![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Penis_reduced.jpg shows two penises but looking closely at the picture I do not believe they are the same penis. The erect and not erect pictures should be of the same penis.-- Gbleem 05:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
A large part of the edits to this article is vandalism of teh kind which would be blocked by semi-protection. What would people think about permanently semi-protecting the article? Thue | talk 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Semi protection is a measure we can now use against serious vandalism. Although this page does suffer quite a lot of vandalism I don't believe it to be serious enough to warrent semiprotection. Some pages, e.g. George W. Bush suffers periods of very intense vandalism that interfere with people's ability to actually edit the page. I've not seen that problem occuring here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
could somebody please remove the pornographic images from this article-- 63.22.0.39 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
i have removed some evil, please don't put it back-- 64.12.116.139 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just me, but I find "Other terms for it are: the (male) member or - for the erect state - the phallus. " to be very cludgy/clunky as a sentence. I suggest a rewording, but am not sure how important leaving in the male member reference is. I do agree with leaving the phallus. Gordon Bonnar 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In the circumsicisian section there are two photos showing the difference between a circumsided and uncircumsised penis.
User:Masalai recently changed the caption from
Uncircumcised penis (L), circumcised penis (R). to Uncircumcised penis (L), uncircumcised penis with foreskin retracted(R).'. [1]
and after I reverted then placed this on my talk page
The image in question was was first uploaded to the russian wikipedia and can be forun here [2]
For the moment I have replaced the two images with another single photo from wikipedia commons-- Clawed 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Template:adult tag, on the basis that this is completely POV. If younger readers can't handle information about the penis, then they shouldn't read an article with that title. Benami 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed a sentence about pediatric penile trauma that cited a study done by M.S. EL-BAHNASAWY and M.T. EL-SHERBINY of The Urology and Nephrology Centre, Mansoura University Mansoura, Egypt. The study specifically states in "In our region, ritual circumcision and hair-tie strangulation injuries are the most common causes of penile trauma in children." The sentence in the article left out the words "In our region" - that is, the area served by the clinic at Mansoura University in Egypt- thereby making the conclusions seem stronger and more universally applicable than they actually were. Benami 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Relation to female genitals
The glans of the penis is homologous to the clitoral glans, the corpora cavernosa are homologous to the body of the clitoris, the corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs beneath the labia minora, and the scrotum is homologous to the labia minora, labia majora and clitoral hood. The raphe does not exist in females, because there the two halves are not connected.
I'm seeing a lot of big words but they're all gibberish to me. Without the aid of a diagram or some other aid to tell what it is each term is talking about, is it really helping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airconditioning ( talk • contribs) .
Is it really apprioprate to post pictures of erect male penises? I think it should be taken down.
I removed the following passage from the "Fears and Reassurance" section:
This describes a birth defect, not something along the lines of penis hysteria. It seemed to be badly placed, and the last sentence seems like fluff. Benami 05:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
dose this page really need 2 pictures displaying the male penis, i think its quit bold and may disgust some readers
If someone comes to an article about the penis, I'm sure that's what they expect to see. The article on the ear should have a picture of one, as well as diagrams, because pictures and diagrams both give useful but different information. So should this article. Thumbelina 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Penis article without images would be less informative. The article is written in an informative and tasteful manner. There are people without easy access to libraries that may need this information.-- FloNight 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's infantile to be afraid of viewing (or others viewing) an image of any part of human anatomy. "Offense" is not an argument, it's just a label for dislike. I have not seen anyone actually present a rationale in support of censorship that does not amount to "I or other people may not like this." Postdlf 00:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are now three pictures of a flaccid/erect penis - two uncircumcised, one circumcised. Should one of the uncircumcised be removed to limit file size/redundancy? DonaNobisPacem 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If people are too insecure about their own sexuality that even seeing a picture of a penis leads them to question it, that who am I to force them?--—The preceding signed comment was added by Bob Saget ( talk • contribs) {{SUBST:{2|}}}. 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
why is there a section dedicated to the animal penis, most of the information for the section is crude and unnecessary
Believe it or not humans are animals too, hence we also have animal penises. And anyway, the vast majority of the penises in the world are nonhuman, so it only makes sense to cover them as well. -- Cyde Weys 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't an article on the human penis - it is on the penis in general...regardless of what species it belongs to.
