report 00:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Legal concerns

I can't understand why Jakew removed a quote about the legal concerns of Australian medical authorities about routine infant circumcision. Perhaps he could explain why. Michael Glass 04:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The focus of the article is on the penis, and we should endeavour to keep discussion of circumcision brief, with lengthier discussions in the circumcision article. The RACP remarking on some unspecified person having speculated a legal problem with circumcision doesn't exactly immediate relevance. - Jakew 10:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct Jake, but do you think that for one moment that is going to stop your friends from attempting to slip their POV into every article they can? - Robert the Bruce 17:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right or wrong, the viewpoint exists. The article should reflect that view without judging it as incorrect. Making a judgement in neither direction is perfectly neutral. DanP 19:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Part of writing an encyclopaedia article is editing down the information to a subset that is considered relevant. The article isn't judging that POV as 'wrong', it simply doesn't mention it. - Jakew 19:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disturbing images

Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images: “This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.” For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on Clitoris. Rafał Pocztarski 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Images of penis' are neither graphic nor disturbing. They are anatomical, scientific, correct and appropriate. Roughly half of the population has a penis, hence sees daily. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 20:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, they are disturbing. If they disturb someone, they are, by definition, disturbing. You mean they don't disturb you.Dr Zen 06:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really, really, REALLY don't understand why some people find images of body part so disturbing. Good grief. It's is a normal, natural, healthy fact of life that people have penises. You are not going to go blind if you look at one. 207.157.121.50mightyafrowhitey

A refresher in logic. It is always important to quantify statements. It does not follow from the fact that some people are or do X that all people are or do X. Peanuts may be deadly to some people, but we do not put them beyond the reach of all people for that reason. 金 (Kim) 05:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some people are disturbed by pictures of dogs, maybe because they are afraid of them. If someone is SO disturbed by dogs, he will most probably not do a search on "dog" in Wikipedia!! At least that's what one might think, but no... I doubt that those who have been removing the pictures from the articles accidentally came here - they possibly had a set goal to remove all possible "disturbing images" they can find in Wikipedia. Getting back to the dog analogy, there's no way a person can completely avoid seeing dogs in his life. He must, for example, leave his apartment and outside he will most likely encounter dogs. ...Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go delete some pictures of dogs, they're freaky.--Deadworm222 19:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not to be disagreeable, but I think you miss the point. Some people want to control the access of other people to images that they find sexually stimulating or otherwise disturbing. 金 (Kim) 05:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we REALLY need pictures?

Wikipedia is a web site easily accessible (and usually frequently accessed) by young children across the world. While in your nation, you might not have a problem with a human penis, in some countries it is a very taboo thing. Before you shoot back with "PUH-LEEZE!" and "quit being so prudish!," I would like to ask you to take into consideration other cultural concerns. After all, I feel that my culture has made quite a few cultural concessions in the name of "progressivism," and I think it's high-time the favor was returned.

