![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Can someone or the original uploader of the main picture, add labels to the Penis as it was on the black and white picture? It would be more informative. Thanks. -- Juan D. ( talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that this article claims that most penises are smaller than the average, but all of the guys I have seen are bigger than what the average is on this article? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Button_reflink.png (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.1.113 ( talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No, I only added the word "unsigned" to separate it from my comment below. The unsigned comment itself came from an unknown person. 98.115.1.113 ( talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Doctor Robert L. Dickinson" seems suspicious to me. Is this even a real doctor?
83.183.21.45 (
talk)
23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about insulting a respected scientist. --
Koolahawk (
talk)
00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of size, the article makes a terrible statistical mis-statement when it says "the average erect human penis is approximately 12.9–15 cm (5.1–5.9 in) in length with a 95% confidence interval of (10.7 cm, 19.1 cm) or (4.23 in, 7.53 in)".
4.23 to 7.53 is not a 95% confidence interval for the average size. That is absolutely preposterous. What I presume they mean to say (which is perhaps possible, at least) is that 95% of sizes are found within the range of 4.23 to 7.53.
98.115.1.113 ( talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I corrected the confidence interval. Senor Vergara ( talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I also tried correcting the part about mean and median, but it was reverted. The change I made did not change the factual assertion "mean is slightly larger than the median" at all, it merely switched to a correct statistical interpretation of what a larger mean than median means in any situation. I deliberately left the portion about mean being larger than median unaltered, as I, too, was unsure where that information was being sourced from. The original interpretation of what that indicates is not well-stated as it poorly mixes the terms average/mean/median again. Senor Vergara ( talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please fix this. im such a noob wont try to fix anything again.
Pictures of actual human penises are unnecessary on Wikipedia. You can find something like that on numerous other sites, therefore, I introduced a drawing that is actually more detailed and anatomically correct than the previous one.
Problem solved.
-Axmann8 (Talk) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edits. You may have a problem with pictures of penises, most don't. This topic has been had before all over wiki. the consensus is that wiki isn't the place for censorship. The erection pics are particularly helpful. Real penises are much more informative than a diagram. It is also more interesting for the reader. Tremello22 ( talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Relevant guidelines are here: Wikipedia:Profanity. Please read through tell me what you make of them. Tremello22 ( talk) 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
←I wouldn't mind a color version either, though I think it should be of a comparable aspect ratio and probably flaccid. Text labels would also probably be a good idea. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the image has been changed yet again. File:Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg depicts several non-human penes in jars of what I assume is formaldehyde. I disagree with this change as it's significantly less useful in the infobox position. The prior image ( File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg) worked as it was labeled, close in, and to the readers of Wikipedia (who I assume are currently all human), most obviously a penis.
I think it's rather unfortunate that this change wasn't at least discussed first. I'm not reverting it, but I really wish it were discussed as I believe the merits of the prior image outweigh those of the new one. That said, I think it's an interesting image and should definitely be featured later in the article in the discussion of non-human penes. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion on the posted pictures as to what constitutes a circumcision, as many uncut penises are labeled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.97.21 ( talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The person who made "Deserving" link to washington monument is a fucking genious. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKvamm ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Etymology studies will not support that Penus means Penis. Because you can penetrate to impregnate does not mean a narrow understanding of Penis. There are many words of Pen- "almost" and "head".
Now read about Latin suffix: second and third declensions.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis
From that web site. "Part of the problem is that when unaccented, the singular endings -us and -is tend to be pronounced the same in English".
"One other group of Latin nouns in -us is different. These are fourth-declension masculine nouns".
