Talk:Penis/archive6

Penis

Abraham Lincoln liked penis a lot. He was madly in love with vampire cock. he would slay vampires like it was his job, just for their penis. Now Abraham Lincoln was a rather small man, thats why he would go after the vampires. He had a penis that was smaller than 1 inch..can you believe it was smaller then 1 inch?! It's cray. This is where the journey to the center of Abraham Lincolns penis ends.

Shower/Grower

I see that recently additional info was added to the penis size section on "showers/growers". The cited info is true, but it's stated here in a way that is a little misleading (as of dec 17th, 06).

The source cited indicates that "showers" and "growers" may grow the same (additional) length during an erection, but the increase (percentage wise) is more drastic for the "grower" because he starts with less length. What the means in the real world is that if you take an average person with a 2 inch flaccid penis and an average person with a 6 inch flaccid penis, and they grow the same amount, the 2 inch grows to 5 inchs erect (grower 150% increase), and the 6 inch grows to 9 inches erect (shower 50% increase). So by volume the shower would still be at least twice the size erect as the grower (probably more since girth slightly correlates to length).

What this means that the whole shower/grower thing isn't a big equalizer like some people say or as possibly implied here (in wiki article). A small flaccid penis may grow more then would be expected (percentage increase), but it will still typically grow to much less final size then someone large flaccid (i.e. 5 vs 9 in previous example). Wits 22:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:penis reduced.jpg and Image:penis corrected.jpg are the same image

Since when does Wikipedia have images saved individually saved at different resolutions? It is perfectly fine to have only the hi-res image and use it at a smaller resolution in the article, as I have just put it. If anybody objects, I can look up the appropriate guideline. Right now this makes monitoring vandalism a lot easier, as one image less is being objected to it. — Mütze 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The larger version was on MediaWiki:Bad_image_list, and could not be displayed in articles--Clawed 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, since that seems to have been cleared up, [[:Image:penis reduced.jpg might just as well be proposed for deletion, since it's redundant. — Mütze 12:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Strength

Just out of morbid curiosity, how strong is a human penis? I'm willing to bet pretty strong. [1] Dessydes

I don't even want to think about how one would measure such a thing. →Vranak←

extreme Penis length

There should be a comment on the largest penis ever recorded, and very small penises, I think (plus the name of the disorder is it is one). Methinks ppl would be interested.

Good idea, though i dont think we should start making people feel inadequate, which something like that would.--81.170.114.90 12:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This assumption of the bigger the better strikes me as laughably absurd. →Vranak←

I believe it's all at human penis size. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Size doesnt matter , its what you do with it, dickhead !

Absolutley right, its not the size ship its the motion of the ocean.

Are so many penis images necessary, perhaps for the gay community its a good thing, but as a married man, its pointless, porn and bordering on perversion.

You're such a wanker. I'm sure you'd be more than glad to walk over to the vagina category and have a wank over actual photos of those. My wife and I feel that having images can always help with research that anyone might be doing on the subject. I don't feel as though it is necessary or unecessary to have excess or minimal amount of imagery.

Not to mention apparently only gay men enjoy nude men? What about straight women?

Why would gay men enjoy straight women? (^_^) Gzuckier 16:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Because gay men are fascinated by these (o Y o) — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on the images once again reopened

User:Chooserr has changed the picture directly under the 'erection' heading into a link. While his tdea might have merit, it was in disregard of a current consensus and of the comment that was there (which he removed). Therefor I reverted his edit and challenged him to argue his point. He did this here: User Talk:Mütze#Penis, so the discussion is open once again (and I suggest we continue it here), but until a new consensus has been reached, the page stays the way it was according to the last one. I am going to revert you again now, please do not be offended and continue the discussion here, before re-reverting again. I do not want this to become a revert war and I want to solve this to (possibly) everybody's satisfaction. — Mütze 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but how do we attempt to get a consensus or at least open a poll for this idea which isn't censorship - as I explained on Muetze's talk page.?. Chooserr 18:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, period. If you don't want to look at the pictures, don't go to the page. This issue has been addressed numerous times, here and on other body part pages. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone looks up 'penis' in an encyclopedia that isn't censored, why would they not expect to see some images of penises? --Nigelj 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My two cents on it are these: It is Wikipedia's (naturally unattainable) goal to accumulate all human knowledge. That includes knowledge that might be found in anatomical encyclopedias, as Wikipedia is, per definition, also one. If you describe "erection", you can write until your fingers are sure, just trying to make readers (who might be female and really never seen it before — but that is besides the point) understand the change in size, but just showing what happens makes things so much easier.

On the other hand, why hide it? Chooserr, what changes by changing the image to a link? As far as I can see it, it makes the article visually less accessible than it could be because the immediate association between the sub-heading and the corresponding image is lost. Also it conveys the (possibly NPOV) notion that a picture of a penis is considered indecent and to be kept preferrably hidden. I can't see how the Wikipedia guidelines can be interpreted to represent themselves through that implication. None the less, I don't want to play the rule mongerer and would prefer to treat this outside the guidelines (according to the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, don't have the link handy right now). So please explain to me, in what way the experience of reading this article is enhanced by hiding the picture? — Mütze 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with everyone against Chooserr - as far as I can tell his entire point on wikipedia (from looking into his history/etc) has been to screw up any article that disagrees with his political agenda and his preconceived biases. This is unacceptable behavior for a wikipedian and shouldn't be tolerated. I'm tempted to login and add him to my watch list just so I can tail him and see if he persists in his vandalizing, inappopripriate, POV and censoring agenda. - Chooserr if you don't like the fact that wikipedia doesn't censor articles, and you are clearly annoyed that it doesn't couch them in your political favor as shown by some of your past edits and abuses of tags like the weasel words tag - then you can kindly get off wikipedia 65.125.133.211 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't been active on wikipedia for a while, and I know this is old but 65.125.133.211 (or whoever you really are) I do not try to "screw up any article that disagrees with" my "political agenda". I try to follow all the rules, and I try to genuinely better the articles. Also its been cleared up several times that I DO NOT vandalise articles. So please, please don't wikistalk me, and don't spread lies about me. Chooserr 22:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I got redirected here from Laura Welch Bush...

...so let's do something...

I see none of this in the history of her article. Iolakana|^T 11:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Laura Welch Bush currently correctly redirects to Laura Bush, the redir had been vandalised to point here instead of the correct article. It was fixed this morning by the same anonymous editor as left the connent above[2]. -- AJR | Talk 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just normal, random vandalism, hardly worth noting. — Mütze 11:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Circumcised penis images POV violation

I haven't checked to see if they're still up on the article as I am at work (so I have image loading disabled) As I said elswhere in this talk page - posting images of circumcised penises should be reserved for the circumcision page. Posting them here (As if they were normal) is an unencyclopeadic display of POV-bias in favor of a practice that many, including myself (a victim of) consider genital mutilation.

There is no medically justifiable reason for it to be performed, EVER. Even if the studies about UTIs, HIV transmission, etc were correct (which, they are not - they are all poorly performed and the latest studies show that they're bullocks and it took a whole 10 minutes for the HIV ones to be shot down as well). (see http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm ) - but that is an argument for elsewhere - the halls of medical ethics. back onto subject..

Even if it's considered "normal" to cut off part of it in parts of the english-speaking audience (the United States) it's is not considered normal in others (Canada, the UK) - either way, population consideration of "normal" or "not" is irrelevant - the human penis, naturally, posses a foreskin which protects the glans from abrasion and dirt, contains 20k nerve cells, allows for gliding in and out of it's own shealth instead of penis<-->vagina friction during intercourse - it should be shown that way on this page, and circumcised images should be reserved for the page on circumcision.

Showing circumcised penises in this article would be like showing a the vulva of a woman who has had her clitoris and clitoral hood removed in the article on the vagina/vulva - it's inappropriate and POV 65.125.133.211 21:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree here. The intact state is the natural state of the penis, which has been unaltered, and this should be the type we display, not one that has part of it removed. The pictures of the circumcised one can be displayed in the circumcision section.

The foreskin is a significant part of the male anatomy, it has functions of its own, in providing a majority of the pleasure sensations a man can experience, and plays an important role in the overall proper functioning of the organ, both sensory, protective, and immunological. The foreskin contains specialised pleasure receptors found nowhere else on the body, and protects the glans and provides vital functionality of its own.

A penis with this part of the organ removed is certianly not "normal" or "natural", it has been altered and is bereft, missing one of its most essential parts.

Regardless of what a persons view is, I do think that it is best to display it in its default natural state.

Millueradfa 00:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

While it is best that the main picture of the article be of an uncircumsized penis, I hardly think that the inclusion of pictures of circumsized peni in the circumcision section is POV. I would argue that an article on the penis without mentioning or showing circumcision would be rather silly (the same goes for the vagina or vulva article. I find circumcision an abhorent process, but I do not shirk away from facts because I find them distasteful. Keep in mind that this this talk page is NOT a place to discuss the moral implications of the practice of circumcision. The inclusion of these pictures here DOES NOT CONDONE OR CONDEMN the practice itself. It merely shows its results, which is important in an encyclopedic article. CaveatLector^Talk 01:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree. We should not have a POV in the article. The circumcised one should be under the circumcused section. The intact one at the top. This is quite reasonable. Putting a circumcised one on the top, would be like putting a picture of a foot altered by chinese Foot binding

at the top of the foot article.