Does anyone have any idea about why this page is currently protected from being edited?
The thumbnail picture under erection is broken and I can't fix because I don't have an account. Please fix, thank you.
I reverted this version:
back to:
The first version is too argumentative and the topic is better left to be dealt with within the main article ( genital modification and mutilation). ⇔ | | ⊕ ⊥ ( t- c- e) 06:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
An image, Image:Penis3ym.jpg, has been being added to the "Size" section by User:Poona. This image doesn't seem to add much, if anything, to the article, which already has various illustrations, and certainly seem to add anything to the section on penis size. I, and others, have removed this photo for this reason. -- AJR | Talk 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
what's going on here?-- Alhutch 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hows about we make a censored page of this, without all of the {{NAMEOFPAGE}}
Even though the pictures on this page are appropriate to the topic, I think that for some, even the 2 or 3 photos on this page may be a little too graphic. Perhaps you can remove the photos and just create links to them with a warning for mature audiences only.
As a child, other children had power over me because of what they knew and what I was not permitted to know. It does not hurt children to see "the real thing." What hurts is ignorance and fear. And, let me ask, do you think a sign will keep a curious eleven year old from accessing the information s/he is desperate to have?
金 (Kim)
23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there summat offensive about a part of the human body? When SHOULD children see a penis or vagina? The day they get married? Nah, you make summat rude by making it rude. It's just a body part, so these pictures wont be going anywhere thank you very much
So, whilst doing some research on music, I wanted to read Wikipedia's description of a 'presto'. Clicking on it brought me to 'Penis'.
On this occasion, I'd have settled for a stub, rather than penis.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.86.11 ( talk • contribs) .
Perhaps the unsigned one entered "Presto Change-o!" Sometimes computers have a sense of humor, even if sarcastic. ;-) 金 (Kim) 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Mention how Mother Nature ever figured out how to make two functions into one unit, i.e., urine and sperm use same hole. Also if all other animals are like that. Hmmm, eating and breathing use same throat, also multi-function...
Can someone familiar with the topic of anatomical records see if there's anything worth merging from this article to here? Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The Latin word for "tail" is cauda... I do not see how this is relevant to the word penis. Should this bit in the entymology section be removed?
I have 2 questions about it:
The Republican 03:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Cyde Weys 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the image 'Penis reduced.jpg'? Someone had defaced it with a large black rectangle. I have tried to revert it to an original version, but it is confusing, what with browser caching. I needed 'Shift-Ctrl-R' here on Firefox/Linux to see my changes. I believe 'Ctrl-F5' and 'Shift-F5' work on other clients. But looking at the history of the image, this is a regular sport it seems. Maybe if the article needs protecting then so do the images? By the way, I'm not sure that I finally reverted to the best previous version as there are so many. This one was "17:27, 18 September 2005 . . Nickptar", and looks fine to me. -- Nigelj 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think non human penis section should be removed (or separted), otherwise, it's appropriate to be placed with other articles about human organs 86.16.112.143 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That section gets me excited -- 24.167.241.163 04:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should issue a warning about the pictures below.... I don't mind it but some people might. Pseudoanonymous 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Images of penises seem appropriate for an article with the title penis. If you read the text above this has all been discussed before. Biggishben 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
One has been implemented on Circumcision.-- BerserkerBen 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any need for this article to remain semi-protected. It has been protected since 5 May.-- Clawed 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Im removing that male genital infection photo.There is no need for it and i nearly get sick looking at it.-- Dermo69
There has been another vandalism in this article. I think you need to have it semiprotected again, or vandals might ruin the integirty of this page.
{{linkimage|Penis_reduced.jpg|A penis in both flaccid and fully erect states (
larger version).}}
I suggest that the photographs of phalli be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown in the example here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human genitalia.