I am asking for someone to link Latin Penus to Lares (Penates: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions). (hope I did this on the correct page and forum, thanks). 65.66.155.37 ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
First thanks for answering. We agree: you wrote: the word "penus" does not appear anywhere in the article, , which says that the word penis comes from the Latin for "tail". Pen-is and Pen-us are not the same thing, although like the author of that article ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis)pointed out 'many people think they are the same'. The quote: "Those with a little learning know that penus, if it were a second declension noun like most -us nouns in Latin, would be expected to have the plural form peni. Since penus would be pronounced the same--or almost the same--as penis in English, the temptation is strong to use the incorrect peni as the plural". (from the same article): Penis is a third declension noun, not second declension. These nouns often end in -is in the singular and -es in the plural. (later in the same article): It so happens that penus, the near homophone of penis that I mentioned above, is a real word in Latin but of the fourth declension, so the plural is penus, not peni. It means "household stock," ....... Wikipedia searches for "penus" point to this Penis page. <that is my point (gripe). Keep all the references to "penis" pointing to this page, however allow the search of "penus" to be directed to the Di Penates page. see this page in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penate
Origin: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penates from that wikipedia page on Penates: In Roman mythology, the Di Penates or briefly Penates were originally patron gods (really geniuses) of the storeroom, later becoming household gods guarding the entire household. They were related to the Lares, Genii and Larvae. Penates are referred to in Propertius (iv.i). end. Penātēs is not showing up in a search for "penus". Someone else (before me)did bring up "penus" referring to stored stuff (should be food stock) on their talk page of Di Penates. Here is that link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Di_Penates At the very least could we have a "penus" disambiguation page? Possibly resolving this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dab_page Thanks for taking the time to read this. 65.66.155.37 ( talk) 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"Penis" is not an inherently funny word; its humor is derived from what the word represents. Someone who can should remove the word "inherently". 69.249.66.100 ( talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this section to be very poorly written, as well as being POV (Penis is a 'funny' word to juveniles? I had always found it uncomfortably formal, at worst. This seems like a POV problem from an irresponsible writer). Also, there is no citation here. I'm not really a fan of this article, given that it's centered around the human penis, as mentioned in other talk sections. 71.197.20.184 ( talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I followed a link to this article and noticed the article is gone. All that's there is something like "It's what you put inside a vagina." I have come to believe this is vandalism, having seen a "fuller" article on previous visits. Will someone fix it please? I would do it mysekf if I had an account. 70.161.149.193 ( talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
as the only information that it contains is: "It's what you put inside a vagina." See for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis 75.72.253.93 ( talk) 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Jeremy
Does nobody else agree this picture should be changed? The opening picture is of a massive penis, and this could wrongly believe people to think that everyone's penis is that long and thick. I know mine certainly isnt anywhere the size or girth as the opening picture and I'm sure a lot of other mens aren't. Anybody agree? -- Scythre Talk Contribs 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) There is nothing wrong with the current lead image, which has had consensus a long time. It is certainly not an image of an unusually large member. Yob Mod 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if the size can be increased and will be there any side effects,what are the better way for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.145.97 ( talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we need an illustation of the rare condition: phimosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.70 ( talk • contribs)
I'm going to erase the picture File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg because it is a little uncomfertable to some ppl, just to make it clear, who do you think is reading this humans! And people are not going to want to read this as they will be disgusted by the picture shown. TylerG518 ( talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article talks about the erection angle, but only on a vertical axes. Many men have penises who curve left or right, and a table with the percentage of this type of erection would be interesting. Qubix 81.180.224.38 ( talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
From what I recall, almost all penes have a slight left- or rightward curvature when erect. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My penis leans slightly to the left when erect but doesn't curve back on itself. I'm not circumcised (thank god!) I can measure the angle if you like :) ( Aurumpotestasest ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
As the old saying goes... "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat" :) -- Web Hamster 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Dont they lean to one side because people use the same hand when w*nking? Just a thought
Earth_Worm_Eater (
talk)
22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggest replaceing with File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg to make the article less human centric. Geni 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is going to be reading this? not a dog or a duck. a human —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm absolutely astonished that train wreck of a photo has been retained as the opening pic for as long as it has. There are more pictures of penises then there are prime numbers and that's really the best we can do? Anytime I peruse an article, I always evaluate it thinking, 'Now, is this text/image presented in such a way that it would meet the standards of editors at Encyclopedia Brittanica?' In most articles, there is usually some facet that fails to pass that quality check and that's understandable. But we really need to hold the fundamental articles/topics to a higher standard. Perhaps we could use this image as the genesis for an article on bad photography. At the very least, we should move it down to the section detailing Mutant Penises.