Millueradfa 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Penis corrected.jpg is simply a better picture, it is of far greater quality than the one it is currently being replaced (and re-replaced) with. I don't think it is really that big a deal, if that particular penis is now circumsized or not. It can certainly not be said that the article would be "misleading" either way, because it explains the topic of circumcision at great lengths further down—even with pictures. It might be a good idea for everybody to consider for a moment, how little harm is done by either picture and avert the revert-war that is starting to form here.

Just to be helpful, I suggest the previous picture be reinstated, if only for aesthetic reasons. — Mütze 17:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The main picture should certainly be of an intact penis because it is the human penis in its natural, normal state. Showing a circumcised penis further down when circumcision is discussed makes sense (of course), but the main picture should be of a normal penis since the page is entitled "penis" and not "circumcised penis." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trmpetplaya (talk • contribs)

We're getting a number of first-time editors here, likely reflecting the fact that this page is currently being targetted by anti-circumcision activists. I'd like to invite these activists to review WP:NOT, and to note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for activism.

Realistically, somewhere between one sixth and one third of males worldwide are circumcised, so both are entirely normal, and it is entirely appropriate to include examples of either variety. The important question to ask is which is of highest quality. Jakew 18:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether or not it is more appropriate for a picture of an anatomically intact penis to be used, in place of a penis which is lacking anatomically.

The anti-circ movement isn’t using this as a soap-box. The ethics of circumcision are not being discussed (at least not on my part). 71.115.72.128 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, please understand my concern when I see comments such as the following on an anti-circumcision discussion forum:

They have just changed it. I'm rather upset. Most people have never seen an uncircumcised penis, and this picture was at a particurally nice angle which would minimize the "eeew gross" factor. It showed how an uncircumcised penis is so much more astetic that those tight circumcised ones IMO of course. Having a circumcised penis as th main picture is bad bad bad.

Perhaps we could blitz the comments page, asking for the old picture to be put up? And saving all the circumcised penis pictures for somewhere else on the page and th circumcision pages of wikipedia? Perhaps we could state how since th majority of men on earth or uncircumcised, and the majority of English speaking men are uncircumcised, it is inappropriate for a circumcised penis to be the main picture on the penis page?

Can you see why I am a little concerned that the underlying motivation of these activists may in fact be to promote the uncircumcised penis, as opposed to improving the encyclopaedia? Jakew 20:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern Jakew, yet the question of whether or not it is more appropriate for a picture of an anatomically intact penis to be used, in place of a penis which is lacking anatomically, is my main concern. Is that made any less of a valid question by your above quotation?

I believe it is addressed by my above observation that given the statistics, both variations can reasonably be considered to be normal. Jakew 12:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But both can not be considered anatomically intact and unaltered.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Lorelei (talk • contribs) 

This is not a problem. Please take a look at fingernail, for example. The photo is quite evidently a normal, trimmed nail, not an unaltered one that is several feet long. While I understand that these matters may be important to 'intactivists', Wikipedia is more concerned with whether a photograph is representative of a normal example. Jakew 13:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A trimmed nail still has a finger nail, and is anatomically intact, where as a circumcised penis is either entirely lacking a piece of anatomy, or has had that piece of anatomy removed to the extent that it is unrecognizable.

Anatomically, having a circumcised penis as the main picture would be like having a picture of a finger which has had the fingernail entirely or partially removed from the nail bed.

It’s not an anti-circumcision issue. It’s an educational and informational one. It also seems this conversation has been previously hosted, before us new posters came along. Die Lorelei 13:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter the moitivations of the individuals posting (myself included in the anti-circ movement) it is UNENCYLOPEDIC to show a circumcised penis as the normal penis - without even getting into the ethics (lack thereof) of circumcision. Sure to some people this seems minor, but to those of us who consider ourselves victims and feel like victims and are quite angry about what we have lost ( http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm ) the supposed triviality dispears. This subject is treated with far to blase of an attitude in the United States - when we're not outright insulted, belittled, demonized and libeled for opposing a proceedure which ammounts to genital mutilation. (Now i'm soapboxing, sorry, i'll stop).

The Simple fact is - no matter our motiviations in pointing out that posting a circumcised penis as if it was normal is POV that doesn't change the fact that we're correct - it IS POV Lordkazan 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that circumcision is a religious belief in both male and female genders in some cultures and countries, but as a personal view and a view for human rights, I believe it is up the to person who has the operation performed on themselves that it be soley their choice when they are of adult legal age 18 years and 21 in some countries. Thankfully, I have not had this done to myself, and I would never have this done to my children. It is a common misbeliefe that it contributes to HIV transmission and other STI's, but medical research by liberated medical scientists has discovered this to be false. My mother was a medical lecturer for many years and a professor in Medicine and Nursing in Australia, from which I derived that circumcision is unethical and an commonly falsely observed action by whereas the information given to the consenting parents or persons, is usually wrong. Thankfully, there is a current ban worldwide to perform this surgery on female genitalia, but whereas I am sure there are many news reports from around the world, with particular concentration on African countries that this procedure is still perfomed, and notably the laws that govern these countries "turn a blind eye" to the procedures occurance. I feel that this should also be the case (bad worldwide) on male genitalia including for religious persons, except with the case of before mentioned, consenting persons at legal adult age 18 or 21 as per country law permits.

If you were born circumcised, raise your hand. Otherwise GTFO. The human penis has a foreskin. Deal with it. That is a NATURAL, NORMAL, REAL penis. Whatever happens to it afterwards is the end-users problem and has nothing to do with penii or this article. They can be retained in sections for circumcision, anything else wouldn't just be idiotic, but it'd be unacademic and an inappropriate representation of a tockley. 211.30.71.59 00:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely disturbed by many of the comments in this section. "NATURAL, NORMAL, REAL"? Fact: an uncircumcised penis is the penis in a natural and unaltered state. Fact: a circumcised penis is very normal in places of the world and is not uncommon at all; it is also a very real, functional, and healthy (yes, it is still healthy, though altered) penis. It would be POV to act as if circumcision is dominant when it truly isn't, or that circumcised penises are the only penises, but no one is saying that. Can you seriously not accept the fact that circumcised men had no control or say in the decision, and that they're men just like you are? Can you seriously not accept the fact that a circumcised penis is just as much a penis as an unaltered one, and that there's nothing wrong about it? I personally feel that people should be able to choose these things, but there's nothing wrong with being in either state. Get over your insecurities and realize that we're all men, circumcised or not. Thank you. --Berserk798 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Penis size in pornography?

Why is it always bigger than average sizes? Their size seems to be always around ~11+ inches. Is that natural?

some guys are naturally that big.. but wtf porno have you been watching? most of the stuff I watch has guys of varying average sizes to above average sizes 65.125.133.211 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Picture

Why has the main picture of a penis changed? Before it was uncircumcised, now it's circumcised. The majority of English-speaking men are uncircumcised, as well as th majority of men on earth. I could understand if this was the Hebrew page or the Arabic page, but not the English page.

The new main penis picture does not show a penis in the natural or default state. The new picture has a missing piece of anatomy, and doesn't even warn people that it is missing a piece of the anatomy.

Shouldn't the circumcised pictures be reserved for the articles relating to circumcision? Or reserved for the "genital Alteration" part of this page?

This picture should be put back up. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Lorelei (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 August 2006

You were doing well until the anti-semetic comment...I DO agree with you here, though. The main picture should probably be a picture of the penis in its natural state without alterations. CaveatLector^Talk 01:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking at the picture you suggested be put back up, I am reminded of the discussion that went on earlier that pointed out that this is not the same penis. (The one on the left is uncircumsized, the one on the right clearly IS circumsized. THIS is a problem. CaveatLector^Talk 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

They are both of the same penis, only in the second image the foreskin is retracted. --Clawed 02:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The original picture was clearly of the same penis. The description of the picture even states the foreskin is retracted in the erect picture. Upon viewing, The foreskin is clearly visible and retracted, also there is no scar indicating circumcision. The current circumcised penis picture should be returned to the normal penis picture. Why would one think the erect picture is of a different, circumcsied penis when it is clearly the same penis with the foreskin retracted? The color, resolution and focus are even the same, indicating the picture was taken with the same camera at the same distance. The picture is rather blurry but should not have been replaced by a surgically altered penis but a higher quality picture of a natural penis. -AXE

I don't see how my comment was anti-Semitic. I mentioned something objectively about religion, but certainly did not say anything to degrade or bash it. I am anything but anti-Semitic, and my family has a significant Jewish branch. I apologize if you saw my comment that way, but I'll reassure you that that most certainly was not my intention. I would edit my comment to avoid offending someone, but as I fail to see how it was anti-semetic, I don't know what to edit out.

I wonder if anyone knows definitely if the two pictures are not the same penis. I've seen my fair share of penises, and the two most certainly look like the same one. Not only is the pubic hair color, implant, etc the same, but I have trouble believing the photo on the right is of a circumcised penis. It is far to supple and veiny, and the skin is too smooth. Also look at the vein on the near side of the penis while it is flaccid, that vein is in the appropriate place when erect.

