Jump to content

Talk:Human penis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.96.148.42 (talk) at 09:47, 21 July 2012 (→‎Altering the genitalia: ==Development before puberty== Currently this is not mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_reproductive_system#External_genitalia should be linked to, ideally with a summary of the relevant material.~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit request from 173.49.170.130, 20 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} After the second paragraph under ====Circumcision====, add the following, which will serve as a link to a pertinent article, namely "Gomco clamp":

173.49.170.130 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Gomco circumcision scar should be used as the picture for the example of the circumcised penis, as it is how the vast majority of circumcised men have had the operation performed. The picture that is currently provided (penis-stitch-scar.jpg) is NOT a typical circumcision; it's really poorly done (with a chainsaw?) and is arguably a demonstration of a bias against circumcision rather than keeping the goal of a neutral stance.

Sources

Here's an interesting source from CNN:

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read about it. Interesting to note that monagamy is considered a reason for the human penis' appearance, when I've read otherwise that the relatively large average human penis size probably is due specifically to non-monogamy. Also, I saw a comment noting that the large glans was effectively creating a vacuum, and thus more useful for removing competition sperm than the more primitive spines. But I'm not a biologist. Further comments? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not more useful perhaps, but efficiently similar. I have no certain info about the subject, myself, though. [1] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the main source seems to be a Nature article, and it would probably be better referencing it, directly. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

Can someone please add the link to the German article?: de:Penis des Menschen Thanks 84.191.59.4 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – RobinHood70 talk 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Past discussions from the Penis article

I know that this article was made to split it away from the Penis article. But that article originally largely dealt with the human penis. This means all the past discussions about the human penis are left there. Is there any way to merge that edit history here, so that we can archive those past discussions at this talk page? I've seen talk page merges similar to that before. Sure, it would take away from the Penis article edit history. But like I stated, most of that edit history belongs to this topic anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's some ability to merge page history's, but I've never had any reason to do it on the wiki I'm an admin at, so I'm not familiar with what can and can't be done, exactly, or if there are any issues with that. I'd suggest posting on the Admin noticeboard or somewhere similar, since an admin would be required in order to do that. Even if they say there's some reason not to merge the edit histories, if you're just worried about archiving, you could probably just copy and paste the relevant discussions from that page into an archive here and make a note of it at the top of the archive. – RobinHood70 talk 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, RobinHood70. Yeah, I was thinking of doing the latter part of your comment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abnormality of the penis curvature shown in the Erection Development image

Regarding the description of penis curvature on the wikipedia article about Human penis, the image shows a statistically abnormal case of upward curvature for a common human penis.

Human males in general are several times more likely to have a penis that is no greater than 30 degrees from the horizontal slant when erect than about 80 degrees upwards from the horizontal plane as shown in the image.

To show a penis that is extremely curved upwards can be misleading to the viewers who do not fully understand the statistics into thinking that this is an ideal representative of the human penis.

Therefore, I put forth a sincere request on the behalf of human viewers that an image of a different penis that fits more into the average (median) percentile of erection angle be used to replace the image currently used for depicting Erection Development. It would then be more likely that a male human being feels more comfortable with his own penis after seeing the image on this article that shows a more statistically sound representative of the Homo Sapiens penis rather than something far closer to what is more of an outlier, even if certain parts of the society view the outlier as the pornographic ideal. It would be akin to showing an image of an abnormally large clitoris on the clitoris article accompanied by a statistical chart that does not do much to prevent the effect of a large percentage of female viewers feeling inadequate with their average anatomy.