Seriously guys/gals, why don't we gather up 4 or 5 encyclopedia-quality images of the penis and have a Penis Poll among the editors. Hell, we could rotate the image every year and use the Annual Penis Poll to promote editor involvement on Wikipedia. - K10wnsta ( talk) 11:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sure this is point is going to be ignored, but technical the foreskin is it own separate part- it is not a part of the penis. The glans on the other hand IS. This leads me to believe that an image of a circumcised penis or one with the foreskin pulled back is more appropriate for the article. -- User:Gyaabcewb
Does nobody else agree this picture should be changed? The opening picture is of a massive penis, and this could wrongly believe people to think that everyone's penis is that long and thick. I know mine certainly isnt anywhere the size or girth as the opening picture and I'm sure a lot of other mens aren't. Anybody agree? -- Flash flash ; 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 128.61.20.9 ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it not be better to have a medical textbook picture for this article? It could be similar to the medical textbook picture on the scrotum article. I feel as an encyclopedia, it would be better to have a more journalistic picture, rather than a picture of some random guy's penis.-- Koolahawk ( talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(For those that don't bother to read the article) There are already 2 copryright free textbook style images in the article. Luckily, as there is no limit to the numbers of pictures an article can use, having these images in no way precludes also having photographs. Yob Mod 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS HIS URETHRA SIDEWAYS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.208.89 ( talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't LabelledFlacidPenis.jpg a more relevant lead picture than Foreskin CloseupV2.jpg which is a foreskin oriented picture and therefore not representative of the whole?
I think that at least 3 pics on this site should be removed.
I think the pics used in the "Structure" section are sufficient.
Just because Wikipedia is uncensored isn't justification for keeping these pictures. They do not seem appropriate. Also in regards to consensus, I think there are at least as many dissenting opinions above concerning the pictures as there are affirming opinions. I think this topic should be reviewed again, and I don't understand how a rational person can be of the opinion to keep them on. The topic definitely needs to be reviewed again. I think the strongest reason for there removal is not in relation to censorship per se, but arguably that they do not represent (1) the norm; and (2) a diverse enough cross-section of people. For children, for example, of all different races/physical make-ups etc..., it is not responsible to have a biased page like this regarding anatomy for them to review--speaking of the pictures primarily. In particular, this page could lead children to believe that they lie outside the norm, when in fact they may not be. This page is nowhere near an unbiased appropriateness that one would find in an encyclopedia. Granted, this is uncensored; however, how can edits to remove these pics keep getting vetoed and undone? Something is seriously wrong with this site if I am almost banned from edits for making an edit that is arguably appropriate. I think many would agree that this topic, regardless of the length of the history, should not be shut down. MK Dempsey 15:26, 19 September 2009.
Alan, is the above not a compelling argument having any merit? I disagree that the consensus is that they should remain. I read the above postings, and the topic keeps coming up again and again. Many obviously feel the pictures are not appropriate or represent a correct or diverse enough cross-section. Those two arguments alone, I feel, are as you would say "compelling" enough to warrant their removal. I think they should be removed pending future/new pictures that do not raise so many objections. The pictures that I argue should be removed are (1) the opening picture; (2) the "erection" sequence; and (3) the horse photo. The first picture, I think, needs to be one that looks at least something like you would find in an anatomy textbook, not a gritty pornographic site. The second sequence photo is just odd, and arguably abnormal. As described above many times, that last photo of the sequence does appear to represent the norm. Third that horse penis photo is unnecessary and I would assume offensive to a standard, reasonable person to have to look at. Motion to remove the aforementioned 3 photos MK Dempsey 15:41, 19 September 2009.