There are thousands of cultures in the world. I we start removing everything from Wikipedia that may possibly offend someone in some corner the globe soon there won't be much material left. Where do you draw the line? In some cultures you aren't even allowed to depict people. A penis isn't the most shocking thing in the world. If parents insist on an ultra traditional upbringing, fair enough, but then it's their responsibility to supervise their children, not ours. Wikipedia works on the principle of consensus, not veto. (God, here I am, on a Tuesday night, discussing penises on the internet) 137.222.40.132 19:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have sympathy with your position. However, it is not going to be resolved by constant reverts. I believe that there is a way in which to provide illustrations in articles relating to the human genitals which will produce both the educational accuracy and show respect for other cultures and the effect of explicit material on children. I ask you please to stop the revert war as it will serve only to harden the attitude of those who are currently driving the process of placing explicit material in the face of all comers regardless of quality on the basis of "any pic will do". Remember it is not you who has to grow up in this, what we need is a lot more maturity around here in the choice of illustrations. - Robert the Bruce 17:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not bowdlerized. Period. →Raul654 11:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
• I recomment you stop repeatedly reverting articles (which violates our Wikipedia:Three revert rule), get a user account, and wait a few weeks for any possible policy in the debate mentioned above to materialize. Then we can perhaps discuss the issue on this talk page and reach a compromise. Attempting to change the article by force, however, will not win you any sympathy. Cool Hand Luke 12:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about putting links to the images, rather than the images? That way, anybody fearing adverse consequences from viewing parts of the human anatomy that are normally publically visible only on statues could protect themselves from the perceived danger. That being said, the greater danger, in my experience, lies in a social situation in which some people have knowledge (or claimed knowledge) and can use that knowledge to manipulate people from whom knowledge has been withheld. "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours," is not always a 50-50 exchange even when both people are of the same age. 金 (Kim) 02:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would support this, especdially for the erect full-color images which are particularly taboo in many areas, and often considered offensive. I don't believe films featuring an erect penis in context, for example, can earn an R-rating in the US. Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But a feature film is for entertainment not education. Plus wikipedia is intended for adults not children. If we link to the picture what other pictures will we also have to link to? Where would we draw the line - should breasts be linked to, should paintings and sketches be linked to? What about statues -are they offensive? or hair? It's all very POV. It seems to me that the only easy place to draw a line, that wouldn't keep getting redrawn over and over again as new people with different POVs joined wikipedia is to say that normal healthy body parts taken with a view to education should be shown in appropriate articles. Dead, diseased,abnormal,or hacked off body parts should be debated on the talk page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe that standard is unworkable as it would include pornography (unless we're also committed to illustrating oral sex, anal sex, and others with photos). Should you add the qualifier, "except for pornography," you're again stuck with a sticky relativistic definition, so I don't believe such hard lines really resolve the question. (As an aside, many places do consider a closeup of an erect penis pornography.)

Wikipedia appears to be "designed to be read and edited by anyone," so I'm not sure it's intended for adults. Indeed, you've argued eloquently about it's good for 13 year-olds to read unbiased articles and look at the pictures. However, my argument isn't about the children. As has been said, there are far better places to get sexual images than an encyclopedia. My interest is not about protecting youth from seeing this, it's for retaining editors like this one who find the image objectionable. The reason I believe R-rated movies are significant is that many adult Americans will not attend movies that can't meet this standard—it's a significant portion of English-speaking adults who uncomfortable or even offended. This might seem very quaint, but I don't think these potential editors should be dissuaded—and Wikipedia's cultural left bias enhanced—by asserting as a matter of fact that these images are not or should not be offensive. At any rate, an encyclopedia edited by community consensus shouldn't place very many editorial decisions above debate.

At the very least, a compromise: use a black and white version of the photo, and link to the full color one from that. Cool Hand Luke 09:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make a reasonable point about drawing a line - I never thought of oral sex for example. So it just comes down to debate over each individual picture. So let's stick to this article alone. I do not understand you compromise above. Why is a black and white image less offensive than a colour one? I have an alternative proposal that people might agree to (though experience tells me they probably wont) What if we leave the flacid colour photo in and link to the erect one? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Balck-and-white images are less life-like and less likely to offend in my opinion. I think removing color often forces viewers to take images more artistically, more clinically. However, I think your proposal sounds reasonable, though I would like at least a diagram showing the process of an erection in the article itself. Cool Hand Luke 18:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I was growing up, kids who thought they knew something about sex used their supposed knowledge to take advantage of other kids. The control issues are major, and the information swapped around is of poor quality. Parents thought they were protecting their children by refusing to provide information. On a larger scale we see the same attitude coming from various people with their respective religious views. When they cannot convince people in their communities to adhere to their own values, they seek to use the law to enforce their preferences on other people. 金

I fully support the call for articles to cite documentation. Wikipedia should not supply misinformation. But to slant the truth by selectively withholding valid information is just as bad. We should always take a "major points first, minor points in order of importance" approach. Some issues, such as the composition of smegma, might eventually find a place in a really comprehensive encyclopedia, but before more important issues are covered, the minor ones can be handled by directing readers to more technical books or websites. 金 thumb|right|200px|

As for whether we should have an entry for fellatio, to me the question would be whether anybody would want information about that subject. Even WASP kids in conservative communities in the Mid West in the 1950s knew what a blow job was. What they did not know was that (1) you couldn't get pregnant that way, (2) you could get oral gonorrhea and other STDs, etc., etc. Some people went through a great deal of torment both because of fear of imaginary dangers and also because of being ignorant of real dangers. 金