BoFox (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)BoFox[reply]

I would oppose the deletion/replacement of the current image. It is a high-quality image that serves its purpose perfectly and adds to the article. It is not Wikipedia's job to make "most" readers "more comfortable" with their body. Everyone knows that penises come in different shapes and sizes so we are never going to be able to have a one-image-fits-all. --TBM10 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The picture in question is being used to demonstrate erection development and angle, which it does quite well. Yes, the upwards curvature is statistically unusual, but that's not the focus of the picture. I don't believe the image shown in any way represents a pornographic ideal. Certainly image-Googling "human penis" and the various slang versions thereof shows a variety of penises, most of which are well within statistical norms in terms of curvature.
While I can see the argument of using an image of a more "average" penis, it could also be argued that it's appropriate for an article such as this to present a suitable variety. I think the larger issue is that even if we accept the argument that a different picture is needed, can we find one that's in the public domain or has similarly liberal licensing? – RobinHood70 talk 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the existing image is abnormal, and it also fails to show variation due to environmental considerations. I so have added another similar image in "variations". High quality images are difficult to obtain, and these are far from ideal, but they are the best available to me for the moment. Timpo (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion of that image has been reverted. It adds nothing of worthy significance to the article and I suspect may just be an attempt to have the photos of six more penises featured on the article. The existing image is not abnormal, it does its job as per the description and is of much better quality and relevance. --TBM10 (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestion

I'd like to propose that this image "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_penis_comparison.jpg" be added to the erection development section.

File:Human penis comparison.jpg
31-year-old Caucasian man's penis, in flaccid and erect states

I note that previous edit requests have stated that an image like this might be a worthwhile addition.

Racism and/or ethnocentrism

Why all pictures of penises and testis in Wikipedia's articles about the male's body are from white men?
Specially the blonde-haired penis in the infobox.

Perhaps there are not any high-quality, copyright-free, relevant images of black men available on Wikipedia or Wikimedia. The image of male pubic hair on the pubic hair article is of a black man, though. --TBM10 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tanned white man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.244 (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could provide some high-quality images of men of other races under a creative commons license. In other words, perhaps you could improve the encyclopedia instead of complaining about its current shortcomings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like racism, but if a non-white person did the necessary then the image would be considered.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A solution is available on this topic, anyone read this can show your support at the section Why don't we use a new penis picture less controversial?. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

uncircumcised?

The label "Uncircumcised penis" shows a circumcision bias. The name of the organ is "penis". There is no other body organ labeled with the prefix "un" then the name of a body modification. For instance, we don't call a nose un-rhinoplastied if there wasn't a nose job. The word uncircumcised is used in circumcising cultures and does not represent a wold perspective. It's a discriminatory word and does not show a neutral point of view. The word uncircumcised should be dropped. Hypochristy (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these points and have made some amendments to improve neutrality. --TBM10 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've partly reverted these changes, as they introduced some neutrality problems. The caption for File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg does identify the penis as circumcised, so to be neutral we should also identify uncircumcised penes as such. The alternative would be to identify the circumcision status of neither image. But we wouldn't ordinarily caption a photograph of one black and one white child as "a black boy and a girl", because that would create the non-neutral impression that one requires comment while the other does not. Similarly we shouldn't create the impression that one kind of penis is noteworthy while the other isn't. Jakew (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hypochristy is right in saying that we wouldn't normally identify unaltered organs as such specifically, but circumcision is still common enough that I think it's appropriate to use it as a descriptor. This, to me, is just like using "a Caucasian person" as opposed to just "a person" in a Caucasian-dominated culture - even in most Caucasian-dominated cultures, there are still enough people of other ethnicities that identifying the person as Caucasian isn't biasing for or against any particular ethnicity, it's simply a descriptor. – RobinHood70 talk 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jakew is wrong about neutrality. Calling it an "intact penis" wouldn't be neutral. Calling it a penis is. People are born Caucasian or black and such but no one is born circumcised. It is man made and does not reflect natural anatomy. RobinHood70 is wrong about commonality. Over 80% of the world is not circumcised. This article is about natural anatomy (without defect or modification). The word uncircumcised is discriminating. Hypochristy (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Circumcision article: "Global estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest that 30 percent of males are circumcised." Roughly one out of three people makes it common. Even if we accepted your figures, 1 out of 5 is still pretty common. I rather doubt, to use your comparison to rhinoplasty, that 1 out of 5 people in the world have had nose jobs. What is it in the article title that makes you think this article is about natural anatomy? The title "Human penis", to me, suggests that the article should cover all aspects of it without presumption. – RobinHood70 talk 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commonality is just another way of saying biased. WP is about truth, not cultural relativism. Using the racial comparison above, that's like calling a black person a "non-white." The text should be changed to "intact penis" or simply "penis" since these accurately and without bias describe the natural condition. Frank Koehler (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, while it's a third of men on a global basis, the distribution is uneven, so in some countries the uncircumcised penis is rare, while in others it's the other way around. Consequently in some situations an uncircumcised penis might be more noteworthy than a circumcised one. Regardless, we need to caption images from a neutral perspective, so either we should include both "uncircumcised" and "circumcised" in the respective captions, or we should include neither. Jakew (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I don't get the link being made between commonality and bias, so I can't respond to that. My problem with "intact" is that that's an even more biased term. It implies that a circumcised penis is "broken", and while many people think of circumcised penises that way, many also do not, and WP is not the place for activism. I think Jakew's point makes sense - either both words should be used, or neither. – RobinHood70 talk 17:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed numerous times on the Circumcision talk page.[2] My 2 cents worth is that some people are likely to read POV into the word uncircumcised, even when none is intended.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word "grove" should be "groove"

