Talk:Penis/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

labels?

Can someone or the original uploader of the main picture, add labels to the Penis as it was on the black and white picture? It would be more informative. Thanks. --Juan D. (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted to the old B&W image as not only do I agree the labeled version is far more informative, but the new color version was added unilaterally without any discussion among the community. Per what appears to be a preexisting consensus here (as evidenced by the pretty obvious failure of the uploader to heed question 3 above), I think a change to that image should continue to be reverted unless it is discussed here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. --Juan D. (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about size

Why is it that this article claims that most penises are smaller than the average, but all of the guys I have seen are bigger than what the average is on this article? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Button_reflink.png (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.1.113 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC) No, I only added the word "unsigned" to separate it from my comment below. The unsigned comment itself came from an unknown person. 98.115.1.113 (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Doctor Robert L. Dickinson" seems suspicious to me. Is this even a real doctor? 83.183.21.45 (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Be careful about insulting a respected scientist. --Koolahawk (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistical Terms and Meanings

Speaking of size, the article makes a terrible statistical mis-statement when it says "the average erect human penis is approximately 12.9–15 cm (5.1–5.9 in) in length with a 95% confidence interval of (10.7 cm, 19.1 cm) or (4.23 in, 7.53 in)".

4.23 to 7.53 is not a 95% confidence interval for the average size. That is absolutely preposterous. What I presume they mean to say (which is perhaps possible, at least) is that 95% of sizes are found within the range of 4.23 to 7.53.

98.115.1.113 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the confidence interval. Senor Vergara (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I also tried correcting the part about mean and median, but it was reverted. The change I made did not change the factual assertion "mean is slightly larger than the median" at all, it merely switched to a correct statistical interpretation of what a larger mean than median means in any situation. I deliberately left the portion about mean being larger than median unaltered, as I, too, was unsure where that information was being sourced from. The original interpretation of what that indicates is not well-stated as it poorly mixes the terms average/mean/median again. Senor Vergara (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i tried to revert this but i edited the wrong page.

Could someone please fix this. im such a noob wont try to fix anything again.

Its fixed already. Themfromspace (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed pictures

Pictures of actual human penises are unnecessary on Wikipedia. You can find something like that on numerous other sites, therefore, I introduced a drawing that is actually more detailed and anatomically correct than the previous one.

Problem solved.

-Axmann8 (Talk) 09:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. You may have a problem with pictures of penises, most don't. This topic has been had before all over wiki. the consensus is that wiki isn't the place for censorship. The erection pics are particularly helpful. Real penises are much more informative than a diagram. It is also more interesting for the reader. Tremello22 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines are here: Wikipedia:Profanity. Please read through tell me what you make of them. Tremello22 (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not have any objection/problem with pictures of penises. I assure you I take no offense to any aspect of the male form. However, this new picture is more anatomically correct, and it is also more detailed. If you like looking at pictures of penises, you can feel free to do it on Google in your spare time, but this picture is quite more appropriate, in terms of detail, information and content. As such, the other picture is able to be replaced. It doesn't have anything to do with censorship. Do you see me removing all pictures of real penises on here? No, you do not. I repeat, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia's no censorship policy. It's a matter that the picture currently presented is more informational. Also, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies, thanks. -Axmann8 (Talk)

My opinion, for what it's worth: given that the image issue is an ongoing topic of controversy and incurs frequent vandalism, it would have been wise to discuss and obtain consensus beforehand.

Your claim that "Pictures of actual human penises are unnecessary on Wikipedia" is incorrect and also a WP-is-not-censored red flag.