Die Lorelei

I've also seen many peni...and I must appologize. It was late and this monitor I am on has permenent screenburn, so the picture quality might have made it look as if they were different peni. Clearly they are the same. Sorry. Oh, and the anti-semetic comment I was referring to was 'I could understand if this was the Hebrew page or the Arabic page', associating circumcision DIRECTLY with semeticism is fallacious in this day and age, as most male children in America are circumcized shortly after birth, regardless of their heritage. CaveatLector^Talk 19:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I still fail to see how it was anti-Semetic (or ill-informed). I didn't imply that most american boys are uncircumcised, or state that only people with certain heritages are circumcised. I said most English speaking males are uncircumcised, and went on to say that if a circumcised penis was the first picture on the Hebrew or Arabic language page, I could understand the choice, (as most Hebrew and Arabic speaking men are circumcised).

I'm greatly offended you would see something anti-Semetic in that. Even from your perspective, perhaps the right word would be ill-informed. The accusation of hatred hurts just as much as being a victim to it. Could you choose your words a bit more carefully next time?

Is it possible that the old picture will be put back up? An anatomically intact penis should be the main picture, and circumcised penis should be reserved for pages or areas on circumcision or genital alteration in general.

I am also in no doubt that the main image of this page should show an un-altered penis. It looks like Image:Penis_corrected.jpg is the best we have, and it's way more than adequate. Meantime, it looks like Clawed and Jakew have privately edit-warred the issue to within an inch of their lives: [3] [4] [5] [6]. So, do we have a consensus here for showing the un-circumcised image? --Nigelj 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am suprised this is really an issue at all. There has been much discussion before (see the talk page archoves) and there is no reason to show anything but an unaltered average looking penis as the main photo. It would seem stupid to have discussion about the human penis structure including the foreskin and have it illustrated with a circumsised penis. It would make good sense to show the differences between a circumsised penis and uncircumsised penis in the section that deals with circumsision and also in the circumsision article. --Clawed 00:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

To stop the current war I propose that everyone vote for which Image should be the main photo for the article. Please select the Image you think is best for the main photo and then sign your with your username ~~~~ The current choices for the image are:

• Image:Penis corrected.jpg
• Image:Flaccid and erect human penis corrected.jpg
• If you want to add any other images from Wikipedia Commons to the list, then please do.

1. Image:Penis corrected.jpg --Clawed 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Image:Penis corrected.jpg --Fibonacci 09:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Image:Penis corrected.jpg --AXE 8:01, 27 Augus 2006
4. Image:Penis corrected.jpg, because the colors are smoother. It looks a lot better than the red-on-black picture that is being proposed now. If it's circumcised or not is not that big a deal, because the article explains that further down and we can add a comprehensible caption. — Mütze 13:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Image:Flaccid and erect human penis corrected.jpg (but if a picture of an uncircumcised penis can be found that is of the same or better quality, I'm quite happy to use that) -- Jakew 12:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Image:Penis corrected.jpg --Nigelj 18:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Image:Flaccid and erect human penis corrected.jpg Atom 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Image:Penis corrected.jpg -- should be an uncircumcised penis - showing a circumcised (MUTILATED!) penis is a NPOV violation! Lordkazan 13:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• This poll is now closed please leave any further comments below this line

---

Why not use both pictures to show the difference???

Penis

The penis is not the male reproductive organ. That status belongs to the testicals which produce the sperm, which is the actual substance that reproduces (together with the ovum. The penis is a tool to place the semen into the vagina so that the sperm could reach the egg cell in the fallopian tubes and create a sigote. It actually has no influence in reproduction, as people can reproduce with misformed or damaged penises, and to some extent without even using the penis because of erectile dysfunction - but not with bad sperm. Additionally I think it is unnecessary to include pictures of real life penises as sketches of it is enough to make a person know what and where the penis is. --Scotteh 18:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you define it as "a tool to place the semen into the vagina", the penis is definitely *a* male reproductive organ, if not *the*.

And simply describing the penis may be *enough*, but pictures are better, so unless the question "Why remove them?" can be answered, the uses outweigh that lack of an answer. See the (so far) five pages of this talk page.

And I believe the words you meant, which you then un-linked are testicles and zygote. — Mütze 18:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I was having trouble with the translation. Thanks for the correcting. --Adriaan90 12:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a totally minor point

In the non-human section, I think it's worth noting that feline penises are barbed. After all, there are a lot of weird penises out there.

Okay, carry on.

Someone wants to remove the Penis game link at the bottom of the article btw

Penis size

I would like to see a citation inserted supporting the assertion that, "the general consensus is that the average human penis is approximately 12.7-15 cm (5-5.9 in) in length and 12.3 cm (4.85 in) in circumference when fully erect", especially since the penis size article seems to disagree with this. — Sd1234561

Examining the penis size article, out of the 3 scientific studies cited (non-self measured) the averages erect lengths found are 5 in, 5.35 in, and 5.9. Thus 5-5.9 in covers the range in average erect lengths found. There is too much variation between the studies to state one length. That would be opiniated.

For girth there is only one study cited at 5 in, but I have seen studies showing 4.5-5.2 in. Possibly from some of the same studies cited for length. Typically little variation found in studies on erect girth, so one stat makes sense (vs. a range). More cites (under penis size article) are needed to confirm it (avg circumference).

A few weeks ago there was a link here that showed all different penis measurement pictures is that link still here or has it been removed? If its been removed why and does anyone have the link? I cant find it.

Sexual Homology - Frenulum?

What's the homologous counterpart to the frenulum in females? The clitoral hood?

Where is it written that every piece of anatomy must have a homologue in the opposite sex? I'm not saying the frenulum doesn't have one, but you seem to be operating from the assumption that it necessarily must. Kasreyn 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also the frenulum -- inside, yes, the clitorol hood, which is homologous to the foreskin. Scix 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

my goodness

Most of Internet-frequenting people must be quite immature to have the penis page locked. You think only an insignificant number of people would do this--not a great deal of the visitors!! Comments?

It's more a matter of learning from your mistakes. Every time somebody vandalises the article, some one has to clean up the mess. Forcing the the casual visitor, intent to have a bit of fun for a minute, to log in before his misdeed, greatly decreases the frequency of people posting immature comments of the caliber "DICKS R GAY LOL". On the other hand, anybody who wishes to contribute helpfully will probably be ready to create an account and start a long and fruitful career of enriching everybody's experience with Wikipedia. — Mütze 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

That's analogous to saying only guilty people don't want their houses searched. Creating an account is extremely inconvenient. — Sd1234561 22:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

With the difference that nobody is forced to make a contribution. Having your house searched is hardly avoidable if a group of policemen ist knocking on your front door. If the registration process already scares you off, the contributions might not have been worth it anyway. — Mütze 23:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that anybody is forced to make a contribution, I'm saying that just because somebody doesn't want to register doesn't mean they intend to do some harm, or doesn't want to "contribute helpfully". They may be turned off by the registration process for a different reason. In the same way, people may not want their houses searched, not because they are guilty, but because of some other reason. Concerns for privacy are good reasons in both cases. Sd1234561 7:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, the loss of their contributions is a price, that Wikipedia has to be able to pay, in order to keep this article clean. But that is Wikipedia's loss, not the potential contributor's. — Mütze 10:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the analogy to searching your house is proper - your house is private, but Wikipedia is very, very public. It's an encyclopedia, and as such a little bit of accountability and effort may prevent people from posting or editing without thinking. Would you trust an anonymous source claiming to be authoritative? I say that, yet I definitely think it's still important for anonymous users to be able to edit - after all, other people will eventually read the article and correct any errors, but I have no problem with the minimal limits placed on problem articles. Logging on isn't that big of a deal, and most people can set Wikipedia to automatically log them on, assuming they're using their own computer or computer account.(Elustran 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Sadly, it's not just immature people. Breast is currently being revert-warred by someone who claims that they are concerned that certain images may cause WP, which they consider to be a good research tool, to be blocked from computers in libraries and schools. While their attitude (of wanting WP to be available to students) is commendable, it's not appropriate for a local community to dictate its preferences to the world audience WP serves. If governments and schools choose to mandate censoring of their access to WP, it's a damn shame, but it's not our fault or our problem. Kasreyn 05:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the possibility of having a "possibly offensive" image tag of some sort so parents, schools, etc who want their kids to have access to Wikipedia but not to certain classes of imagrey can still use the site? It might be an unworkable plan, require too much overhead, etc, but then again, there may be some conventions already in place to support that kind of limited blocking. (Elustran 02:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

Transplant

removed http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1874818,00.html -- 172.173.27.163 11:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pics

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

I hear ppl complaining alot about the pics posted for articles like "Penis" "Vagina/Vulva" "Anus", but if you're going to that page, dont just expect information; pics are naturally going to be there. PPl are complaining also (ive seen it) that kids might veiw these types of pages... wtf would they be doing there? If they typed it in its their parents and or guardians who should be teaching them, not wikipedia... save it for school for actually studying and learning about the human anatomy. Had to get that out of my system, sorry.