I don't find that defense convincing in the least bit. I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be open to the public to edit? Apparently not. All I get as an answer is "if it disturbs you, don't look"? How is this site really free for the public to edit? it apparently is not. Again if I was the only one giving this opinion, I may not say anything, but I feel the consensus above is that they should be removed. "That's as far as I'm going on this" is not a reasonable answer in the least bit. At the very least, the topic should be left open and/or re-raised. Also I didn't say that they should necessarily be removed because they are pornographic. I understand that it is an uncensored website. My arguments were more along the lines that they are inappropriate and do not represent (1) the norm; or (2) a diverse enough cross-section--which would make the page incorrect and open to edits. MK Dempsey 18:04, 19 September 2009.
Yes of course it is a subjective opinion, but if you look above, many people have brought this topic up over and over again (approx 7 headings alone). Also, you suggest my argument falls short because I describe my pov as inappropriate? This simply means that there are other pics that I'm sure would be more appropriate for this topic in an "Encyclopedia" as Wikipedia suggests it is. You could say that a lot of the edits done to Wikipedia every minute are done so because people feel something else is more properly suited to the page (i.e. more appropriate). Various terms could be substitute in for appropriate/inappropriate, and my opinion shouldn't be dismissed because I chose that word. There is enough on this discussion page already that indicates it's time to remove the 3 pictures I mentioned above, and wait until pics that people approve of are posted. MK Dempsey 22:08, 19 September 2009.
I'm not sure whether it would be illegal to have pictures of an undeveloped penis here, but I think it would certainly be a good way to convey development of the organ. The main problem I see is that a minor cannot give legally valid consent to the picture being publicly available. Gboycolor ( talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we take out the dubious information saying that penis growth completes sometime between 18 and 21? While scanning through this article that particular line caught my attention. It isn't sourced. It wouldn't surprise me if there really is an old and bad source for it, but I really doubt that the information is accurate nonetheless. It is contradicted in the full text of two recent studies: pmid 12350491, and pmid 11223678. The first of these only measured in men 19 to 38, but no reduction in size was found in the youngest males. The second of these studies was a large scale study, retricted to 17-19 year olds, and there was no significant difference. I don't think there is a clear answer to this question, and rather than put an answer down for this I think it's best to just leave it off the puberty and penis pages altogether. Yetheu ( talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
first sentence is "The penis (plural penises, penes, penii) [...]" and later in the text it says ""Penii" is sometimes facetiously or mistakenly used as a plural form of "penis" instead of "penes" or "penises," its correct forms.".
Which one is correct?
The penis can be use for peeing and sex/reproduction.
Dont you think that the picture Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg could just be a bit disturbing, not that there is anything wrong with it but it could be a bit disturbing to other people of the looks of it, people might think of it as a bit disgusting, should we possibly erase it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerG518 ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I think what would be helpful is side-by-side pictures showing how much the size of a flaccid penis can vary in a particular male throughout the day, along with some explanation in the article that just because a male's flaccid penis looks small at a particular moment doesn't necessarily mean his erection is smaller than average. Some males have very elastic tissue(and some don't), and the size of his flaccid penis can vary by a number of inches throughout the day. There's a widespread myth that one can tell how "hung" a guy is by seeing him nude without an erection. This is false. So I think one of the ways in which this page could be helpful is in dispelling this myth. I think this can be done in the following manner: 3 pictures side by side of a healthy-looking penis, all of the same male who has an average or larger erection size... one who happens to have very elastic tissue. The first picture would show what his flaccid penis looks like at its smallest (of course, things contribute to this; for example, cold water, vasocontrictors like Adderall or caffeine can make the penis shrink). The second would show what it looks like at its largest (not a partial erection, just his full flaccid penis size). And then the third could show his full erection. Mousemill ( talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
[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)
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
"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
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)
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)
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Can someone or the original uploader of the main picture, add labels to the Penis as it was on the black and white picture? It would be more informative. Thanks. -- Juan D. ( talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that this article claims that most penises are smaller than the average, but all of the guys I have seen are bigger than what the average is on this article? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Button_reflink.png (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.1.113 ( talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No, I only added the word "unsigned" to separate it from my comment below. The unsigned comment itself came from an unknown person. 98.115.1.113 ( talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Doctor Robert L. Dickinson" seems suspicious to me. Is this even a real doctor?