However, I'm inclined to agree that an anatomical diagram is the best initial image, but a photograph should remain elsewhere on the page. —EqualRights (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting to the photograph of the image per WP:BRD (which Tremello attempted to follow, but Axmann has begun to edit war over). It's been consensus on this article for some time that the first image on this page should be a photograph. Due to the way it was cropped, the photograph we've been using is far more suited to an infobox than the anatomical cut-away Axmann has provided. Furthermore, the text labels on the anatomical drawing are far too small to be read as displayed. In all, it's a piss-poor replacement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; there is a long standing consensus to use a photograph for external anatomy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity that the current infobox photo is in black and white. Any colour versions available?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The current photo is based on this one from Commons. The creator of this version claimed that somehow making it black-and-white improved the contrast, something like that. I didn't agree, but didn't think it was worth arguing about at the time. I'd support a color version as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

←I wouldn't mind a color version either, though I think it should be of a comparable aspect ratio and probably flaccid. Text labels would also probably be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is exactly the same picture in colour: [1]. Is this OK?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Might want to choose a different color for the text labels and/or give the letters an outline so it's more contrastive. Solid red set against a mostly flesh-tone background isn't the best choice, IMO. Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles and this tool might prove helpful in choosing a more contrastive color. Also, since it's free content, you'll probably want to transfer the image to Wikimedia Commons at some point. :-) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking it's not entirely necessary to show the testes, since they're not part of the penis itself. That would give us more leeway in vertical resolution for the infobox, thus giving us bigger text labels. While I don't think it's crucial, I think it'd be best to have the text labels be nice and readable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to photograph a human penis in a flaccid pose without photographing the testicles as well. The real question here is whether the current infobox photograph is OK, or whether it should be replaced. Personally, I do not believe that the text labels are essential, as they are likely to be too small to read in the thumbnail version in the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the current picture does a pretty good job of depicting the penis and having the testicles cropped out. You're right though, text labels aren't essential, and in some cases may be frowned upon (since they effectively limit the use of the image to English wikis for example). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed images again

Well, it looks like the image has been changed yet again. File:Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg depicts several non-human penes in jars of what I assume is formaldehyde. I disagree with this change as it's significantly less useful in the infobox position. The prior image (File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg) worked as it was labeled, close in, and to the readers of Wikipedia (who I assume are currently all human), most obviously a penis.

I think it's rather unfortunate that this change wasn't at least discussed first. ~~I'm not reverting it, but~~ I really wish it were discussed as I believe the merits of the prior image outweigh those of the new one. That said, I think it's an interesting image and should definitely be featured later in the article in the discussion of non-human penes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed. Twice. See the opening pic and Exclusively human sections.Geni 23:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the opening pic section; the exclusively human section only briefly discussed it, and in fact there was disagreement with the use of the image. I don't see how you saw consensus to change, but that's not the point. I strongly disagree with the change for the reasons stated above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd suggest you read the other discussions on this page which discuss the use of the human penis image, which show a wide consensus for the use of the image that was already there. That consensus taken into mind, I've decided to revert to the human penis image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the two words above the image in the infobox? ^anemone│_projectors 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point... and that the information within the infobox is all about the human penis. If the Iceland image is used for the lead, it should not be used for the infobox, and the infobox should be moved down to the "humans" section. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Zee article needs to be less human centeric. If that means moveing the infobox down so be it.Geni 11:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Circumcised/Uncircumsised

There seems to be some confusion on the posted pictures as to what constitutes a circumcision, as many uncut penises are labeled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.97.21 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What image are you talking about? The only image this could apply to is File:Flaccid-erect.jpg, which, frankly, looks circumcised to me... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deserving

The person who made "Deserving" link to washington monument is a fucking genious. LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKvamm (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can thank Caveman80, who apparently created that FAQ and made the link here. I'm not too sure if it's appropriate, but whatever, it's just the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I dont get why its there if its not appropriate--Wooras12345 (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By inappropriate I meant that it seemed like a joke link which would just encourage fooling around in the article. Maybe I'm just being picky though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Penus from the Latin word Penātēs

Etymology studies will not support that Penus means Penis. Because you can penetrate to impregnate does not mean a narrow understanding of Penis. There are many words of Pen- "almost" and "head".

Now read about Latin suffix: second and third declensions.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis

From that web site. "Part of the problem is that when unaccented, the singular endings -us and -is tend to be pronounced the same in English".

"One other group of Latin nouns in -us is different. These are fourth-declension masculine nouns".

