Talk:Glans

Merge

• Don't you think this should be merged with Glans penis? Nippoo

• No because females have them too...

• I think that only the common part to both sexes should be left. In particular, the picture needs only to be in glans penis, not in glans. :209.9.198.6 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that this article needs to stay because it helps to categorise the parts in the male and female reproductive organs. I propose that the comment about this suggestion on top of the page be removed. We can keep the history of this conversation for later references. If no one comments for about a month or three, I think I will remove it. Lafeber (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Upgrades

Hello all. I've worked on this article to the point where I think it no longer rates as a stub. It still needs some work, and all suggestions and helpful edits are welcome. In particular, the article is in need of a few references. --Esseh 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mayday, mayday!

OK, so it's the 1st of May. Whooopee! Better still, I think I have finally finished this article. Please, all of you who have contributed (and I'll look thorugh the discussion list and contact you directly), this article needs a few things, and then I want to submit it for review. What it needs is:

• a check for my omnipresent typos
• a check for clarity
• a check on categories (I think it needs more, but am unsure what to add).

Thanks, and if you don't want to respond here, write me on my talk page. Esseh 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessments

I have just added a Biology project box, and changed the Sexuality box to reflect that this article needs attention. Rationale: I have greatly expanded and re-written this article, and it needs assessment for quality and importance from both projects. Thanks all Esseh 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Acorn?

Bollocks does it mean that.

It does indeed. Check a dictionary. And this is for discussion of the article. Oh, and please sign your posts. Esseh 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Anatomy project box; same rationale. Esseh 18:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

I'm reverting a large series of changes to this article for the following reasons:

1. The page is fundamentally (and logically) a disambiguation page, with glans penis and glans clitoridis as the targets.
2. Detailed information on these targets is already in the respective articles. It does not need to be repeated.
3. We certainly don't need large sections of text that are essentially POV forks of the aforementioned articles.
4. Nor do we need large sections of (again) repetitious and non-NPOV text about tangential issues (eg prepuce). Again, the detail is in the relevant articles.

Jakew 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said below, I disagree.

1. The articles on glans penis and glans clitoridis (and you even spelled that incorrectly) are anthropocentric, and do not even mention that these structures exist in other mammals. This article is intended as a single, comparative biology article. Much of the information is relevant to humans, but not all. The article was slated, long ago, for merging, but that did not happen, and I expanded and referenced it.
2. POV in your opinion. Most, if not all, of the statements you deleted were, in fact, referenced. I tried very hard to maintain an NPOV tone on this, and studiously avoided entering into the circumcision debate.
3. The section on the prepuce were (again) comparative and relative to the glans, and thus unlike what is found on either the male of female prepuce pages. Readers were directed to the main articles for more details.

Now that our little tirades are over, do you think you could discuss it in a civil manner before making massive cuts? Esseh 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1. The obvious answer is to expand glans penis, etc, to discuss the structures in other mammals. There is rarely a good reason to repeat large amounts of material, and never a good reason to create a POV fork.
2. There is more to NPOV than referencing. Consider, as a somewhat silly example: "The earth is flat (see Flat Earth Society, 2001)". Referenced? Yes. Neutral? No. A more neutral phrasing distinguishes between opinion and fact: "According to the Flat Earth Society, the earth is flat". But we should really endeavour to include all major views: "According to the Flat Earth Society, the earth is flat. Higgins, however, argues that it is spherical."
3. Comparative discussions tend to be vitally important to some (especially those advocating a point of view). Since the choice of comparison is basically arbitrary (one could as easily compare with the scalp), it's best to avoid favouring a point of view by including one but not another. Jakew 22:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Why just glans penis? Surely there is a need for a human-specific article, and there is one. What happened to the glans clitoridis?
2. Obviously. So, if you think the references (in peer-reviewed journals) are biased, add some of equivalent stature with the other POV for balance. I would have no objection to that.
3. This is your POV. A comparison of homologous organs is, to me, quite relevant, and hardly arbitrary. A comparison to the "scalp" as you suggest, would not be relevant, as they are not homologous. No POV was favoured in the article as it was. Read it, and tell me where? Esseh 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to revert Esseh's edits. Just as this is a comparative article, so are articles like Biology or Human. As for POVs or the neutrality of the content, I guess I don't have any knowledge on the subject. Jake and Esseh, please be careful from violating the WP:3RR policy; you might get blocked. —Anas ^talk? 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Anas.