A good model for the neutral presentation of information in this field is The Sex Atlas by Erwin J. Haeberle. ISBN: 0-8164-9124-0. "A critical summary, and a particularly handsome book. Highly recommended as a college text, for basic home or library reference, and for professionals." -- Library Journal That book does have pictures of fellatio, and the people depicted do not look like porn stars trying to look sexy for the camera. 金

There is software available that will block the display of naked bodies. (I think it works by measuring the precentage of the screen that is devoted to naked skin.) People who do not want their children to know what Mommy and Daddy look like under their clothes can get that software. (Actually, I think my Safari browser will do this just by setting the right preference, and it's all free.) Alternately, we can do what the sexually explicit websites do: A "green door" with the words "Do not go beyond this point if you will violate your own values by looking at real pictures with sexual content." 金 (Kim) 00:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have uploaded a Black and white version of the photo. I will let everyone debate whether it should replace the colour pic. Personally I think that the colour one should stay--Clawed 22:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

File:Flaccid and erect human penis (rendered).jpg

I took the liberty of editing Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg to create Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis_(rendered).jpg (shown right). I'll leave it up to the photographer and the editors in general to decide whether or not it could be a possible replacement. --Veratien 00:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• They look deformed... — CuaHL 01:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look deformed to me. --Veratien 17:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it looks deformed, myself. - However I do feel that it's less "useful" having, in essence, blurred the details of the photo. The article is about penises. Really, if you don't want to see a picture of one, don't come to an encyclopaedic article about them. If the picture were prominent, say, at the very top of the page, I can understand the stance that it could be 'inadvertently viewed' via a malicious link. But given that you have to scroll down to even see any pictures, you should have plenty of opportunity to "opt-out", as it were, of possible exposure to any evil penis pictures. boinger 15:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with Boinger. The manipulated picture looks odd. This is an encyclopedia. Let's have the information in the article in a clear and clinical manner. Joyous (talk) 16:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

---

Could someone find some anatomical drawings and use those instead? They might look more abstract and "clinical". If one had labels to the parts then that'd be even more useful. -Willmcw 07:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not against a photo of a penis, per se. The erect one, though, is problematic. There is a diagram already, which I think serves pretty well.Dr Zen 07:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is problematic about the picture of the erect penis? Joyous (talk) 16:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I only have two problems with this article, one of which shall be discussed in a different section. The other problem is that, though a picture of a flaccid penis and erect penis is all good and well, it is rather useless. What would be better is an anatomical animation or diagram showing how a penis becomes erect (displaying the inside of the penis). I'm afraid, however, I cannot find one. Wolf ODonnell 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, penis rocks and the pictures should stay. but I'm just wondering who volunteered to have their [beautiful] penis displayed on Wikipedia? Did I mention PENIS!!!-Fall Out Girl

Monochrome versus color

Sorry to bring up an old question, but why is the monochrome version of Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg used on this page? There was some discussion above, and it appeared that only one editor wanted a black-and-white version, apparently because color versions are more titillating. Noone else seem to agree. Then the monochrome image was unilaterally added in place of the original color version, and noone seemed to say anything. I think the original color version should go back up. This idea that monochrome images are somehow more clinical is silly (all medical text-books nowadays have color images, for obvious reasons), and someone who is going to be offended by a color image is going to be offended by an image of an erect penis, no matter what color it is in. — Asbestos | Talk 00:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Would there be an objection to a return of the color picture that was there before and is currently at Erection? — Asbestos | Talk 17:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Asbestos | Talk 17:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much better! I didn't realise there was a color version of that picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the black and white version which is much more clinical, IMHO. No need for a "titillating" color picture. Absolutely unnecessary. Of course the defender of all things porn present here will provide arguments against this and he will not tire on his intent to go back to a color picture until Jimbo Wales has to remove the image himself. If we discuss heatedly, this will take a couple of weeks to occur. I'll just sit here and wait :). Let the debate begin, Tony. —Cantus…☎ 18:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Do stop ranting, Cantus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, but that would make much more sense if redirected to you! —Cantus…☎ 19:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation." (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how a colour picture is more titillating than B/W so I reverted it back. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why there isn't black and white porn nowadays. —Cantus…☎ 19:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