I am asking for someone to link Latin Penus to Lares (Penates: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions). (hope I did this on the correct page and forum, thanks).65.66.155.37 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you getting at? The word "penus" does not appear anywhere in the article, which says that the word penis comes from the Latin for "tail". This is supported by the etymology given in the Oxford English Dictionary: "< classical Latin pēnis tail, the male genital organ < the same Indo-European base as Sanskrit pasas, ancient Greek πέος. Compare French pénis (1618 as penis; subsequently from 1753)." The OED supports the two plural forms given in the article ("penises" and "penes") and also mentions that the irregular form "peni" is in use. -- AJR | Talk 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First thanks for answering. We agree: you wrote: the word "penus" does not appear anywhere in the article, , which says that the word penis comes from the Latin for "tail". Pen-is and Pen-us are not the same thing, although like the author of that article (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2139/what-is-the-plural-of-penis)pointed out 'many people think they are the same'. The quote: "Those with a little learning know that penus, if it were a second declension noun like most -us nouns in Latin, would be expected to have the plural form peni. Since penus would be pronounced the same--or almost the same--as penis in English, the temptation is strong to use the incorrect peni as the plural". (from the same article): Penis is a third declension noun, not second declension. These nouns often end in -is in the singular and -es in the plural. (later in the same article): It so happens that penus, the near homophone of penis that I mentioned above, is a real word in Latin but of the fourth declension, so the plural is penus, not peni. It means "household stock," ....... Wikipedia searches for "penus" point to this Penis page. <that is my point (gripe). Keep all the references to "penis" pointing to this page, however allow the search of "penus" to be directed to the Di Penates page. see this page in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/penate

Origin: 1505–15; < L Penātēs, akin to penus stock of provisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penates from that wikipedia page on Penates: In Roman mythology, the Di Penates or briefly Penates were originally patron gods (really geniuses) of the storeroom, later becoming household gods guarding the entire household. They were related to the Lares, Genii and Larvae. Penates are referred to in Propertius (iv.i). end. Penātēs is not showing up in a search for "penus". Someone else (before me)did bring up "penus" referring to stored stuff (should be food stock) on their talk page of Di Penates. Here is that link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Di_Penates At the very least could we have a "penus" disambiguation page? Possibly resolving this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dab_page Thanks for taking the time to read this.65.66.155.37 (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What a colossal waste of time even reading this, never mind the bright spark who came up with it. And penates, FYI, means the houshold gods, as in lares et penates.

Nuttyskin (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Inherently funny word

"Penis" is not an inherently funny word; its humor is derived from what the word represents. Someone who can should remove the word "inherently". 69.249.66.100 (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. An inherently funny word is one with an amusing set of phonemes. Penis is only funny because of the concept it represents. I also added "euphemisms", as some of the alternates were these.Yob Mod 08:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics

I find this section to be very poorly written, as well as being POV (Penis is a 'funny' word to juveniles? I had always found it uncomfortably formal, at worst. This seems like a POV problem from an irresponsible writer). Also, there is no citation here. I'm not really a fan of this article, given that it's centered around the human penis, as mentioned in other talk sections. 71.197.20.184 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the entire Linguistics section should be removed. I can understand why the etymology of the word for "Penis" might be information worthy of the article, but the slang section and portion relating to other uses of the world don't really belong. That's generally what thesauruses and dictionaries are for. Also, it's my opinion that the article should be describing the sexual organ itself rather than the word. Don't get me started on the fact that it's centered around the human penis as opposed to others. --Poet Talk 05:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Article?

I followed a link to this article and noticed the article is gone. All that's there is something like "It's what you put inside a vagina." I have come to believe this is vandalism, having seen a "fuller" article on previous visits. Will someone fix it please? I would do it mysekf if I had an account. 70.161.149.193 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Um I think the Penis page has either been hacked or edited unscrupulously...

as the only information that it contains is: "It's what you put inside a vagina." See for yourselves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis 75.72.253.93 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Jeremy

Vandalism. Likely to be reverted during the first minute of it's existence. Our patrollers are quite fast! Kotiwalo (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm relieved to know that it has been fixed so quickly. I can't see that being something the patrollers always have to fix, but I am glad they did. 70.161.146.234 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening picture