This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented. I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past). Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past. (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.) Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image. Atom 01:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

It seems odd to say "penis" comes from Latin, but not what Latin word it comes FROM. Is there a Latin word "Penis" that means "Penis"? I seem to recall it's related to a word menaing "tail"... Scix 01:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not "related to" a word meaning tail, it is a word meaning tail. penis, penis - neuter - tail. 128.220.223.61 04:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

plural

Penes is correct since the word is Latin. Penises is an English barbarism. I'd like to change the article.--Loodog 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

the plural of penis is penitentiary. Gzuckier 15:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your changes will be very welcome in the Latin version of Wikipedia. This, however, is the English version. So, no matter how barbaric you think us, we'll stick to our English plurals where they exist, thanks. --Nigelj 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse a barbarism with being barbaric. The former means that it is an illegitimate creation from usage. See also: "nukular". In English, words take their plurals from their respective languages. See also: testes, octopi, alumni adhering to etymological roots. Penes is correct.--Loodog 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It is extremely ironic that you list "octopi" as adhering to "etymological roots" when the Latin plural is octopodes (octopus is a third declension noun, not a second declension noun like fungus).--Sd1234561 08:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, please check a(ny) leading dictionary before going nuts about all this. One can use EITHER 'Penes' or 'Penises'. In common speak, 'Penises' is more used and 'Penes' is more used in medical terminology. So there's no reason for a big argument over this. CaveatLector^Talk 13:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we choose, we don't even have consistency in the article.--Loodog 13:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of images in the article.

I myself feel very strongly about keeping articles uncensored for the sake of disseminating knowledge, but this article is out of hand. The article should definitely have a medical diagram, it would be very preferable to have four photos labeled in a collage (one image showing a flaccid, uncircumcised penis; one showing an erect one; one showing a flaccid, circumcised penis; and the last showing an erect one), and the image of the elephant is useful. I think it's unnecessary to have several images of penises to illustrate the curvature when it should clearly be depicted in the images of flaccid and erect penises. I think the image of herpes is irrelevant and lessens the quality of the article, and should also be removed. The images should be high-quality. Even if they were taken with poor lighting and a cheap camera, at least let's edit them to make them look worthy of being in an encyclopedia. Does anyone agree? --Berserk798 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think only the curvature of the penis images should be removed. Curvature is not a topic that needs an image espacially four and I am unsure at what the images are conveying, maximum amount of curvature or just a random amount of curvature of a random person.--Clawed 21:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What about the image of herpes (should only be in the herpes article) or the extra images of flaccid and erect penises? Why shouldn't we remove those as well? --Berserk798 22:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to remove the curvature images and the herpes image, for the reasons mentioned above. The next course of action should be to get more professional pictures of penises and include a flaccid and erect example of both a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. That's all we should have. We have too many amateur, useless images of penises--this needs to be fixed. --Berserk798 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see someone reverted the removals. I was considering reverting but thought I would wait, that maybe it was just me. I think that showing that penis curvature is normal could be beneficial, as well as the one showing herpes, not so much the specific disease, but that sexually transmitted diseases are a reality. The article is about the penis, and educational images and explanations should be welcome. Atom

I made the removals with the hope that someone would actually discuss it if there was a problem. The person who reverted my removals simply said that they "don't understand my reasoning" and never bothered to comment on the talk page. If no one discusses these things so the article can be improved, then the system on which Wikipedia is based on is failing. Here is my reasoning: I understand that it is beneficial to illustrate the curvature of the penis, as that is a notable feature--the thing is, it's already illustrated in the six penis pictures that aren't focusing on curvature. Six is ridiculous. Four should be the maximum we have--a flaccid and erect example of both a circumcised and uncircumcised penis.

Also, this article isn't about showing that sexual diseases are a reality--that can go in the Sexually Transmitted Disease article. The herpes picture is as irrelevant as it is unpleasant to stumble upon when you're expecting to see what the article is about--a penis, not herpes. This article is an unfortunate example of people running away with the fact that Wikipedia is not censored; they're taking advantage of it to plaster this article with penis pictures that, in fact, detract quite a bit from the content. I want to discuss this further. --Berserk798 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your reasoning because the pictures of penis curvature cannot simply be called 'superfluous' and then completely removed. The other pictures in the article do not present an accurate portrayal of penis curvature. I'm not sure how 'plastering' an article about an part of the anatomy with images of said anatomical part can be considered 'detracting'. Would this be a problem if it wasn't the sexual organ? As for the edit deleting the pictures again, I have reverted it. No such consensus has been reached. Berserk798, please check the archives of the talk page, where this and issues like this have been extensively discussed, and then we can discuss it further. CaveatLector^Talk 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Berserk798 and Clawed that the curvature image specifically clutters the article and does not add a lot of encyclopedic content, especially compared to the other photos. I've removed it again, since the consensus here seems fairly clear.

We absolutely need good pictures in this article, and should in no way be thinking about censoring the article. We should, however, be thinking about clear and cogent presentation, and cluttering the article with tons of little mini-galleries works against our goals as an encyclopdia. Nandesuka 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Nandesuka here. The curvature image doesn't add much. If one must be included, it would better to select one of the four photographs (I'd suggest the lower-right), and use this instead. The result would be a reasonably-sized photo.

I would also suggest removing the herpes photograph. Let's illustrate diseases in their respective articles, and remain focused on "normal" examples here.

In general, my feeling about the pictures in this article is that they come across as "bitty". I would prefer fewer, larger, higher-quality photographs, rather than what comes across as a random, untidy collection of thumbnails. Also, the sizes should be standardised, or should at least be systematically chosen. If the image widths are made the same as the diagram, or a ratio of 1:1.6, the effect will be much more pleasing to the eye. Jakew 13:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good—we have some good ideas and a goal here. I think that in the end we should probably replace all of the photos, but for now we can do with removing the herpes image and ones that clutter the article. Curvature, because it's normal and featured in most erect penises, should be represented in any photo of an erect penis. The current images show notably small penises (they look to be under four inches when erect) that therefore have no curvature. I think we should replace these with more professional/aesthetic images that more accurately represent an average penis. --Berserk798 05:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicely uncluttered, guys! Only one set of tiny ones and the elephant to go and it'll just have the school-book diagram left. I counted no fewer than 14 images in the Jesus article just now - is that due for image de-cluttering too soon? --Nigelj 11:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what point you are trying to make, Nigelj. In terms of the Jesus article, it has a lot more text and can therefore hold more images without being cluttered, though having said that, I would be inclined to agree that there are too many. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss that at the relevant page? Jakew 11:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm troubled by the reverting dispute; people can actually say that, despite not having participated in the talk page discussion, the fact that more people are trying to revert our work against consensus than there are those who made the consensus, we must do as they say? If there is an objection, it must be made on the talk page. It's like saying "George Bush can't be president because I didn't vote and he therefore doesn't represent me". Give me a break, please. If you want to be heard, participate. --Berserk798 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sebaceous prominences

can anyone get a pic of Sebaceous prominences? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.67.66 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image at thumbnail

Images should be at thumbnail so that it is relative, not absolute sized. If text can't be read, then user needs to change their preferences. People who have small image and thumbnail want small image for a reason. Also, anyone curious need only click on the image to size it larger. Atomaton 07:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image settings are at "my preferences | files | Thumbnail size". 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 250px, 300px are options. There is also a "Fit images on image description pages to:" choice. If you hard code the image to a px size, it doesn't change according to the user settings. As there are a wide variety of screen sizes, people should be able to choose what size they want their images to be. "thumb" is the mechanism for doing that. In some future revision, there will be a setting that allows you to turn off all images in the user preferences. Atom 03:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of our users don't set those preferences. If you don't have a preference set, the default thumbnail size is too large and makes the article look hideously ugly. We need our articles to be friendly to the 99.99% of our readers who do not have accounts. Nandesuka 03:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk more, and revert less, okay. We had many people satisfied before you reverted. You seem to be the only one with an objection to letting the users decide for themselves.

• Firstly, setting at thumbnail is a standard I use through most of the sexology and sexuality articles. That's because of the reasons I suggested, it allows user preferences to work. I admit there are still many articles that need fixing. Furthermore, it is the size recommended by the Manual of Style. "In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded."
• Secondly, if your concern is the default settings, then the solution is for editors putting in pictures (or improving articles) to resize the image itself (as stored in commons, not in the article) so that it is sized appropriately for default settings. Or have Wikipedia set the default thumbnail size to a different value.

The reason I object to your editing to make the images of a fixed size, rather than relative (other than because then the preferences don't work) is because every person has a different size and different resolution screen. For one Wikipedian the image is huge, for another too small. And with it being hard coded, they can't change that. I myself have a widescreen monitor that is 20" running at something like 2560x2048. Some people still have 14" monitors running in 800x600 mode. Many people have 17" monitors at 1024x768. My philosophy is that the user should set their preferences. To solve the issue of default preferences, we can either resize images, or have Wikipedia set the default thumnail size to a different value. That's my view. Atom 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Various objections to penis pictures

Enacting a Law on Removing penis pictures

Hello, I want to propose a law on Removing pictures of penises on Wikipedia, because I heard from many of my friends that it is offensive to their muslim religion and it turns a Encyclopedia Site like wikipedia into a porn site, so please, can you remove pictures of penises on this site so we can respect other people's religion beliefs and Muslim Mosques won't attack wikipedia so much, because in my area, lots of churches have been launching poster signs about keeping your child from wikipedia because of those penis pictures that offend a huge amount of people in our area. If you like to know where I live, it is in Atlanta, GA.--67.34.212.4 00:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored for minors. However, shock/sex images of no encyclopedic value are typically deleted.Voice-of-All 00:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You search for "penis", you get "penis". I (briefly) taught elementary school -- kids will find titilation in the dictionary. Some people will be offended by the same.