Under "Parts," in the last sentence, the word "grove" is used where "groove" belongs.

JonRutherford (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thank you! – RobinHood70 talk 01:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

The problem with this page is that it is used by young people. As a former teacher, I am acutely aware that boys in societies where nudity is rare and sex education superficial, can have serious misconceptions of what is "normal" and may not know that variations can occur with emotional and environmental considerations, or that viewing angle can affect perception. Such ignorance can have serious consequences. The apparent obsession with 'minimizing gratuitous indecency' is misplaced, although probably all that is needed is a link to [Wikmedia commons] where there is a wide selection of images and animations- which I have been editing but is a work in progress, but I would welcome any private peer review of that media page by anyone via e-mail from anyone - the page can also be edited by established users. Alternatively, to leave a more public message click on Timpo (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a problem with the image. Why did they use such an abnormally small penis in the images? People may see this page and think that that is normal size, but I believe a larger penis should be displayed to portray what is more average. Norbytherobot (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its the best image available in the public domain on Wikimedia, and it does the job. It's not Wikipedia's role to make men feel more (or less) adequate about the size of their genitals. --TBM10 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. It just seemed strange at first, like choosing to use a picture of a pygmy hippopotamus on the main hippopotamus page. But based on the sorry images in the public Wiki domain, I can see why they might've gone with that one. Norbytherobot (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with robot, I don't think this is an issue of adequacy; I think it is just not to give a misleading impression 129.180.166.53 (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This argument doesn't make sense. What is the "average" size of a flaccid penis, especially shown via a partial close-up photo without object of reference? In reality, the looking of flaccid penis can vary greatly even on the same man (depending on environment and hyperemia), difficult to illustrate objectively. This is also a factor why female nudity is more welcomed in human body art. Moscowsky (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

We have a couple of different takes on why the new sentence shouldn't go into the lead, but just to explain my thinking more, stating that the penis gets erect to facilitate entry into the vagina is problematic on two counts: first, it only considers vaginal sex, where the body of the article uses the term "sexual intercourse" which, of course, doesn't necessarily have to be vaginal. Second, nowhere in the body does it state that that's the reason the penis becomes erect, simply that that's one effect of an erection. I'm no anthropologist, but I know in many species, sexual arousal is more about a display rather than facilitating intercourse itself. I suspect in humans, the "reason" for erections, if there is one, could well derive from both. – RobinHood70 talk 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the addition of "the penis can become enlarged during an erection" ? Pass a Method talk 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to butt in here real quick: During sexual arousal, the penis actually does become erect to facilitate entry into the vagina. From a biological and evolutionary standpoint. Yes, there are other sex acts involving the penis, but the penis is always trying to facilitate reproduction during sexual activity. It's not like sperm is meant to travel down the rectum or throat, for example. The Erection section says "Erection facilitates sexual intercourse though it is not essential for various other sexual activities." First, "sexual intercourse" can also (though rarely) mean outercourse, so, with the way this article says "various other sexual activities," it must be restricting the term "sexual intercourse" to either vaginal sex or all sex acts that entail penetration by the penis. And I'm not sure what "various other sexual activities" don't require the man's penis to become erect, except for those where he's performing a sex act to the exclusion of his penis (oral sex, fingering, handjob), but maybe the lead should be expanded to include these things. Looking at it again, it definitely needs expansion, per WP:LEAD. The only issue I saw with Pass a Method's edit is that it said "During an erection, the penis may stiffen or become enlarged." I take issue with the "may stiffen or become enlarged" part. How is the penis erect without stiffening and becoming enlarged? Are we talking about semi-erection or something? Even then, it's partially stiffened/enlarged. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