Does nobody else agree this picture should be changed? The opening picture is of a massive penis, and this could wrongly believe people to think that everyone's penis is that long and thick. I know mine certainly isnt anywhere the size or girth as the opening picture and I'm sure a lot of other mens aren't. Anybody agree? --Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan replacing that image with a smaller one --Notedgrant (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but I would like another user to. I feel that penis is massively over-average for normal men and the picture might lead people to think that everyone's penis is that big, when actually, its not. --Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not done a survey to determine the average size You can find some images here .I would prefer a non graphic Image like this upthere I support the removal of that Image.--Notedgrant (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There is nothing wrong with the current lead image, which has had consensus a long time. It is certainly not an image of an unusually large member.Yob Mod 15:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know if the size can be increased and will be there any side effects,what are the better way for it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.255.145.97 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion about if eliminate the picture, would can solve with votations. --O extremenho (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Phimosis

Do we need an illustation of the rare condition: phimosis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.70 (talk • contribs)

There are a selection of such photos at the Wikicommons. But, the section in this wikiarticle on the topic is almost too small to hold the photo. Plus, there are no photos of the other conditions. — Spike (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe as wikipedia strives to be the best possible encyclopedia, maybe we should consider illustrating all conditions, not neccesarily through user images, but hand drawn illustrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothygriffin (talk • contribs)

There is an editor who creates some very well done hand drawings for articles of this nature, examples of which can be found here. I gather that some of these have been done at the request of editors in search of drawings for particular articles in which this artist may or may not edit. Perhaps, a similar request can be made by someone editing here. — Spike (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well firstly it isn't that rare and secondly there are a couple of photos already in the phimosis article. It would be shear overkill to include then here too. All one has to do is click on the link to the article itself. --WebHamster 23:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Iceberg pic

I'm going to erase the picture File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg because it is a little uncomfertable to some ppl, just to make it clear, who do you think is reading this humans! And people are not going to want to read this as they will be disgusted by the picture shown. TylerG518 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you? It's a perfectly valid picture showing penis' of other organisms. If I was going to remove a picture, I'd remove the opening picture as it is of a massive penis and not many people have that big a penis. --Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL --A3RO (mailbox) 05:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about the erection angle

The article talks about the erection angle, but only on a vertical axes. Many men have penises who curve left or right, and a table with the percentage of this type of erection would be interesting. Qubix 81.180.224.38 (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a natural phenomenon. This is caused by circumcision. I believe the book "Say No to Circumcision" By Dr. Thomas Ritter (And several others I can't remember at the moment) covers this but I could be wrong, it's been a while since I read it. 208.106.104.40 (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I can say, from personal experience, that this is not only caused by circumcision, almost every penis bends left or right. Zeusden1 (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No... many uncircumcised penises curve left and right. Fitz05 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, almost all penes have a slight left- or rightward curvature when erect. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is completely untrue. Circumcision is not the reason for the curvature. The reason is biological and happens to both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. Also, the Thomas Ritter book, "Say No to Circumcision," is a POV book that has little to do with medicine. It exists to simply push Ritter's agenda and has no place as a source in this article. ask123 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My penis leans slightly to the left when erect but doesn't curve back on itself. I'm not circumcised (thank god!) I can measure the angle if you like :) (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

As the old saying goes... "The angle of the dangle is proportional to the heat of the meat" :) --Web Hamster 19:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont they lean to one side because people use the same hand when w*nking? Just a thought Earth_Worm_Eater (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