What a dick. I wonder why the medical profession doesn't solely use b/w photos anymore. If they're so clinical ... TIMBO (T A L K) 19:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clear your browser caches, chaps. Cantus has replaced the image on Commons with a copy of the black and white one. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I re-uploaded the color version... — Davenbelle 20:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The raphe pic - a new low for Wikipedia

I am interested to hear from anyone who can make head or tail out of the pathetic excuse for a depiction of the raphe. But I suppose it's inclusion will be defended to the death. Really sad for Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 07:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I defy anyone to identify that correctly without its label! I'm going to try it on the missus... nope, she couldn't. Dr Zen 06:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It probably would only be of interest to someone who wonders what happened to him to give him such a scar. It wasn't the first time my doctor had heard the question, and ignorance and fear are great sources of trouble in our world. 金 (Kim) 07:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question wasn't whether anyone would want to see one, but whether this actually was a good illustration of one. Dr Zen 23:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

¡The picture is damned close! ¡None can tell what it is! What we need is a picture about an intact penis and scrotum showing the raphe running from the outer præpuce, down the shaft, over the scrotum, perineum where it ends.

--

Ŭalabio 01:04, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Well, rather than complaining about the unskillful picture-taking, how about supplying a better photo? 金 (Kim) 04:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well now, I have two reasons:

1. I do not have pictures about my genitals lying around
2. My genitals are restored -- not intact

What we need is a food picture about the raphe in the public domain. I shall search.

--

Ŭalabio 05:18, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

• Your efforts are to be welcomed. However, you should be aware that as a POV warrior whatever you produce will need to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that all is above board (so to speak). - Robert the Bruce 12:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • POV warrior is simply name-calling, Robert. While I think the debate here is good, my question is: should this specifically be in the penis article? I realize the raphe is partially a component of the penis, but can the photo in a separate "raphe" article, and then mention and link to it in this article? My concern is that the raphe extends beyond the penis, and is not specific only to it. We don't have close-ups of, say, public hair shavings, random sections of mucosa, muscle, microscopic nerve endings, etc. and then discuss their relation to the penis as a whole. DanP 14:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not name calling Dan ... a statement of fact. Here follows three mails from anti-circumcision activist lists confirming just who are the POV warriors: - Robert the Bruce 14:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A call for help (and the identification of the full-time intactivists):

¡Vigilance on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org!
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:22:55 +0000
 
¡Hello!

¿How Fare You?

Well my fellow Intactivists:

The circumcisiophiliacs won this round on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.
The main problem is that they are more commited than we (they make it 
impossible for us to correct any of their lies and bias on præpuce and
circumcision). Now, they go after our articles (maybe I should not have
tried to expose them by writing about Circumfetishism).

Hugh Young wrote complaining about me creating articles about 
Intactivism and Genital Integrity without consulting anyone. He was
right to complain; I did create such articles without consulting. Let
me just point out to things though:

1I invited other Intactivists to join me last year to join
Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org last year (within a month of that, I gave up
on editing Præpuce and Circumcision because I was so badly outnumbered,
that I could not do any good).
2I am the only full-time Intactivist with Michael Glass and Dan
Blackham dropping in every now and then.

Now that you are all temporarily here, I ask you to stay. If you would
just check on our articles weekly and also præpuce, circumcision, and
articles linking to them, it would truly help much. While you are at
it, you can edit and start other articles. ¡Editing and starting
articles is fun! Look at this cool article, which I started about
Laurentia.

¡E Pluribus Unum!

¡Thanks!

Ŭalabio

¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover  --  Saudi-Mite!

¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens!  

The call to arms for an editwar:

¡Circumcisiophiliacs attack Daivid Peter Reimer!
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:35:45 +0000

¡Hello!

¿How Fare You?

The circumcisiosexuals desecrate the article about David Peter Reimer.
Some of us share the fate of David Peter Reimer, and the any one of 
the rest of us could have shared his fate.  I do not care what those
perverts do among themselves, but I hate the way those pædophiles go
after children, and I refuse to let them vandalize David Peter Reimer.
If it were not for those perverts he and his brother Brian might be
alive today and the family Reimer would be much more happy.