(Replying to Esseh)

Perhaps you overlooked this, but I stated "glans penis, etc". Other structures were included in "etc".

More complete and balanced coverage is already present in other articles. While I could add content from those here, to do so would add to the repetition problem. To be as explicit as I can, we need a really good reason to include essentially the same information in more than one place. It is usually best to concentrate on making the content in the obvious place better, and direct readers to that article. Jakew 10:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to include "repeated" information. You can expand the individual articles and include summarized pieces of information and link to the main articles. That, I think, is the best approach. —Anas ^talk? 11:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Jakew 11:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive changes

Hello, in particular to Jakew. Frankly, your massive edits (and in particular cuts) to the article with no discussion beforehand strike one as a bit rude. Many of the changes you made were, in my opinion, valid. Others were not. I have reverted the whole of them, and will now attempt to replace the valid fixes you made. Thanks, and TALK to me! Esseh 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see comments my above. I made a series of repairs before realising that fixing problems in the detail is the wrong approach when the detail is in the wrong article. I therefore reverted to a much earlier version.

No rudeness is intended, just boldness. :-) I'd be happy to work with you on getting some of the changes into the appropriate articles, with the necessary editing for NPOV, etc. Jakew 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jakew. Thanks. I really don't think the reverting to a much earlier version is such a good idea. As I said above, this is intended largely as a comparative article - smoething which neither of teh other glans articles do. What I would suggest is adding a couple of "see main article" headings at the top, for those seeking more in-depth info about one or the other, for a start. Then, we can work on what you perceive to be POV. Sound reasonable? Esseh 22:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a mistake, because it would not resolve the repetition problem, and postpones solving the POV problem.

I'm not totally convinced that a comparative article is needed or desirable. If you convince me otherwise, then perhaps this might be the place to include comparison information, leaving the details of each structure to the other articles. Jakew 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Jakew. You've reverted this to a stub. Have you even checked the articles on glans penis and glans clitoridis? They're little more than stubs themselves! So, how come you're not campaigning to cut them out, or merge them into this one? Second, why do I have to convince you, in particluar? As I understand it, there is a difference between being bold, and being arrogant (of course, that's my POV). Esseh 22:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly I'd agree that merging those articles into this is an option, Esseh. That would certainly resolve some of the repetition problem. However, the usual approach in Wikipedia is to have a so-called 'disambiguation page' that directs readers to more specific articles. How do you see the relative merits of the two options?

As for convincing me, no, you don't have to do so. However, the purpose of having this discussion is surely to reach some kind of agreement on what to do. Right? Jakew 10:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A comment from an "outsider": The primary location for material on the glans penis and clitoral glans should probably be in those articles. However, it seems that there is enough general commentary that transforming this article into a disambiguation page would a little much. I would suggest transferring the detailed information on the individual organs to the two "sub"-articles, and retain a brief, one paragraph summary here, in this article (using either {{main}} or {{details}} to direct readers to the primary articles on the glans penis and clitoral glans). Carom 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Carom. That seems very reasonable to me. Esseh, what are your thoughts? Jakew 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

citation needed?!?

Normally I am all about jerking the citation needed spam from articles. This would be an exception:

"This organ was once thought to serve no function other than sexual arousal, but research is beginning to prove otherwise."

I think this merits more than just a "citation needed". How about what research is suggesting other functions may have been... and the citation. Otherwise this whole stanza could be omitted. -- JSAtkinson 11:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

image?

The image used is not an image of a normal glans. No normal glans looks all wrinkled like that. Clearly this is a glans that has been badly keratinized due to circumcision. Can we please replace it with an image of a normal (undamaged) glans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrettcooper (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)