Perhaps those offended would like to start their own wiki? It is fairly simple. --Scix 06:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Look hard enough anywhere, and you can find something that will titillate someone. Ever read Ezekiel, chapter 16? It's not unreasonable to think that all that salacious ranting about prostitution could titillate someone, and it's in the bible that people are apparently too busy thumping to read... Kasreyn 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Your muslim friends should probably enact their own islamopedia, or should use wut was written in their Shari'a "لا حياء في العلم او في الدين" which means there's no shame when learning about science or religion. --Lord Anubis 20:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One too many cocks

I understand that Wikipedia is not censored, and all that, but do we really need A DOZEN fucking penis photos here? Won't one, or maybe two suffice? I find this all very telling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.69 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, none of the photos are of a penis engaged in sexual intercourse. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CENSOR IT

I got here from some defected link to "tata motors", which has now been fixed, but WHY do you have photos of, you know, thingys? nasty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Your Face (talk • contribs) 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia. A container of information. What else were you expecting in a visual browser's rendition of a page about penises? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.96.119.186 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

NO PICTURES

While I am completely against censoring, I do not want my daughters seeing ANY ERECT penises until they are no longer writing reports. I am no Christian, but I believe this is one area that images might be left disallowed. I don't show them mine, and I'll fight your right to show them yours. Should we have pictures involved in articles about child molestation. The line was drawn correctly by NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. These images will make children LESS LIKELY to use this as a reference. Additionally, WHO'S is it?

Sorry, WAS would be correct.

According to the US censors, and, I believe any censors in any country, images of the erect male penis are XXX. Kids should be able to use this site.

I have removed the images.

75.69.207.170 18:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Your daughters will be seeing erect penises eventually, if they haven't already done so. Why not allow them to learn about the subject in a safe and intellectual manner?

Xchanter 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Showing a photograph of an erect penis is no way comparable to child molestation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Showing a photograph of an erect penis is no way comparable to child molestation" because the latter depicts a morally wrong and abusive act of violence that should never take place while the former illustrates an anatomical fact, devoid of normative value. Additionally, removal of penis pictures is the top of a very slippery slope (i.e. do we remove vagina pictures, labium pictures, the 6 pairs of breasts from the breast page). It is appropriate due to context. Take the movie Kinsey (movie), for example, which was able to show an erect penis entering a vagine and which went through US censors.--Loodog 23:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that not all of the images in this article are encyclopedic or useful, and I and a few others are correcting that, but this article is going to illustrate its topic. You're aware that there are penis photos on Wikipedia; if you don't want your daughters to see them, it's your job and your responsibility as a parent to not allow them to. --Berserk798 05:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been no consensus to remove photos on this page. It is the Penis page, what would one expect to find here? We don't censor on Wikipedia. The pictures are on topic, and give perspective on that topic. If it is your opinion that one or more is "not encylopedic or useful" then more power to you, try asking how others think.

Actually there's a more moderate issue that came to mind when I reviewed this: one set of images appears twice (the uncircumsized penis). Perhaps that gives the impression of gratiutousness. Wouldn't it be better to remove the duplicate? Durova 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

15 year old

I doubt it is legal to post XXX pics of minors in various countries, wouldn't it be better to replace it with an adult male version?

Discussion of Herpes picture

There is clear consensus that this article can, must, and will continue to have technically good and encyclopedic photographs of the human penis, because however much others might dislike it, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. However, there seems to be some disagreement about whether or not there is consensus for this image, Image:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-male.jpg, to be in the article. Although voting is evil, I'd like to take an explicit headcount anyway. Please sign your name below in the appropriate section. Nandesuka 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please briefly explain your reasons

Remove the herpes picture

1. Nandesuka 13:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC) My personal opinion is that this image is fairly tangential to the topic, and having a technically good image of a normal penis is much more important. The herpes picture would be appropriate on an article about the genital disease.
2. Jakew 14:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Wikichaser 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Kirkland1 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC), I also agree that the picture is only appropriate on genital disease articles.
6. Should just be in the Herpes article. — Omegatron 00:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
7. This article isn't about showing that STI's are "real", it's about the anatomy of the penis. While it's true that there is a disorders section, the image is still out of place; it is helpful in an article that explains the infection, describes it, etc., as it can help illustrate the topic, but that's not what this disorders section is about. Herpes has nothing to do with the penis, and though it can affect penises, illustrating it in the disorders section is still out of place. --Berserk798 02:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Everyday847 One user on the other side says that the penis page is the only place where it's appropriate to show a penis. This is true to a point: the penis page is the only place where it's appropriate to show a perfectly healthy penis. The herpes page, however, makes more sense as a location for pictures of genitals with herpes. Same with the genital warts page, the page on the clap, and whatever else we choose to add. Everything to its place.
9. mortified_penguin contact 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I understand how some people are arguing that since it is a picture of a penis that it should be to the penis article. However, some may take offence of it, as some are disgusted. There is no guarentee of which all users and visitors are labeled by age, so I firmely believe it to be removed. Perhaps we could put up a link to the picture itself and label it as inappropriate for minors and the "easily-disgusted"?
10. Rafy Serves no useful purpose here. Is however appropriate for the Herpes Article Rafy 13:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
11. User:regebro Can't see why we have to have a herpes picture in a Penis article. --Regebro 13:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
12. User:Angrycrustacean Could be a nasty pic for the squeamish and only barely related to the article. --Angrycrustacean 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
13. ~EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] Agreed, that is a rather disturbing picture, and it doesn't contribute that much to the topic anyway. ~EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 02:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
14. This isn't related, Herpes is one of countless things that might happen to a penis. Where do you stop? - cohesion 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep the herpes picture

1. CaveatLector^Talk 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC) If 'voting is evil' and does NOT establish consensus, why conduct a straw poll?
2. Atom 15:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC) - There are many places that pictures of penises are not appropriate. This is the one place that they are. Some people come here to learn more about the topic, and pictures that illustrate various aspects of that are valuable here. Also, many photos on Wikipedia are in more than one article. In this case it illustrates well that diseases involving the penis are very real. Too many people view the sexual aspect without a fuller context, as no one goes around telling everyone about their STI's. So I don't see the image as tangential. I see the article as being fair game for the full spectrum of issues regarding the penis. The picture is a perfect place to put a reference to the herpes, or sti/std article and will draw people interested in that aspect to explore further by following those links. BTW, I appreciate the straw poll as a useful mechanism to avoid further revert wars. I'd like to see this straw poll open for some lengthy time at least, as short polls often are missed by interested participants.
3. The picture appears well placed in the section about disorders. If that section were not present then the picture would probably not belong here. But the article talks about penis disorders - it is appropriate to have a picture. They may not be a need for additional pictures of disordered penises. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
4. I agree that an image of a disorder is appropriate in the section about disorders. There's an element of public health concern to my support since ignorance is one of the reasons STDs spread. All of the articles about these conditions ought to include images of both male and female examples (many of these articles don't have those images but that can be corrected). Durova 18:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
5. As mentioned above, there is no reason to remove it since there is a section for disorders. If it fits even better somewhere else then add it there. But that doesn't mean it has to be removed from here. Prolog 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Doctormatt 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Absolutely keep it; it is completely appropriate and informative in this context.
7. Seems appropriate and informative. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Keep. It is in the section relating to genital disorders. Pictures are needed in that section to the same extent as they are needed in the specific articles about genital diseases Adam Slack 15:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment:It is about the penis, not the anatomy of the penis. Herpes has nothing to do with the penis, except, as in this case, when it is an STI that infects the penis, like many other disorders and disease affecting the penis. Atom 02:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we've gotten our "headcount"—is there any conclusion to be made? Is this enough to be considered "consensus"? --Berserk798 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly no consensus here. Reading them individually, a wide variety of opinions as to why it should, or should not be there. Based on that, we should give it more time, and maybe some more people will weigh in, or some people will change their opinions after considering the other opinions. I say wait for a few more months. It doesn't seem to be a life threatining or critical issue that must be resolved one way or the other immediately. Atom 14:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's 14:8, and there's a very compelling argument made from the majority—herpes is only one thing that could possibly happen to a penis. The image doesn't inform the reader of the penis (which is the article's intent, I believe) at all. Should we not have images of warts, burns, piercings, gonorrhea, infections, etc. as well, if that's the standard? I think "a few months" is far too long to wait for anything so minor that notably detracts from the article, but I suppose we could wait until January before deciding what's to be done. Berserk798 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed evidence and mulled it over, I believe there is a strong consensus for removal of the picture so I have taken the step to remove it. I agree with what the majority are saying, a billion and one things can go wrong with the penis, this is an article about the penis itself not disorders. It is an appropriate picture for an STI or STD article. Bennyboyz3000 13:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been more than a sufficient amount of time for people interested in the article to get their votes in. Nearly twice as many people want the image removed, and it’s a fact that the subject of the image is herpes—not the penis. This article isn’t about herpes, it’s about the penis. There really isn’t an argument to be had. I think it’s time to remove it now. Berserk798 22:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the current count, which seems to change from time to time, is 14 to 8, that is a majority, not a consensus. We *do* want an image that represents the disease section. I suggest you find another, alternative image to replace it with. Also, we had a complaint that all of the penis images where caucasian. I pointed out that two of them were not. If you remove the herpes picture, you will be removing one of the non-caucasian images. As for your weak argument that the picture is about herpes, clearly it is shows a penis, with herpes. And it is in a section regarding diseases of the penis. So, you make the opposite point, unintantionally. Atom 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The current count has been unchanged since November; don't kid yourself. Why do we need to illustrate the diseases that can inflict the penis? You've never presented a good reason as to why diseases should be illustrated outside of their respective articles. Yes, the penis can be inflicted with herpes—what's the reason to illustrate it here? It can be inflicted with just about anything—I guess we need pictures of all kinds of diseases and injuries if that's our logic. The complaint that all of them are Caucasian can be dealt with seperately; I want to start a project to obtain more clinical photos that are more representative of the average penis anyway, and it can be addressed if new pictures are obtained (the ones we currently have are unusually small). Berserk798 04:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it hasn't changed since November. So, no consensus may be reachable. We are barely able to have just less than two-thirds of the people agreeing on one perspective. The picture is in the section to illustrate disease of the penis (the section) in general, not a specific disease. I agree that having other pictures to choose from, especially more clinical ones, would be helpful in editing the article. Consider that any image that shows disease of the penis will likely squick someone. Most diseases of the penis are not as photo capable, or are generally STD's, and not specific to the penis (Syphyllis, Chlamydia, etc). DO you really think you could find another photo that would illustrate diseases of the penis, generally, any better? Atom 12:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Nandesuka closed the vote, apparently, as that user removed the image, claiming "strong consensus". I fail to understand how nearly half of the people 41% of the people voting AGAINST something could indicate a strong consensus FOR. Consensus and majority are two different things, 95% voting in one direction would be called a "strong consensus". 80% voting in one direction might possibly be called a "weak consensus", and 60% would be called "NO consensus". Next time, just say that you are taking a majority vote to force one view over another, rather than claiming that you are seeking consensus. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus if you don't really understand what it is. Atom 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to get ridiculous. You know very well that no poll would have a 95% majority, and very few would even come to 80%. More than half think the image should go, it's been a couple months, we should be able to take action accordingly. The way you're talking, the smallest decisions ought to require years of discussion and an unreasonably huge majority before any action is taken at all—in the Wikipedia world, when something detracts from the article and a reasonable majority agrees to act in a certain way, the action should just be made.