If the want total editwar, ¡we will give then total editwar!

The article is here:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/David_Peter_Reimer

This is its history:

HTTP://WikiPedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Reimer&action=history

This is the page for discussing changes to the article:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/Talk:David_Reimer

¡Hurry!  ¡Create an account, login, and help!

Intactivistically,
Ŭalabio


¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover  --  Saudi-Mite!

¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens!

DanP's call for help:

Need some help on Wikipedia
Subject: Need some help on Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:27:55 -0700 (PDT)

Dear group,

I have been battling the pro-circumcision folks on
Wikipedia again, hoping to list "circumciser" as a
valid article entry.  I have tried to keep the article
as factual as possible and related to world cultures.

If you are active on Wikipedia, please go to that
article and give me a hand.  So far, the pro-MGM side
has been voting to delete, and I could use some
assistance.

Thanks,

Dan

• • • (deleting massive email insertion). True or not, "POV warrior" is still name-calling, which is a cheap shot and implies something is going on beyond merely exposing the truth. Nothing in your insertion proves that, unless the only "right" POV is yours. While we may disagree on issues, that does not mean either one of us is "wrong". I have invited you consistently to share your POV, and I never discouraged your involvement. Strange that I'm agreeing with you here that the raphe photo is out-of-place, but we seem to have different views on what to do. Do you want to delete everything and make unproven accusations, or do you want to help? DanP 15:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry Dan can't let you try and destroy the evidence. The use of the term "POV warrior"is tame IMO. The people around here need to understand just what you people are up to. - Robert the Bruce 15:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • • What are you talking about? I never claimed value-neutrality, and objected to feigned neutrality at all times, which is a trademark of the "POV warrior". Strangely, I respect your honesty with regard to your mutilation advocacy, but nothing justifies name-calling. I am baffled that you prefer the stealth and pretentious behavior, especially considering that I've been trying to agree with you on something. So what do you want to do here? DanP 19:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Penis size myths & legends

I deleted the entire section Penis size myths & legends, which was a duplicate of info in the penis size article. That article has been edited to improve the discussion. -Willmcw 01:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am deleting some sentences from the reassurances section on the air of mystery with regard to hypospadias. It is not a scientific term and no sources seem to be cited proving that mysterious air lies anywhere in the penis. DanP 22:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right to remove this 'mysterious air' business. It seems rather nutty to me. - Jakew 00:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Political Correctness

Though it is not a huge concern, I do believe this article should use the politically preferred "intact" instead of "uncircumcised" User:68.117.69.182

I do not see any issues of political correctness with uncircumcised. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 06:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, intact seems more POV than uncircumcised. Also, intact detracts from the informative value of the article. The definition of 'intact' is completely undamaged, and left completely whole (unless I'm mistaken). However, the sentences in question are not comparing an unaltered penis with a circumcised one. It's comparing specifically an uncicumcised one with a circumcised one. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but why create confusion where there isn't any yet? I also agree with hamanshu, and I still don't know whether uncircumcised has a pro or anti-circumcision connotation. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I know. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, uncircumcised is more specific, more accurate and perfectly fine to use. Quite frankly, using the word "intact" makes it sound like a circumcised penis has been mutilated or something. I'm not sure if the original poster was committing vandalism or engaging in an edit war by changing the wording four times but the issue should have been brought to the talk page first. GabrielF 06:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Granted, that was kind of an editing war. "Uncircumcised" implies incomplete, or below standards.

I think using "intact" means that a circumcised penis is somehow "destroyed". Now I know that some people indeed consider that to be the case. However, I have known quite a few circumcised men, mostly Muslims, none of whom ever complained about being circumcised, and most indeed considered uncircumcised penises somewhat odd. I think that "intact" is not politically anything, and has certainly nothing to do with "political correctness", but is merely supposed to push once again the POV of the foreskin gang, people who seem to spend an incredible amount of thinking about something -- how shall I put it politely -- rather smallish? -- AlexR 06:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I circumcised penis is bad, simply that and intact penis is, well, intact.