83.183.21.45 (
talk)
23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about insulting a respected scientist. --
Koolahawk (
talk)
00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of size, the article makes a terrible statistical mis-statement when it says "the average erect human penis is approximately 12.9–15 cm (5.1–5.9 in) in length with a 95% confidence interval of (10.7 cm, 19.1 cm) or (4.23 in, 7.53 in)".
4.23 to 7.53 is not a 95% confidence interval for the average size. That is absolutely preposterous. What I presume they mean to say (which is perhaps possible, at least) is that 95% of sizes are found within the range of 4.23 to 7.53.
98.115.1.113 ( talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I corrected the confidence interval. Senor Vergara ( talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I also tried correcting the part about mean and median, but it was reverted. The change I made did not change the factual assertion "mean is slightly larger than the median" at all, it merely switched to a correct statistical interpretation of what a larger mean than median means in any situation. I deliberately left the portion about mean being larger than median unaltered, as I, too, was unsure where that information was being sourced from. The original interpretation of what that indicates is not well-stated as it poorly mixes the terms average/mean/median again. Senor Vergara ( talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please fix this. im such a noob wont try to fix anything again.
Pictures of actual human penises are unnecessary on Wikipedia. You can find something like that on numerous other sites, therefore, I introduced a drawing that is actually more detailed and anatomically correct than the previous one.
Problem solved.
-Axmann8 (Talk) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your edits. You may have a problem with pictures of penises, most don't. This topic has been had before all over wiki. the consensus is that wiki isn't the place for censorship. The erection pics are particularly helpful. Real penises are much more informative than a diagram. It is also more interesting for the reader. Tremello22 ( talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Relevant guidelines are here: Wikipedia:Profanity. Please read through tell me what you make of them. Tremello22 ( talk) 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
←I wouldn't mind a color version either, though I think it should be of a comparable aspect ratio and probably flaccid. Text labels would also probably be a good idea. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it looks like the image has been changed yet again. File:Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg depicts several non-human penes in jars of what I assume is formaldehyde. I disagree with this change as it's significantly less useful in the infobox position. The prior image ( File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg) worked as it was labeled, close in, and to the readers of Wikipedia (who I assume are currently all human), most obviously a penis.
I think it's rather unfortunate that this change wasn't at least discussed first. I'm not reverting it, but I really wish it were discussed as I believe the merits of the prior image outweigh those of the new one. That said, I think it's an interesting image and should definitely be featured later in the article in the discussion of non-human penes. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion on the posted pictures as to what constitutes a circumcision, as many uncut penises are labeled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.97.21 ( talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The person who made "Deserving" link to washington monument is a fucking genious. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKvamm ( talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Etymology studies will not support that Penus means Penis. Because you can penetrate to impregnate does not mean a narrow understanding of Penis. There are many words of Pen- "almost" and "head".
Now read about Latin suffix: second and third declensions.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis
From that web site. "Part of the problem is that when unaccented, the singular endings -us and -is tend to be pronounced the same in English".
"One other group of Latin nouns in -us is different. These are fourth-declension masculine nouns".