I recommend actually reading the article on Consensus. Quoting: "This issue is controversial, and there is no consensus about having numerical guidelines. That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." Of course, we had LESS than 60% support removing the photo. The vote was to help gain consensus, (or so it was advertised) NOT a majority vote on whether it should be there or not. I was not suggesting that we needed 95%. What I was saying is that Nandesuka stating that there was a "strong consensus", when there was not even enough votes to make the 60% often considered to be a weak consensus was a mis-interpretation of the facts, or a misunderstanding of what consensus is. Quoting again "Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus." Atom 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes,"While the most important part of consensus-building is to thoroughly discuss and consider all issues, it is often difficult for all members in a discussion to come to a single conclusion. [...] While consensus-building is still the preferred method, some contributors have also come to use a supermajority as one of the determinations." We have a 63% majority; it's unreasonable to wait several months, or possibly even a year, for a true consensus. Berserk798 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus is about people deciding to work together, and moving to convince one another using good faith and reasoning. Some may prefer majority rule over consensus, but Wikipedia is consensus driven by policy. Working by consensus often does not take very much time. In the event that people can't come to consensus, there is usually a reason. Either further efforts (such as recommending a different picture) or using rational argument could sway people one way or the other. If people are in a hurry to make a change, and no consensus can be reached, that has to tell you something. I respect the good faith effort of the 14 people who felt that the image should not be there, even without clear consensus. Maybe at some later time people will look at things differently, who knows. I'm mystified as to how in a section discussing diseases that affect the penis, an image of a penis, with a disease affecting it, could be seen as "tangential" and "serving no purpose". Atom 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"If people are in a hurry to make a change, and no consensus can be reached, that has to tell you something" Please enlighten me as to what it says, because I don't think there are alterior motives to be had. To clear your mystification, the image does nothing to inform the reader of disorders affecting the penis; all it does is illustrate an outbreak of herpes. Really, no image illustrates the topic of "disorders affecting the penis". It really doesn't need any illustration. "Disorders" is such a broad topic, you would require a collage of several images to even come close to illustrating it apporpriately. "Clear consensus" hasn't been found, but there is a very clear majority and has been quite a bit of waiting. I think that if clear consensus comes in the future we will act, or not act, accordingly. Until a consensus is reached (which will probably take several months, if not longer), the majority should be able to have its way. Is that really unfair or against Wikipedia values? Berserk798 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying is that I want more clinical images of ordinary penises to replace the shoddy home-made ones we currently have. I can't imagine any penis-specific disease that is representative of penile diseases as a whole, which is exactly why I don't think we should have one at all (unless you have something in mind. If so, I would be supportive of the image. The issue being contested here is that herpes is not at all specific to the penis).

I agree with you that we should have mode clinical images. We don't want a picture that is representative of all diseases of the penis, we want one (and had one) that is representative of the section "Disease of the penis". That is, one image of the penis with a disease. It doesn't matter whether the disease is limited only to the penis, it matters that in the example the diease shown affects the penis. Atom 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

The more we discuss this, the more I see that there needs to be a minor change in the "disorders affecting the penis" section. Out of the ten disorders listed, two of them (thrombosis and herpes) are not specific to the penis. Either we need to mention the numerous other STDs that can affect the penis (there are more than just herpes), or we should just remove the mentioning of thrombosis and herpes. Seriously, you can get herpes on your face—why does it deserve mention in the section about penile disorders? Does anyone honestly think that herpes is a penile disorder? I always thought it was simply a virus that anyone (even people without penises) could get. Berserk798 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Most diseases of the penis are not as photo capable, or are generally STD's, and not specific to the penis (Syphyllis, Chlamydia, etc)" You just ruined your case for keeping the herpes picture right there, you realize that? Berserk798 20:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't realize it. Well, I don't realize your point. The herpes picture was, in fact a bone fide disease of a penis, and we wanted an image of an actual disease of the penis. Had it been a picture of herpes on someone's lip, or of a syphylis cancre on someone's thigh then it would not have been appropriate for the section on disease of the penis. Atom 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Herpes is not a penile disease. It can affect the penis, but it is not a disease specific to the penis. Did you not just say that diseases not specific to the penis shouldn't be chosen to be illustrated? Berserk798 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the image shown seemed to show a penis, diseased with Herpes. I don't think the section is titled "Diseases that only affect the penis, and not any other part of the body". Atom 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Herpes is not defined as a disorder that affects the penis—it's a virus that can affect the penis as well as a vagina or even your lips. Again, the list is extremely short and should probably be changed to "Penile disorders" and have herpes and thrombosis removed from it. That would make more sense. Herpes is an STD and a virus that is very distantly related to the organ that this article deals with. It doesn't really belong unless you plan to list and illustrate every single problem that can affect a penis, but doesn't necessarily. Berserk798 23:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• sighs* "Penile disorders" or "Disorders of the Penis" means diseases that affect the Penis, not disease that affect ONLY the penis. This article is not about herpes, or STI's, it is about the penis. If a disease can adversely affect the penis, then it should be fair game for discussion in the section on diseases that affect the penis. I would suggest that in general, STI's could be mentioned generally, with a link to the STI's article. Also, some kind of image of a Penis affected ins ome way by a disease would fit in that section. We don't want a picture of every disease that affects the penis, or evey disease that affects only the penis, but a general, representative image of one disease for illustrative purposes. Atomaton

You're wrong. Just because herpes can affect the penis doesn't mean that it needs to be talked about in the penis article at all. It's not mentioned once in the vagina article. Do you know why? Because herpes isn't directly relevant to the vagina. It's just a virus. It's not something that happens specially to the penis, or the vagina, or genitals in general. Therefore, it's not "fair game", nor should our articles be made up of "fair game" anyway. We should have directly relevant and informative things to say about our topic on hand. We seriously don't need to illustrate a penis infected with a disease. It informs the reader of nothing but what the disease looks like. It's not appropriate for the penis article. If you want to put a picture of a disease somewhere, put it in its appropriate article. Before you tell me how we "just need it" again, explain what it informs the readers of and why we need it. Berserk798 23:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I never said that the article did, or should have any text regarding Herpes. I said that it should have an image that represents the section called "Disorders affecting the penis". I supported that an image that showed a disease or disorder that affected the penis would be best for that. Someone provided just such an image. In that case, the image happened to be herpes. The fact that herpes was the disorder was not, and is not notable. Some other image, with different disease or disorder that was shown affecting a different penis would have worked just as well. But it seemed prudent to me to use the image we have available, rather than one we did not.

Second, Herpes is a virus that affects more than a penis. However, if you would read the article Herpes simplex that HSV-2 (the one shown in the image I suspect) "In males, the lesions may occur on the shaft of the penis, in the genital region, on the inner thigh, buttocks, or anus. In females, lesions may occur on or near the pubis, labia, clitoris, vulva, buttocks, or anus." In fact its primary vector is as a sexually transmitted infection, affecting the penis or labia more than anywhere else. You said "Because herpes isn't directly relevant to the vagina. It's just a virus. It's not something that happens specially to the penis, or the vagina, or genitals in general." Which, frankly is silly and absurd considering that one (very common) variety of herpes, HSV-2 is primarily spread through sexual contact, and primarily found in and around the vagina, penis and genital area.