grammatical error

"Opponents of circumcision argue, for example, that the practice has been and is still defended through the use of various myths; that it interferes with normal sexual function; that it is extremely painful; and that when performed on infants and children, it violates the individual's human rights."

It quite clearly states that the practice of circumcision is defended by myths of impaired sexual function,pain caused and violation of human rights involved in circumcision, this humble anon does not have access to the main page.

Shame this topic had to be locked, whilst this really should not be a controversial issue (so slashing up babies' genitals...controversial, what rubbish.) people have to refrain from moral bias in Wikipedia's pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.238.145 (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on what change you think should be made. Also, getting yourself an account would solve the problem of not being able to contribute. – RobinHood70 talk 00:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genital Entry Consistency

Please note I posted this comment on the vulva entry's talk section, but it is also relevant here.

The entries related to genitalia should be similar for both sexes. The penis entry leads first to the penises of all animals that have them, and then links to the human penis. The vulva entry should be similar.

On the human penis page, there is a helpful drawing of the stages of development of the penis. The vulva entry should contain something similar.

On the human penis page, there are fewer photos than on the vulva page. This should be corrected one way or the other to avoid the appearance of bias or problematic subtext.

All of the photos on the penis page show pubic hair, although some men remove all or part of their pubic hair. Including so many pictures of female genitals with hair removed is imbalanced, and unnecessary for educational or informational purposes.

On the vulva page, there are many images of different types of vulvas, but the penis page does not include a similar gallery. This should be corrected one way or the other. Additionally, if the vulva page includes a photo of pierced genitals, the penis page should be similar, showing piercing, tattoo, or some other adornment.

When showing variations in external genitalia, I agree with other readers that it is important to include pictures of people from various races. Both the vulva and penis pages are currently in danger of appearing biased toward providing information to a mostly white, male audience.

One other thing to consider is that there are not many representations of “abnormal,” diseased or ambiguous genitalia on either page. If one is going to include a gallery of variation in human genitalia, one should be less concerned with “attractiveness” and more concerned with accuracy in representing variation.

ProfJB (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we use a new penis picture less controversial?

new penis picture suggested

The current main picture of human penis has good quality, thanks to the donator and editor. While some features it indicates, like blonde hair and pink skin seem unnecessarily specialized, which may confuse readers. The article already received challenges like racism and/or ethnocentrism.