I am asking for someone to link Latin Penus to Lares (Penates: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions). (hope I did this on the correct page and forum, thanks). 65.66.155.37 ( talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
First thanks for answering. We agree: you wrote: the word "penus" does not appear anywhere in the article, , which says that the word penis comes from the Latin for "tail". Pen-is and Pen-us are not the same thing, although like the author of that article ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis)pointed out 'many people think they are the same'. The quote: "Those with a little learning know that penus, if it were a second declension noun like most -us nouns in Latin, would be expected to have the plural form peni. Since penus would be pronounced the same--or almost the same--as penis in English, the temptation is strong to use the incorrect peni as the plural". (from the same article): Penis is a third declension noun, not second declension. These nouns often end in -is in the singular and -es in the plural. (later in the same article): It so happens that penus, the near homophone of penis that I mentioned above, is a real word in Latin but of the fourth declension, so the plural is penus, not peni. It means "household stock," ....... Wikipedia searches for "penus" point to this Penis page. <that is my point (gripe). Keep all the references to "penis" pointing to this page, however allow the search of "penus" to be directed to the Di Penates page. see this page in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penate
Origin: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penates from that wikipedia page on Penates: In Roman mythology, the Di Penates or briefly Penates were originally patron gods (really geniuses) of the storeroom, later becoming household gods guarding the entire household. They were related to the Lares, Genii and Larvae. Penates are referred to in Propertius (iv.i). end. Penātēs is not showing up in a search for "penus". Someone else (before me)did bring up "penus" referring to stored stuff (should be food stock) on their talk page of Di Penates. Here is that link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Di_Penates At the very least could we have a "penus" disambiguation page? Possibly resolving this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dab_page Thanks for taking the time to read this. 65.66.155.37 ( talk) 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"Penis" is not an inherently funny word; its humor is derived from what the word represents. Someone who can should remove the word "inherently". 69.249.66.100 ( talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I find this section to be very poorly written, as well as being POV (Penis is a 'funny' word to juveniles? I had always found it uncomfortably formal, at worst. This seems like a POV problem from an irresponsible writer). Also, there is no citation here. I'm not really a fan of this article, given that it's centered around the human penis, as mentioned in other talk sections. 71.197.20.184 ( talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I followed a link to this article and noticed the article is gone. All that's there is something like "It's what you put inside a vagina." I have come to believe this is vandalism, having seen a "fuller" article on previous visits. Will someone fix it please? I would do it mysekf if I had an account. 70.161.149.193 ( talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
as the only information that it contains is: "It's what you put inside a vagina." See for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis 75.72.253.93 ( talk) 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Jeremy
Does nobody else agree this picture should be changed? The opening picture is of a massive penis, and this could wrongly believe people to think that everyone's penis is that long and thick. I know mine certainly isnt anywhere the size or girth as the opening picture and I'm sure a lot of other mens aren't. Anybody agree? -- Scythre Talk Contribs 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) There is nothing wrong with the current lead image, which has had consensus a long time. It is certainly not an image of an unusually large member. Yob Mod 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know if the size can be increased and will be there any side effects,what are the better way for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.145.97 ( talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we need an illustation of the rare condition: phimosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.70 ( talk • contribs)
I'm going to erase the picture File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg because it is a little uncomfertable to some ppl, just to make it clear, who do you think is reading this humans! And people are not going to want to read this as they will be disgusted by the picture shown. TylerG518 ( talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article talks about the erection angle, but only on a vertical axes. Many men have penises who curve left or right, and a table with the percentage of this type of erection would be interesting. Qubix 81.180.224.38 ( talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
From what I recall, almost all penes have a slight left- or rightward curvature when erect. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My penis leans slightly to the left when erect but doesn't curve back on itself. I'm not circumcised (thank god!) I can measure the angle if you like :) ( Aurumpotestasest ( talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
As the old saying goes... "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat" :) -- Web Hamster 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Dont they lean to one side because people use the same hand when w*nking? Just a thought
Earth_Worm_Eater (
talk)
22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Suggest replaceing with File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg to make the article less human centric. Geni 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is going to be reading this? not a dog or a duck. a human —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm absolutely astonished that train wreck of a photo has been retained as the opening pic for as long as it has. There are more pictures of penises then there are prime numbers and that's really the best we can do? Anytime I peruse an article, I always evaluate it thinking, 'Now, is this text/image presented in such a way that it would meet the standards of editors at Encyclopedia Brittanica?' In most articles, there is usually some facet that fails to pass that quality check and that's understandable. But we really need to hold the fundamental articles/topics to a higher standard. Perhaps we could use this image as the genesis for an article on bad photography. At the very least, we should move it down to the section detailing Mutant Penises.