opening pic

Suggest replaceing with File:Iceland_--_2008-08-08_13-23-17.jpg to make the article less human centric.Geni 13:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is going to be reading this? not a dog or a duck. a human —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmets5 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's a legitimate question. Wikipedia is about knowledge and information. There are other Wikipedia articles on anatomy that take a broader view. But this isn't one of them. In this case, the article is priamrily about the human gland, not those of other animals. ask123 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Should there then be separate pages, one for the human penis and one for penises in general? --Casdious (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, though I would be concerned that there'd be an enormous amount of source material to wade through. My best suggestion would be to look into some more recent zoology texts, which should discuss male reproductive organs from an evolutionary perspective instead of on a species-by-species basis, which is what I fear a normal attempt at a general treatment of the topic would degenerate into. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutely astonished that train wreck of a photo has been retained as the opening pic for as long as it has. There are more pictures of penises then there are prime numbers and that's really the best we can do? Anytime I peruse an article, I always evaluate it thinking, 'Now, is this text/image presented in such a way that it would meet the standards of editors at Encyclopedia Brittanica?' In most articles, there is usually some facet that fails to pass that quality check and that's understandable. But we really need to hold the fundamental articles/topics to a higher standard. Perhaps we could use this image as the genesis for an article on bad photography. At the very least, we should move it down to the section detailing Mutant Penises.

Seriously guys/gals, why don't we gather up 4 or 5 encyclopedia-quality images of the penis and have a Penis Poll among the editors. Hell, we could rotate the image every year and use the Annual Penis Poll to promote editor involvement on Wikipedia. -K10wnsta (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this is point is going to be ignored, but technical the foreskin is it own separate part- it is not a part of the penis. The glans on the other hand IS. This leads me to believe that an image of a circumcised penis or one with the foreskin pulled back is more appropriate for the article. --User:Gyaabcewb

The foreskin is very much a part of the penis. Saying it's not is like saying a finger is not part of your hand. The default image should include a foreskin simply because that's the way it exists in a natural state. -K10wnsta (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not the strongest of arguments. By the same logic, the default image of a finger ought to include fingernails that have never been trimmed "simply because that's the way it exists in a natural state". Jakew (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Does nobody else agree this picture should be changed? The opening picture is of a massive penis, and this could wrongly believe people to think that everyone's penis is that long and thick. I know mine certainly isnt anywhere the size or girth as the opening picture and I'm sure a lot of other mens aren't. Anybody agree? --Flash flash ; 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree the opening image should be changed. Although, I don't think the size is really any concern. I believe it is the quality of the image that warrants its removal. A straight-on image or medical diagram should be the opening pic, with the entire 'package' labeled (including scrotum/testes). How can we establish a concensus for this pic's removal? -K10wnsta (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that the picture must be changed for the above reasons. When you google penis this is the first article and picture that come up. Please someone take a stand and change the picture. Maybe various penises.

--128.61.20.9 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Penis Picture

Would it not be better to have a medical textbook picture for this article? It could be similar to the medical textbook picture on the scrotum article. I feel as an encyclopedia, it would be better to have a more journalistic picture, rather than a picture of some random guy's penis.--Koolahawk (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a copyright free image then you may upload it and change the link. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(For those that don't bother to read the article) There are already 2 copryright free textbook style images in the article. Luckily, as there is no limit to the numbers of pictures an article can use, having these images in no way precludes also having photographs.Yob Mod 12:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP's gripe is either that the first image should be a textbook diagram or that there should be no penis pictures, both of which I would oppose- this is a piece of external anatomy primarily, and people will be most familiar with its external appearance. Avoiding the typical "WP:NOTCENSORED" counter-argument, I honestly cannot see any reason not to have the first image in this article be a photograph of the external anatomy in question. Any good anatomy textbook will have at least a diagram of the external view before diving into progressively deeper layers of the anatomy. Why should our coverage be any different? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS HIS URETHRA SIDEWAYS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.208.89 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This last commentator is right, you know. This is one of the strangest pictures we use on WP. Why so cropped? Why black and white? Why so unusually long in flaccid state? And now, is that urethra opening quite normal/typical/average? Of all the hundreds of penis pics on commons, this is one of the strangest choices, I think.

Isn't LabelledFlacidPenis.jpg a more relevant lead picture than Foreskin CloseupV2.jpg which is a foreskin oriented picture and therefore not representative of the whole?

Pictures

I think that at least 3 pics on this site should be removed.

Why? Alan (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the pics used in the "Structure" section are sufficient.