But not all uncircumcised penises are intact. -Frazzydee|✍ 06:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think we are talking about a natural penis

MVP notice

Do we really need the MVP tag on the article page? Why not put in on top of the talk page? TIMBO (T A L K) 23:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it. Generally speaking, any active Wikipedian knows that this article would be frequently vandalized and an inactive Wikipedian wouldn't check his or her watchlist often enough to be of any help. It might be worth putting here, but not in the article itself, where it just looks bad. Everyking 00:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That tag is obvious m:instruction creep. →Raul654 00:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

El-Bahnsawy

Please could someone explain why the following paragraph (as edited by myself) is under "Fears and Reassurances"? It isn't remotely associated with either. Unless someone can justify its inclusion in that section, it should either be moved to a different section or removed altogether.

In childhood, according to the study Paediatric penile trauma, male circumcision is the most common form of genital trauma; it occurred in two-thirds of the physical traumas examined (El-Bahnasawy 2002) [3]

- Jakew 12:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"uncircumcised"

I find that expression un-"straight forward" too. Why not add unpierced to the description as well? Use of the adjective implies that it is an exception, and by global or european standards it is not. Isn't wikipedia supposed to be directed to a global audience?

cutoff penises

Is there any official term for when the penis gets cutoff (not circumcission, but cut from ballsack)? --SuperDude 13:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is penectomy what you're looking for? - Jakew 15:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question on one of the edits

Can someone tell me why the changes made by Pfrostym were undone? I just don't get the point what was wrong with this picture/text. Perhaps I misunderstood something because I'm not a native english speaker, so perhaps you can help me. Thanks :)

removed link to Penis, Uruguay

I've removed this text:

This article cover the male organ penis. For the town in Uruguay, see Penis, Uruguay

... because there is currently no article about the town. In fact, Google didn't find anything about the town, so I am not sure it exists. If anyone thinks it does exist and needs a link from here, please write a stub article at Penis, Uruguay before putting the link back. Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a double entendre for "penis, you are gay", but it's extremely vague and really immature. Deleting it was a good idea.

List of names for the human penis

A list of (slang and other) names for the human penis has twice been rejected for this article. However, List of names for the human penis has twice been nominated for deletion and twice it has been suggested during the discussion that it be merged here. There are both an article and a thesaurus entry for penis at Wiktionary (WikiSaurus:penis and penis). I propose the same solution here as was long since adopted by cannabis (drug) to keep the long list of slang words out of that article, namely links to the Wiktionary article and Wikisaurus entry. Please come to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of names for the human penis (2nd nomination) and discuss. Uncle G 12:13:41, 2005-08-02 (UTC)

why is this done? I personal feel that this is information that might be needed but thats just my say! 68.49.59.129

Lists of names are now in Body parts slang. -Willmcw 21:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Altered penis picture

Comparing the two side by side, it looks to me as if the only change is that the new version is of lower quality. The hairs surrounding cannot be seen clearly, and the skin texture cannot be viewed--particularly the contrast between the glans and the foreskin. I am reverting this because I don't see what improvement we get in return for this loss of image quality. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Thanks, Tony. Joyous (talk) 16:43, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Wikipedia is supposed to be informative, and pictures speak more than words at times. Softening the image is just like softening the wording of the article — CuaHL 17:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page due to constant vandalism. Please notice that: 1)Protection is not endorsement of the current version; 2)This is a temporary measure, and the article will not remain protected forever. Regards, Redux 20:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh?? Yesterday there were just two, minor, completely separate incidents of vandalism. There's no revert war going on. If we block pages which are, by their very nature, targets of vandalism, when would they ever be unblocked? There were far more incidents of vandalism on George W. Bush in that same period. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 11:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe request that article for page protection? — CuaHL 12:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, my point is the opposite: there is no reason to protect George W. Bush, and no reason to protect Penis. The vandalisms will never stop, so once the page is unprotected they will merely start up again at the same rate. Protection is supposed to enforce a cooling-off period between warring parties, and encourage talk-page usage. Somehow I doubt that this will cause the 13-year-olds to post talk-page messages saying "But I really think the article ought to include "Penis is for sex 1111 oneone fff lol rofl on your face"" (one recent vandalism). — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Protection for targets of vandalism?. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the discussion started by Asbestos, this protection does seem to serve a purpose. Please visit the indicated page for more details. On this particular instance: would you guys prefer I unprotect the page now, or keep it protected over the weekend? For a first time, a 24-hour protection (which has already been exceeded) is the standard, but it's always best to check with the people who have been dealing with the problem the longest. Regards, Redux 00:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now removed the protection, after nearly 80 hours of protection. Let's see what will happen about the insistent vandalism. Regards, Redux 03:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

images

I reomved some explict images I saw in tha article.