To resolve this, I would suggest to use below new picture with comparable quality and more neutrality on racial characteristics. The looking of penis in the picture is more common among wider scope of different human races. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing much wrong with either photo, but the issue should not be reduced to one of race. People have said in the past "Why is it a white penis?" but this does not really matter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see the new picture "reduce the issue to one of race"? It can be a photo of latino, black, white, asian. It reduces the controversy. But everyone can see which race the picture used in the article belongs to, that's why it gets racism challenges. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The words "if a non-white person did the necessary..." at section racism and/or ethnocentrism may have come true, it's really a good opportunity to review what we can do and how Wikipedia will behave. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new picture is better, why not free the article from suspicion of racism and make everyone more comfortable Moscowsky (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the non-white argument, but I see no reason for the lead image to show shaved genitals, the vast majority of men do not shave their pubic hair. --Fæ (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the shaving is less than ideal, it is not typical to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since pubic hair and scrotum is NOT a physical part of penis, this should not be a blocking point. Pubic hair modification should be discussed in the pubic hair page instead of penis page. Also, even if your "vast majority" theory is true, men with blonde pubic hair should be more rare than ones who trims. Which photo should we take then? Moscowsky (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And i believe the blonde pubic hair is a major reason why this article gets racism troubles, why should we let a unnecessary part of a photo bring troubles instead of make everything less racial Moscowsky (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia human main page is also showing human nudity without pubic hairs, i don't see it gets any troubles, because hair trimming is necessary to show a human organ clearly. The human page also cleverly prevented racial suspicions by using photos from multiple races Moscowsky (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The change should be made, a new pic compatible for all races, why not50.93.205.6 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to talk about race, but image here owns a more friendly copyright lisense, it also looks more sophisticated in organ illustration without distracting people to anything other than penis itself, so i assent to the replacement too, it's an improvement. --65.49.68.187 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, the article has been renewed per this discussion. - Pontmarcheur (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to state my concerns over this new image. The argument is that it reduces controversy because it could belong to a man of a range of races, but it also completely alienates the majority of people who do not shave their pubic hair. --TBM10 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pubic hair issue is already clearly discussed in above paragraphs. Moscowsky (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is real racism against blonde white people more acceptable than ambiguous/perceived racism against other groups? For that matter why does the race of the model matter at all?----72.198.211.245 (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's related to some historical incidents i guess, it will be a black hole to argue races (too bad for human), that's why we want the photo "compatible". Moscowsky (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caucasian human penis (flaccid).JPG

This is a blurry self-shot image which adds little information to the article. Wikimedia Commons is overflowing with images like this one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, actually the image is being used in pubic hair page at the moment, maybe not quite matching. Moscowsky (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a back-side view of penis?

This article is getting better and better, all the images looks professional, it's very encouraging. While it seems the back-side of human penis is never showed, but all front-view and side-view; and yes, it may not be easy to find a proper location/reason to add another photo, but I still want to point this out. Anyone finds a candidate photo/solution please suggest, then maybe the discussion can go further. Thanks. --PontMarcheur (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A small ventral view pic added. Moscowsky-talk- 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thank you. --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is specifically about the erect penis, and should either get a disambig link, or a link from the section on erection.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short link added in the "Cultural aspects" section. Moscowsky-talk- 00:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to "erection" too, as Phallus is is specifically about the erect penis, and representations of the erect penis.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Phallus is only a culture term. About the erect penis, we already have the erection article. Moscowsky-talk- 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phallus specifically refers to the erect penis, it does not refer to flacid penes, and should be linked to from the erection section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urination as a physiological function

There should be a section under physiological function. The easiest way to add this would be a modified version of the lede from Urination.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Urination link is already in the first sentence of the article, i don't think it's necessary to add anything more. Especially the photo of urination, for me it will be very offensive. Moscowsky-talk- 00:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It is a physiological function, and should be dealt with in a similar way to ejaculation or erection - that is to say with a couple of paragraphs - such as
Main article: Urination

, Urination in men, also known as micturition, voiding, peeing, weeing, pissing, and more rarely, emiction, is the ejection of urine from the urinary bladder through the urethra in the penis to the outside of the body. In healthy humans the process of urination is under voluntary control. In infants, elderly individuals and those with neurological injury, urination may occur as an involuntary reflex. Physiologically, micturition involves coordination between the central, autonomic, and somatic nervous systems. Brain centers that regulate urination include the pontine micturition center, periaqueductal gray, and the cerebral cortex.

, and a photograph, such as that cited above. ( I realize that the text is very much open to improvement.)93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you can go on arguing about adding a short text paragraph (which seems redundant and not focus on the penis), but excretion photo is absolutely unnecessary, currently nobody supports this except yourself. Moscowsky-talk- 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly modified the lede from Urination as an example. I could write a better, more penis focussed paragraph if you accept that it is necessary and will not oppose it's addition to the article. I do not understand your opposition to the photograph which is clearly focussed on the penis, and I would be grateful if you would try to explain your reasoning again.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of ejaculation