Seriously guys/gals, why don't we gather up 4 or 5 encyclopedia-quality images of the penis and have a Penis Poll among the editors. Hell, we could rotate the image every year and use the Annual Penis Poll to promote editor involvement on Wikipedia. - K10wnsta ( talk) 11:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sure this is point is going to be ignored, but technical the foreskin is it own separate part- it is not a part of the penis. The glans on the other hand IS. This leads me to believe that an image of a circumcised penis or one with the foreskin pulled back is more appropriate for the article. -- User:Gyaabcewb
Does nobody else agree this picture should be changed? The opening picture is of a massive penis, and this could wrongly believe people to think that everyone's penis is that long and thick. I know mine certainly isnt anywhere the size or girth as the opening picture and I'm sure a lot of other mens aren't. Anybody agree? -- Flash flash ; 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-- 128.61.20.9 ( talk) 02:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Would it not be better to have a medical textbook picture for this article? It could be similar to the medical textbook picture on the scrotum article. I feel as an encyclopedia, it would be better to have a more journalistic picture, rather than a picture of some random guy's penis.-- Koolahawk ( talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
(For those that don't bother to read the article) There are already 2 copryright free textbook style images in the article. Luckily, as there is no limit to the numbers of pictures an article can use, having these images in no way precludes also having photographs. Yob Mod 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS HIS URETHRA SIDEWAYS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.208.89 ( talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Isn't LabelledFlacidPenis.jpg a more relevant lead picture than Foreskin CloseupV2.jpg which is a foreskin oriented picture and therefore not representative of the whole?
I think that at least 3 pics on this site should be removed.
I think the pics used in the "Structure" section are sufficient.
Just because Wikipedia is uncensored isn't justification for keeping these pictures. They do not seem appropriate. Also in regards to consensus, I think there are at least as many dissenting opinions above concerning the pictures as there are affirming opinions. I think this topic should be reviewed again, and I don't understand how a rational person can be of the opinion to keep them on. The topic definitely needs to be reviewed again. I think the strongest reason for there removal is not in relation to censorship per se, but arguably that they do not represent (1) the norm; and (2) a diverse enough cross-section of people. For children, for example, of all different races/physical make-ups etc..., it is not responsible to have a biased page like this regarding anatomy for them to review--speaking of the pictures primarily. In particular, this page could lead children to believe that they lie outside the norm, when in fact they may not be. This page is nowhere near an unbiased appropriateness that one would find in an encyclopedia. Granted, this is uncensored; however, how can edits to remove these pics keep getting vetoed and undone? Something is seriously wrong with this site if I am almost banned from edits for making an edit that is arguably appropriate. I think many would agree that this topic, regardless of the length of the history, should not be shut down. MK Dempsey 15:26, 19 September 2009.
Alan, is the above not a compelling argument having any merit? I disagree that the consensus is that they should remain. I read the above postings, and the topic keeps coming up again and again. Many obviously feel the pictures are not appropriate or represent a correct or diverse enough cross-section. Those two arguments alone, I feel, are as you would say "compelling" enough to warrant their removal. I think they should be removed pending future/new pictures that do not raise so many objections. The pictures that I argue should be removed are (1) the opening picture; (2) the "erection" sequence; and (3) the horse photo. The first picture, I think, needs to be one that looks at least something like you would find in an anatomy textbook, not a gritty pornographic site. The second sequence photo is just odd, and arguably abnormal. As described above many times, that last photo of the sequence does appear to represent the norm. Third that horse penis photo is unnecessary and I would assume offensive to a standard, reasonable person to have to look at. Motion to remove the aforementioned 3 photos MK Dempsey 15:41, 19 September 2009.