Third, you are thinking of someone else when you quote "just need it." I've never said that. I agree that the previous photo was there to "represent" disease of the penis, and did not inherently give much information by itself. In a photo that is part of the Minnesota article section entitled Popular Culture shows a youth playing the violin at the state fair. It is an intrisically interesting photo that illustrates and represents that section. One gains little information inherently through viewing that image. Yet, it improves and adds to the quality and interesting nature of the article. One of the reasons that article recently obtained FA status.

Atom 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncircumcised picture disappeared?

I have noticed that the picture of uncircumcised penis (UncircumcisedPenis.jpg) only appears as link, not as picture. Can anyone fix it since it is useful for comparision with circumcised one? Thanks. Wikichaser 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

any one who is afraid of seeing a penis is a pansy, I think it's sad that any one who is upset by the image of an organ that is on every man in the world. Do you people really debate about dick for fun? *Meep* get a life.

"Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"

I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself. --MrEguy 10:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It also depends upon whether one wants to use correct, neutral, precise language or not. Any dictionary will define 'uncircumcised' as 'not circumcised', which is precisely what is meant. The term 'intact' is a) loaded, and b) a much less precise term that does not specifically refer to the presence or absence of a foreskin. A penis that has a scar, a tattoo, or a piercing is not intact, though it may well be uncircumcised. Jakew 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing this term in articles in which it appears. "Uncircumcised" is common usage and widely understood to apply to the penis, "intact" is neither. You say, "it all depends on how one wishes to see himself". That is a point of view. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.—Chidom ^talk  19:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a non-issue, and nearly reverted the word "intact" in the article Freddie Starr to "uncircumcised" myself.--Ianmacm 20:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The wikipedia penis article is not the place to promote views of genital integrity.--Loodog 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have phrased it "normal" and "circumcised", myself. Or "natural" and "circumcised". However you look at it, circumcised is clearly not natural or normal. Jeffpw 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. "uncircumsized" as "normal", that's a far more neutral way to go.--Loodog 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for "penis" is a good place to bash Americans. No, really. It is. Ask that guy. BonniePrinceCharlie 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

the human JESUS??

SOmeone PLEASE change the word JESUS back to Penis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.134.154 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 28 November 2006

The vandalism you're mentioning was removed (with a little "help" from User:AntiVandalBot ;-) ) over an hour before you commented. -- AJR | Talk 20:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"meat" v. "blood"

Can someone please add something on the 'meat' v. 'blood' penis, fact or fiction, details, medical terminology, difference in physical function etc.

Thanks.

--H 24.199.114.52 04:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Look.

If we're going to have inline images of penises, the images need to be big enough that readers can actually see details. It has been proposed many times that we merely have a link to hide the images behind, and this proposal has been consistently rejected. Consensus is to have in-line images. So let's not do it half-assed. Kasreyn 07:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The way it works is that images should be set to relative sizing ("thumb") not absolute sizing (forced px size). By doing this, each user can choose how they want to have images displayed. You can set yours in the "my preferences | Files | Thumbnail size". By default that is set to 180px for anon and users who haven't figured it out yet (most users). I have mine set at 300px, and I get images that are large and can easily be seen. Atom 11:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is your long-standing campaign, Atom, but Kasreyn still left the 'thumb' keyword in his edit, and just added a default value that is more sensible for non-power-users of WP (e.g. normal Googlers and readers). Secondly, where is this policy that all images must be set to 'thumb', without specifying a default/hint? Lastly, if this is a WP policy, then why are you only trying to apply it on these few articles? There are tens of thousands of other images on WP that have default thumb sizes specified - why not go and try removing all those pixel hints? Indeed why not start with the diagram at the top of this article ("image:male anatomy.png|thumb|350px")? It has to be said that the 'image' in question is already a composite of two photographs, side-by-side, so it's default width should really be twice the normal 'thumb' setting to give each its due. --Nigelj 15:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't my campaign, it is a change in policy that all editors are beginning to follow. Many editors are not aware of it yet. I'm not trying to apply it to "few" articles. I am trying to apply it to the 300 or so articles that I watch in my area of expertise, sexology and sexuality. Other editors can apply policy in their areas of interest, speciality or preference. (and they are.)

Well, by hard coding the PX value it overides the user preferences. I don't see how taking away the ability for user to choose for themselves is "more sensible" frankly. If set at thumb (without overiding the size) then it can be set by a user to 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 250px, 300px as they choose, and so "right sizes" the images for that user based on hir preferences, as each user may have a different sized screen, different resolution, vision issues, etc.

I case see your point in special cases like the one you mention with the composite image. But, the solution, of course is to resize the source image so that it displays well under the default size (thumb). Also, the user can merely click on the thumb to see the full sized image if they wish to inspect more closely, without forcing the size on the majority of users.

As for policy, this is currently under debate, and the policy is under revision and changing as we speak from the older method to making thumb the default. The reason there are many other hard coded values is because the ability to set the default setting in user preferences with thumb occurred in the last revision of the software, and was not available previously. Naturally, the trend towards making averything thumb started at that time.

Please see, and participate (if you like) at [[7]] Atom 15:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Three points spring to mind:

1. The whole discusssion there has only been going on for a week (first post in section 25 November 2006), but you have been enforcing this on this article since early October[8] and reverting everybody's attempts to prevent you ever since (I didn't count, but I think much more than three times?)
2. The discussion at 'Image use policy' is far from being a done deal, and seems now to be straying into the fact that the existing Wikimedia software is not capable of all that is required, so will need amendment before the widepread use of these defaults can be agreed upon. Nobody there is still arguing for the blanket or required application of defaults.
3. The diagram at the top of this page is now uselessly small - all the captions are therefore unreadable for the vast majority of users. If, like some at policy-level, you are worried about server load, the hit is much greater if 80% of users view an unreadable thumb, then click on it to view an unnecessarily large full-size image.

I think that trying to lead from the forefront of every obscure policy debate (and start a few new ones) may be some people's idea of a good way to get involved in WP, but there are many others who just want to help disseminate existing useful knowledge. And many, many more again who just want to look something up. I referred to this latter main group as 'normal Googlers and readers' above. They should not have to click on tiny thumbs to benefit from images, nor play with their 'preferences' nor even have to log in. These are the people that the whole project is for, and that should not get forgotten. --Nigelj 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I'd agree with you on many points. I don't intend to try and find every obscure policy and enforce them. It is my view that now that the software allows relative sizing, and the users to make their own preferences that we should respect the preferences instead of trying to set fixed sizing that differs for every different sized screen and resolution.
2. Editors are not aware of the capability of using user preferences for the most part, which is why every editor with a different sized screen comes along and sets it to some px value that works for them, and then the next changes it to something else, and then next... Setting images to thumb solves this problem, and once people figure it out, it will result in standardization, and less reverts.
3. If the lead image is too small at the default values (the values most people use) then the obvious answer is to resize the original source image so that it is right sized at 180px. Then users who want it larger, or smaller, can do so by merely changing their user preferences, rather than editing the article yet again. That also means that the same image works for when it is used in other articles too, so that they can use a standard thumb, rather than having revert hassles over how the image ought to be in their article. If you feel that 180px is a bad default size, (which looks pretty good to me on my monitor) then a case could be made for having them set the SW to default thumb to 200px, or 250px, whatever. Atom 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the current policy, as written (see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size|Image use policy): "In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting)."

This is also part of the policy, but is newly added, and the point being actively discussed: "From MediaWiki 1.5 the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so it is recommended not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120–300px that can be set in the preferences)."

Currently, there is a proposal regarding this that reads:

In short

Delete forced image size "rule" in:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy#Forced image size
• Wikipedia:Images#Forced image size (already hidden)

Introduce suggestion to not force image size unless you think it’s an improvement in:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images

This currently says: In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded.

But also: The current image markup language is more or less this:[[Image:picture.jpg|120px|right|thumb|Insert caption here]]

• Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnailing

Six people support it, no one has opposed it.

Note also that it points out that the MOS already says " In most cases the size of images should not be hardcoded.".

Atom 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Penis size?

What is the standard or correct way to measure length and girth of the penis.

LENGTH: Does one measure the penis from the scotum to the tip or does one measure it from the top side to the tip. The measurement varies greatly? Are measurements taken when erect or flaccid?

GIRTH: Does one measure at the base/on the shaft/or head of penis? erect/flaccid? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4myego (talk • contribs) 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Simple enough. Length is measured while erect, along the top (dorsal) surface, from the juncture of the penis and body, to the tip of the glans. Girth is measured while erect, at the widest part of the penile shaft (not the glans), wherever that widest part is on the particular man being measured. HTH, Kasreyn 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Censored, that is.

I would like someone to provide a good reason why this article does not have, as lead photo above the fold, a quality photograph of the object under consideration in its natural state. I don't want this to become a policy-quoting war, but this sort of chilling effect reaction boils my blood.

This is an encyclopedia intended for mature readers, with a very comprehensive and airtight content disclaimer. We do not need to be pre-emptively censoring ourselves when there is valid information to be delivered.

See Jim_Douglas's cogent and elegant explanation on Talk:Breast: [9].

There is no reason to treat a penis any differently from any other object we might have an article about, except for social taboos which have no place here.