I put them back. There has been extensive discussion about the images in the article. Please read this page and discuss changes before removing the pictures. Joyous (talk) 20:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think the explicit image of an erect and flaccid penis should be removed...why does the article need images of the actual organ when there's a diagram? Even if that argument doesn't work, why show the erect penis? What educational purpose does that serve?

Because a diagram is not the actual organ. There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing a natural part of the human body in an encyclopedic and non-prurient manner. FCYTravis 08:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

All of this raises the question of what those who are offended by the photos expect to see when they come to an article entitled "Penis". A picture of a pony? This has been hashed out ad-infinitum. Pictures of the penis are absolutely appropriate as long as (1) they illustrate some point in the article well, (2) they are technically good pictures, and (3) the article is better and more useful with them than without them. The existing pictures, I think, meet all of those criteria. "Explicit" is not sufficient criteria to remove images, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Nandesuka 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

wiki markup - need help

can somebody please fix this as I don't know how. It is not displaying correctly in the article (at least on my web browser)

===Altering the male genitalia===
<div style="float:right; margin-left:10px; margin-right:10px; width:300px; text-align:center">
[[Image:Uncircpn.jpg|131px]]
[[image:Circpn.jpg|136px]]<br>
<small>''A circumcised penis pictured right''
</small>
</div>

--Clawed 05:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg too big

This image was recently used for vandalism at Hurricane Katrina. While I support its inlining in this article, I don't think an image of this size should be provided to vandals so easily - note that Image:Circpn.jpg and Image:Uncircpn.jpg are already on MediaWiki:Bad image list. So, I think that this should be put on the bad image list, a smaller version (the size of the thumbnail in the article) uploaded and inlined in the article, and the large version linked to from the caption. Comments? ~~ N (t/c) 17:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

from [2] "temporary addition of :Image:Circpn.jpg to block a persistent vandal" "add :Image:Uncircpn.jpg as well"--Clawed 22:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will actually work. What's to stop a vandal using 100 small images instead? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure they would, but 100 tiny penises has nowhere near the impact on the viewer (and anyone else in the room) as 1 huge one. Oh, and now that circpn and uncircpn are off the bad image list, I propose the same thing for them. ~~ N (t/c) 00:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't hurt to give it try I suppose. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I just didit. It now looks colder, less pornographic and it is only 25% the original size (half resolution, that is). I also removed the "red light" ambience which only added to the image's bad reputation :-) --Shadi nija 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care for the new image. The pic on the left, especially, looks blurred and cartoonish. Joyous (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

How about you try it again with only scaling, no filtering? (And scale it in a good program, like Photoshop or GIMP, if you can - not Paint). ~~ N (t/c) 03:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I did scale in Photoshop CS2, but I also applied some extreme graduation curves... I'll try again right now. --Shadi nija 08:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It lost color, magnitude and detail. And what's so good about the other picture looking "colder, less pornographic"? Hello? It's a penis! It's *supposed* to look pornographic! Isn't this a bit like trying to find a picture of a hamburger that looks less tasty? Why don't we go and look for a picture of a racehorse that makes it look like it pulls a plough for a living? Or a car with a set of bricks under the axle where the wheels should be? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that an image of a penis doesn't necessarily have to look pornographic. If it's placed on a pillow of black velvet, and some red lights are used, and you give it a slight romantic blur, it probably will. By the way, an image would be preferrable that shows only the penis, not a h

I know this an old debate, but I agree "pictures" of penises should not be on this site. Would any print enyclopedia, other than a medical one, include such pictures? A diagram would however be acceptable, as I think most encylopedia's would include such diagrams. Not that wikipedia should always do what Britanica does, as I feel Wikipedia is far superior, but I think such an action would help wikipedia be treated as a "real" encylopedia. Could you imagine what a newspaper or cable news outlet would make out of these images?