Is there a reason why one is not included? It would add to the article, and I see no discussion on this issue.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no photo about the "Normal variations"? Why there is no photo about "Disorders"? Why don't we paste all kinds of penis photos together in the page, so it can represent different people better? Why don't we REMOVE all the articles that related to penis and paste all their contents together into this article so people don't need to go to any other pages any more? Moscowsky-talk- 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Normal variations" would be much harder to illustrate in one foto than ejaculation. This page should provide a summary of information relating to the human penis. A photograph or video of an ejaculating human penis would help this article depict and describe the human penis and its functions and make the page more engaging. I am unfamiliar with the concept of deliberately limiting relevant material to sub pages, and I think this page should not only describe, but illustrate all the functions of the penis. This is NOT adding penis fotos for the sake of it, but improve the penis article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what wikilinks do. We link to ejaculation so we don't need to say much more about it here. I think you need to edit other subjects. This penis fascination of yours is getting out of hand! (pun intended.... -- Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two paragraphs about ejaculation in the article, with space for a small image or video link to the right. Similar images are used to illustrate other subjects that are briefly described here, and wikilinked to. I don't understand why ejaculation or urination should be treated differently from erection in this regard. While it is a funny subject to some, I can not see any reason other than censorship not to include a small image or video on ejaculation in Human penis. At the moment, there are no pictures of human penes on the Penis page, because they are available on Human penis, and no pictures of an ejaculating or urinating penis on the Human penis page because they are on the Ejaculation and some consider them not suitable for the Urination page. While I understand that some people object to certain bodily functions, and would prefer to minimise perception of their existence, ejaculation and urination are the two primary functions of the human penis and I do not understand why they should not be shown on the human penis page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "At the moment, there are no pictures of human penes on the Penis page, because they are available on Human penis, and no pictures of an ejaculating or urinating penis on the Human penis page because they are on the Ejaculation...." Thank you. You have just provided the reason why we don't repeat lots of detail where it isn't needed. We wikilink to the detailed articles and that's usually enough. Your childish penis crusade is getting tiring. You're getting rebuffed everywhere and a mature adult would have caught the hint by now. Further attempts are only disruptive, and you'll just end up getting blocked for disruption. You're wasting our time. Try editing other subjects for a while. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a reason for excluding pictures from this article, but a description of how they have been excluded. Please explain why this specific detail is not needed here. I would also be grateful if you would read WP:Civility and concentrate on the merits of this specific issue.93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest. Do you understand? I'm really trying to make the HINT understandable by painting with large letters. I hope to see some understanding soon. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is called Human penis. You say it is not a relevant place for a photograph of a human penis ejaculating or urinating because they may be offensive. Those will be found where the signs saying "penis" point. I am confused. WP:NOTCENSORED includes "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content"93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altering the genitalia

Genital piercing and Genital tattooing should be added to this section - at the moment this article makes no mention of modern aesthetic alterations.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a independent paragraph "Altering the genitalia" for this. Moscowsky-talk- 02:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is where i suggest references and a short description of both Genital piercing and Genital tattooing. At the moment that section describes circumcision and various primitive practices, but ignores the more mainstream genital piercing and genital tattooing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those subjects are covered at the main article Genital modification and mutilation. The link to that main article is in the section mentioned above. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not covered in Genital modification and mutilation. Read it. In any case, that does not preclude summarising them in the article. Perhaps you have some other reasons you would like to share?93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my sloppy language. They are wikilinked there, and that's enough. All the details are in their respective articles. You seem to think that we should duplicate anything related to penises and genitalia all over the place, but that's not how an encyclopedia works. We're not here to satisfy childish curiosity and fascination, and yet we have plenty of uncensored articles. We wikilink to them and often leave it at that. The main articles have all the details. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they not be summarised, and wikilinked directly from this article on the human penis. This is the main article on the human penis, I think it the appropriate place for summarising everything related to human penises. I was unaware that wikipedia was intended not to satisfy childish curiosity and fascination. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development before puberty

Currently this is not mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_reproductive_system#External_genitalia should be linked to, ideally with a summary of the relevant material.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_penis&oldid=503415360"