I await the (remember: good) reason. Cheers, Kasreyn 08:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

All the sections have accompanying images relevant to that section. If you find an image appropriate to place at the top then please give us a link to it, so it can be discussed. WP:NOT is no reason to include be a lead image, only if it improves the article.--Clawed 09:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And note that this article is about penises both human and non-humen, so a photo of a human penis(es) would not make a good representive image for the article.--Clawed 09:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but it is, mostly, read by humans. --Nigelj 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A good point. I feel that a photo of a penis of some kind would be the best intro. Failing any other objective criteria for picking which species' penis to display, I say we show one from the only species known to edit and read Wikipedia. Kasreyn 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Clawed, do you (or anyone else?) have a reply to the above re: appropriateness of human lead image? Cheers, Kasreyn 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PHOTOS inappropriate

I don't think that WP is the place for this. Even in medical school, you deal mostly with diagrams not photos.

I'm a 20 year old male... so this picture doesn't offend me one bid..... but this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA people. Lest try and keep up the respect level. Just because it doesn't offend YOU doesn't mean it is appropriate for EVERYONE of ALL AGES --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bensonic (talk * contribs) 03:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

However, WP is not intended as an encyclopedia for "everyone of all ages". It is intended as a collection of all human knowledge (or such was the original hype, regardless of how it's turned out). If adults in various parts of the world do not wish their children to see certain content on Wikipedia, it is their responsibility to chaperone their children's internet usage. Censorship is not only not our responsibility, it's a waste of our time and not even something we could do competently if we tried. Kasreyn 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

    WIki is against censorship.... so I think photos are OK, but can we have some PROFESSIONAL looking     
    photos? Some of these look like someone thought "Hey, that should be my c*ck on Wikipedia.... 
    hehehe" and then grabbed their camera. Go to the Breasts page and see the very first photo, its 
    very artistic..... not like these ugly wangs.

We do the best we can with what we have. There seems to be a dearth of men willing to share images of their penis with the world. Perhaps you or someone you know might help us out by uploading a better image. Remember, WP is a project anyone can help with! Kasreyn 07:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE genital herpes picture.

This is horrible picture that adds nothing to the article. I can't ev en read this article because of how revolting it is.

Why don't the other disses have a picture if this one does?

In response to the above unsigned comment: I agree and have removed said picture. Bennyboyz3000 13:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Varieties of Penis?

Is it possible we can add different pictures of different kinds of Penises of people who are not white?--Jack Cox 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We are limited by the images provided/donated on the commons site. The herpes image looks non-caucasian, and another image looks to be semitic to me. So, only two of four are caucasion (not counting the elephant penis, or the lede diagram). Atom 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Size of lede image, use of thumb

Listen, we've discussed it before and it keeps coming up. Hard coding the image to a fixed px size, or frame, doesn't allow the users preferences to be respected. It forces a HUGE lede image on the person, even if they choose to use small default thumbs in order to be discreet, or because they just like them better that way. If someone can't read the text, they can merely click on the image to read it.

This topic has been discussed at length in many places, hence the work of myself and others recently at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy#Forced_image_size. The result has been a large consensus, and a recent change in the policy to clarify it further. Changes were made at Wikipedia:MOS#Images and Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size which read:

*Specifying the size of a thumb image is in general not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified as preference, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:

• On images with extreme aspect ratios
• When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
• When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

AND

"In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting)."

The problem:

The large majority of users don't know how to set their preferences, or don't do so. This leaves the default thumb size at 180px. This is sized just right for most people under most circumstances. Since this image we are discussing has print that reads rather small at 180px, some editors feel that needs to be larger. This probably fits into the exception clause "When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts". This is an editorial decision that needs to be made, and not a unilateral decision by one editor because they personally don't like to click on the image to view it.

The are pro's and con's, and an editorial decision needs to be made to determine:

• Should we follow the standard established of allowing the user to decide the image size they prefer, or should we force a larger image on them, to insure that the text is readable by all users without clicking on the image?

• • Yes, use thumb. Let the users decide what they want. The few people who can't read it can just click on the image.
    • Pro: Article is cleaner. Many people can read the text just fine. Most people don't care to read the text anyway, and the few that can't just have to click on the image to read a larger version.
    • Con: Points made in the image may be missed by some. Not everyone knows that they can click on the image to read a larger version. Some people have small screens.
  • No, force a large image on all users, so that text is immediately readable under all circumstances.
    • Pro:Everyone can read the text, no matter what.
    • Con: If someone wants images to be discreet, or wants the image at a certain size (larger or smaller) because of their monitor or vision, they can't have their preference.

• If we are going to force the image to a larger size, what size is appropriate, given the many sizes of monitors and screen resolutions?

• • Force it to as large as possible. Then it will be readable by even people with small screens.
  • Force it to Frame, and then it will be the actual image size.

Atom 12:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Vote:

For: We should allow the user to decide, by using thumb on the lede image.

Against: We should use 320px, or "frame" so that the text is large enough to read for all users under all conditions. (or some other size to be determined later)

FOR: As much as I respect user:clawed and the other work that the user has contributed, I feel that trying to gain consensus of many editors, rather than having this one users preference (that happens to differ from Wikipedia policy) would be more productive than an edit war. I am happy to go with a consensus. Atom 12:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil:

• Atom, given that you egregiously disregarded the straw poll about the herpes picture when it didn't support your position, why should anyone bother participating in this straw poll of yours? Will you disregard it too if it doesn't support your favored conclusion? Nandesuka 14:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate what you are saying. In the case of the disease photo, it is indeed my editorial opinion that it adds to the article, rather than detracting. Since then I have called for a consensus, rather than a simple majority, which is always preferable. That doesn't mean that I have disregarded the straw poll. What actions have I taken that leads you to that opinion? You imply that I haven't acted in good faith, and I suggest that this opinion is incorrect.

As for this particular straw poll (on allowing user preferences), I asked for opinions because one editor kept changing the lede image size so that user preferences didn't work. My feeling was that asking for opinions on the matter was better than an edit war. Since I have followed consensus in every case in the past, I would suppose it is likely that I would follow consensus on this, as well as other future efforts at finding consensus. Note that in this case I quite clearly stated "I am happy to go with a consensus." in my vote.

As a general comment (not intended toward you, Nandesuka), Wikipedia:Consensus is a very good article that discusses what consensus is. It has been my experience that many people have not gotten around to reading it, nor do they understand what consensus is. The section on supermajority says, among other things

Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus

. A straw poll is intended to test at consensus, not to make a decision based on majority vote. The vote process on the herpes showed people voting primarily one way, then the other, and then back the other way, and then stabilized with no clear consensus reached. Apparently the rhetoric of neither side was wholly convincing.

In the case of the Herpes photo, as I said elswhere, I'm happy to discuss compromises that could change the vote in order to find consensus. As I suggested, perhaps a different photo would cause many people voting one way to change their vote?

Atom 16:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Nandesuka, I see that you removed the herpes image. As consensus was clearly 'not successfully achieved, your claim that there was strong consensus for the change on the talk page indicates that you don't have a clear understanding of it either. So, I amend my earlier comments. Reading the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]policy would probably be beneficial for you too. Atom 16:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Replace Pics with Diagrams

I for one believe that all pictures in this article should be replaced with appropriate diagrams or drawings. Drawings can still be informational, but are not as pornographic, or at least are more appropriate. I have taken away all the images, but have added/retained links to them, until appropriate diagrams are placed in the article. PLEASE DO ME A PERSONAL FAVOR AND AT LEAST TELL ME YOU'VE DONE SO IF YOU PUT THE PICTURES BACK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan.hardman (talk • contribs)

Please leave the images alone. There are a number of people who participate in the editing of this article who have discussed this, and continue to discuss these issues in great detail. Thanks for offering your opinion on the discussion page prior to making changes, as most people don't even do that. Changes to remove images will be seen as a form of vandalism. The images in this article do not qualify as what you call "pornographic", so there is no need to change them. Atom 18:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have just undone such censorship. A picture of a penis is not pornography. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, articles should contain pictures of what they discuss, when such pictures serve to enlighten and illustrate. I agree with Zzuuzz that such pictures are not, in any way, pornography. You're welcome to ask that the pictures be removed, but consensus is firmly against you.

That being said, the question of exactly which pictures are helpful and which detract from the article is under almost constant discussion, and that is as it should be. "An image is pornographic" is not the only rationale to change it (for example, a technically superior image becoming freely available, or an image under a more appropriate license, would be a great reason to change pictures). Likewise, the consensus on this talk page is that the herpes picture, while perfectly appropriate on the Herpes page, is somewhat distracting and only tangentially relevant here. Hope that helps, Nandesuka 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Altering the male genitalia

We need a good image to be representative of body modification of the penis, such as a prince albert piercing, or penis self-mutilation. One general image to represent that section, not multiple images to represent every possibility. Atom 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It can go in it's appropriate article, "genetial modification and mutilation". Berserk798 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah so

somewhere we should put that size doesn't matter, its the motion of the ocean... or how a penis fucks 71.62.10.130 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Grower or Shower Style

" flaccid (non-erect state)" should surely read "flaccid (non-erect) state"? Timothy James 21:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so, no, because a flaccid penis is a penis in the non-erect state. Gretnagod 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

it should read "flaccid (non-erect) state" as flaccid means non-erect, and flaccid state means non-erect state. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Childs Penis

Are we allowed to place a picture of a childs penis on here, as it may prodce a seperate section?