John254
05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would christians or any religion be offended by this article? Didn't jesus have a penis? Honestly, its npov encylopedic information about the penis, thats it, of course it has to have pictures,it would be an insufficent enclopedic entry otherwise, and wikipedia is an encylopeia.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Penis_reduced.jpg shows two penises but looking closely at the picture I do not believe they are the same penis. The erect and not erect pictures should be of the same penis.-- Gbleem 05:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
A large part of the edits to this article is vandalism of teh kind which would be blocked by semi-protection. What would people think about permanently semi-protecting the article? Thue | talk 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Semi protection is a measure we can now use against serious vandalism. Although this page does suffer quite a lot of vandalism I don't believe it to be serious enough to warrent semiprotection. Some pages, e.g. George W. Bush suffers periods of very intense vandalism that interfere with people's ability to actually edit the page. I've not seen that problem occuring here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
could somebody please remove the pornographic images from this article-- 63.22.0.39 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
i have removed some evil, please don't put it back-- 64.12.116.139 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it's just me, but I find "Other terms for it are: the (male) member or - for the erect state - the phallus. " to be very cludgy/clunky as a sentence. I suggest a rewording, but am not sure how important leaving in the male member reference is. I do agree with leaving the phallus. Gordon Bonnar 03:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In the circumsicisian section there are two photos showing the difference between a circumsided and uncircumsised penis.
User:Masalai recently changed the caption from
Uncircumcised penis (L), circumcised penis (R). to Uncircumcised penis (L), uncircumcised penis with foreskin retracted(R).'. [1]
and after I reverted then placed this on my talk page
The image in question was was first uploaded to the russian wikipedia and can be forun here [2]
For the moment I have replaced the two images with another single photo from wikipedia commons-- Clawed 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Template:adult tag, on the basis that this is completely POV. If younger readers can't handle information about the penis, then they shouldn't read an article with that title. Benami 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed a sentence about pediatric penile trauma that cited a study done by M.S. EL-BAHNASAWY and M.T. EL-SHERBINY of The Urology and Nephrology Centre, Mansoura University Mansoura, Egypt. The study specifically states in "In our region, ritual circumcision and hair-tie strangulation injuries are the most common causes of penile trauma in children." The sentence in the article left out the words "In our region" - that is, the area served by the clinic at Mansoura University in Egypt- thereby making the conclusions seem stronger and more universally applicable than they actually were. Benami 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Relation to female genitals
The glans of the penis is homologous to the clitoral glans, the corpora cavernosa are homologous to the body of the clitoris, the corpus spongiosum is homologous to the vestibular bulbs beneath the labia minora, and the scrotum is homologous to the labia minora, labia majora and clitoral hood. The raphe does not exist in females, because there the two halves are not connected.
I'm seeing a lot of big words but they're all gibberish to me. Without the aid of a diagram or some other aid to tell what it is each term is talking about, is it really helping? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Airconditioning ( talk • contribs) .
Is it really apprioprate to post pictures of erect male penises? I think it should be taken down.
I removed the following passage from the "Fears and Reassurance" section:
This describes a birth defect, not something along the lines of penis hysteria. It seemed to be badly placed, and the last sentence seems like fluff. Benami 05:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
dose this page really need 2 pictures displaying the male penis, i think its quit bold and may disgust some readers
If someone comes to an article about the penis, I'm sure that's what they expect to see. The article on the ear should have a picture of one, as well as diagrams, because pictures and diagrams both give useful but different information. So should this article. Thumbelina 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Penis article without images would be less informative. The article is written in an informative and tasteful manner. There are people without easy access to libraries that may need this information.-- FloNight 20:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's infantile to be afraid of viewing (or others viewing) an image of any part of human anatomy. "Offense" is not an argument, it's just a label for dislike. I have not seen anyone actually present a rationale in support of censorship that does not amount to "I or other people may not like this." Postdlf 00:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There are now three pictures of a flaccid/erect penis - two uncircumcised, one circumcised. Should one of the uncircumcised be removed to limit file size/redundancy? DonaNobisPacem 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
If people are too insecure about their own sexuality that even seeing a picture of a penis leads them to question it, that who am I to force them?--—The preceding signed comment was added by Bob Saget ( talk • contribs) {{SUBST:{2|}}}. 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
why is there a section dedicated to the animal penis, most of the information for the section is crude and unnecessary
Believe it or not humans are animals too, hence we also have animal penises. And anyway, the vast majority of the penises in the world are nonhuman, so it only makes sense to cover them as well. -- Cyde Weys 20:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't an article on the human penis - it is on the penis in general...regardless of what species it belongs to.