I don't find that defense convincing in the least bit. I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be open to the public to edit? Apparently not. All I get as an answer is "if it disturbs you, don't look"? How is this site really free for the public to edit? it apparently is not. Again if I was the only one giving this opinion, I may not say anything, but I feel the consensus above is that they should be removed. "That's as far as I'm going on this" is not a reasonable answer in the least bit. At the very least, the topic should be left open and/or re-raised. Also I didn't say that they should necessarily be removed because they are pornographic. I understand that it is an uncensored website. My arguments were more along the lines that they are inappropriate and do not represent (1) the norm; or (2) a diverse enough cross-section--which would make the page incorrect and open to edits. MK Dempsey 18:04, 19 September 2009.
Yes of course it is a subjective opinion, but if you look above, many people have brought this topic up over and over again (approx 7 headings alone). Also, you suggest my argument falls short because I describe my pov as inappropriate? This simply means that there are other pics that I'm sure would be more appropriate for this topic in an "Encyclopedia" as Wikipedia suggests it is. You could say that a lot of the edits done to Wikipedia every minute are done so because people feel something else is more properly suited to the page (i.e. more appropriate). Various terms could be substitute in for appropriate/inappropriate, and my opinion shouldn't be dismissed because I chose that word. There is enough on this discussion page already that indicates it's time to remove the 3 pictures I mentioned above, and wait until pics that people approve of are posted. MK Dempsey 22:08, 19 September 2009.
I'm not sure whether it would be illegal to have pictures of an undeveloped penis here, but I think it would certainly be a good way to convey development of the organ. The main problem I see is that a minor cannot give legally valid consent to the picture being publicly available. Gboycolor ( talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can we take out the dubious information saying that penis growth completes sometime between 18 and 21? While scanning through this article that particular line caught my attention. It isn't sourced. It wouldn't surprise me if there really is an old and bad source for it, but I really doubt that the information is accurate nonetheless. It is contradicted in the full text of two recent studies: pmid 12350491, and pmid 11223678. The first of these only measured in men 19 to 38, but no reduction in size was found in the youngest males. The second of these studies was a large scale study, retricted to 17-19 year olds, and there was no significant difference. I don't think there is a clear answer to this question, and rather than put an answer down for this I think it's best to just leave it off the puberty and penis pages altogether. Yetheu ( talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
first sentence is "The penis (plural penises, penes, penii) [...]" and later in the text it says ""Penii" is sometimes facetiously or mistakenly used as a plural form of "penis" instead of "penes" or "penises," its correct forms.".
Which one is correct?
The penis can be use for peeing and sex/reproduction.
Dont you think that the picture Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg could just be a bit disturbing, not that there is anything wrong with it but it could be a bit disturbing to other people of the looks of it, people might think of it as a bit disgusting, should we possibly erase it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerG518 ( talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I think what would be helpful is side-by-side pictures showing how much the size of a flaccid penis can vary in a particular male throughout the day, along with some explanation in the article that just because a male's flaccid penis looks small at a particular moment doesn't necessarily mean his erection is smaller than average. Some males have very elastic tissue(and some don't), and the size of his flaccid penis can vary by a number of inches throughout the day. There's a widespread myth that one can tell how "hung" a guy is by seeing him nude without an erection. This is false. So I think one of the ways in which this page could be helpful is in dispelling this myth. I think this can be done in the following manner: 3 pictures side by side of a healthy-looking penis, all of the same male who has an average or larger erection size... one who happens to have very elastic tissue. The first picture would show what his flaccid penis looks like at its smallest (of course, things contribute to this; for example, cold water, vasocontrictors like Adderall or caffeine can make the penis shrink). The second would show what it looks like at its largest (not a partial erection, just his full flaccid penis size). And then the third could show his full erection. Mousemill ( talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
[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)
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
"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
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)
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)