Does anyone have any idea about why this page is currently protected from being edited?
The thumbnail picture under erection is broken and I can't fix because I don't have an account. Please fix, thank you.
I reverted this version:
back to:
The first version is too argumentative and the topic is better left to be dealt with within the main article ( genital modification and mutilation). ⇔ | | ⊕ ⊥ ( t- c- e) 06:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
An image, Image:Penis3ym.jpg, has been being added to the "Size" section by User:Poona. This image doesn't seem to add much, if anything, to the article, which already has various illustrations, and certainly seem to add anything to the section on penis size. I, and others, have removed this photo for this reason. -- AJR | Talk 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
what's going on here?-- Alhutch 02:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hows about we make a censored page of this, without all of the {{NAMEOFPAGE}}
Even though the pictures on this page are appropriate to the topic, I think that for some, even the 2 or 3 photos on this page may be a little too graphic. Perhaps you can remove the photos and just create links to them with a warning for mature audiences only.
As a child, other children had power over me because of what they knew and what I was not permitted to know. It does not hurt children to see "the real thing." What hurts is ignorance and fear. And, let me ask, do you think a sign will keep a curious eleven year old from accessing the information s/he is desperate to have?
金 (Kim)
23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there summat offensive about a part of the human body? When SHOULD children see a penis or vagina? The day they get married? Nah, you make summat rude by making it rude. It's just a body part, so these pictures wont be going anywhere thank you very much
So, whilst doing some research on music, I wanted to read Wikipedia's description of a 'presto'. Clicking on it brought me to 'Penis'.
On this occasion, I'd have settled for a stub, rather than penis.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.176.86.11 ( talk • contribs) .
Perhaps the unsigned one entered "Presto Change-o!" Sometimes computers have a sense of humor, even if sarcastic. ;-) 金 (Kim) 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Mention how Mother Nature ever figured out how to make two functions into one unit, i.e., urine and sperm use same hole. Also if all other animals are like that. Hmmm, eating and breathing use same throat, also multi-function...
Can someone familiar with the topic of anatomical records see if there's anything worth merging from this article to here? Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The Latin word for "tail" is cauda... I do not see how this is relevant to the word penis. Should this bit in the entymology section be removed?
I have 2 questions about it:
The Republican 03:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
-- Cyde Weys 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the image 'Penis reduced.jpg'? Someone had defaced it with a large black rectangle. I have tried to revert it to an original version, but it is confusing, what with browser caching. I needed 'Shift-Ctrl-R' here on Firefox/Linux to see my changes. I believe 'Ctrl-F5' and 'Shift-F5' work on other clients. But looking at the history of the image, this is a regular sport it seems. Maybe if the article needs protecting then so do the images? By the way, I'm not sure that I finally reverted to the best previous version as there are so many. This one was "17:27, 18 September 2005 . . Nickptar", and looks fine to me. -- Nigelj 20:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think non human penis section should be removed (or separted), otherwise, it's appropriate to be placed with other articles about human organs 86.16.112.143 09:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That section gets me excited -- 24.167.241.163 04:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should issue a warning about the pictures below.... I don't mind it but some people might. Pseudoanonymous 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Images of penises seem appropriate for an article with the title penis. If you read the text above this has all been discussed before. Biggishben 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
One has been implemented on Circumcision.-- BerserkerBen 18:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there any need for this article to remain semi-protected. It has been protected since 5 May.-- Clawed 02:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Im removing that male genital infection photo.There is no need for it and i nearly get sick looking at it.-- Dermo69
There has been another vandalism in this article. I think you need to have it semiprotected again, or vandals might ruin the integirty of this page.
{{linkimage|Penis_reduced.jpg|A penis in both flaccid and fully erect states (
larger version).}}
I suggest that the photographs of phalli be de-inlined, so that they will be displayed on the article page as shown in the example here. We would still preserve access to the photographs for readers who wished to view them, but they would not be obtrusively displayed to readers who do not want to view explicit photographs of human genitalia.
John254
05:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would christians or any religion be offended by this article? Didn't jesus have a penis? Honestly, its npov encylopedic information about the penis, thats it, of course it has to have pictures,it would be an insufficent enclopedic entry otherwise, and wikipedia is an encylopeia.