Please see WP:Wikipedia is not censored. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Along with WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SIG --WebHamster 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because Wikipedia is uncensored isn't justification for keeping these pictures. They do not seem appropriate. Also in regards to consensus, I think there are at least as many dissenting opinions above concerning the pictures as there are affirming opinions. I think this topic should be reviewed again, and I don't understand how a rational person can be of the opinion to keep them on. The topic definitely needs to be reviewed again. I think the strongest reason for there removal is not in relation to censorship per se, but arguably that they do not represent (1) the norm; and (2) a diverse enough cross-section of people. For children, for example, of all different races/physical make-ups etc..., it is not responsible to have a biased page like this regarding anatomy for them to review--speaking of the pictures primarily. In particular, this page could lead children to believe that they lie outside the norm, when in fact they may not be. This page is nowhere near an unbiased appropriateness that one would find in an encyclopedia. Granted, this is uncensored; however, how can edits to remove these pics keep getting vetoed and undone? Something is seriously wrong with this site if I am almost banned from edits for making an edit that is arguably appropriate. I think many would agree that this topic, regardless of the length of the history, should not be shut down. MK Dempsey 15:26, 19 September 2009.

You make excellent arguments...for parental supervision of their childrens' browsing the Internet. However, as it stands, the consensus seems to be that the images should remain, unless a very compelling argument can be raised for their removal. Alan (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Alan, is the above not a compelling argument having any merit? I disagree that the consensus is that they should remain. I read the above postings, and the topic keeps coming up again and again. Many obviously feel the pictures are not appropriate or represent a correct or diverse enough cross-section. Those two arguments alone, I feel, are as you would say "compelling" enough to warrant their removal. I think they should be removed pending future/new pictures that do not raise so many objections. The pictures that I argue should be removed are (1) the opening picture; (2) the "erection" sequence; and (3) the horse photo. The first picture, I think, needs to be one that looks at least something like you would find in an anatomy textbook, not a gritty pornographic site. The second sequence photo is just odd, and arguably abnormal. As described above many times, that last photo of the sequence does appear to represent the norm. Third that horse penis photo is unnecessary and I would assume offensive to a standard, reasonable person to have to look at. Motion to remove the aforementioned 3 photos MK Dempsey 15:41, 19 September 2009.

Your argument, while cogent, is just that...YOUR argument. Refer to the landmark Supreme Court decision which defines what is and is not pornographic: "I know it when I see it." Someone with a medical background would be hard-pressed to consider any of the images disturbing or pornographic, although as you say, the second image might be considered abnormal. In short, if it disturbs you, don't look, and if you think it will disturb your children, don't let them look. That's as far as I'm going on this. Alan (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't find that defense convincing in the least bit. I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be open to the public to edit? Apparently not. All I get as an answer is "if it disturbs you, don't look"? How is this site really free for the public to edit? it apparently is not. Again if I was the only one giving this opinion, I may not say anything, but I feel the consensus above is that they should be removed. "That's as far as I'm going on this" is not a reasonable answer in the least bit. At the very least, the topic should be left open and/or re-raised. Also I didn't say that they should necessarily be removed because they are pornographic. I understand that it is an uncensored website. My arguments were more along the lines that they are inappropriate and do not represent (1) the norm; or (2) a diverse enough cross-section--which would make the page incorrect and open to edits. MK Dempsey 18:04, 19 September 2009.

I'm sure many foals will be permanently affected by the picture of a stallion penis, as, I'm sure, will many post-pubescent males. Meanwhile, no matter how "cogent" you think your arguments are they all fall down like a house of cards when you present your main argument as "inappropriateness". Alas, the main failing of this argument is your use of what is just a subjective term, though how you seem to think a picture of a penis is inappropriate in an article quite clearly labelled "Penis" is beyond me. You may have had a point if the pictures you deleted were of various vaginas, but as they weren't...--WebHamster 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course it is a subjective opinion, but if you look above, many people have brought this topic up over and over again (approx 7 headings alone). Also, you suggest my argument falls short because I describe my pov as inappropriate? This simply means that there are other pics that I'm sure would be more appropriate for this topic in an "Encyclopedia" as Wikipedia suggests it is. You could say that a lot of the edits done to Wikipedia every minute are done so because people feel something else is more properly suited to the page (i.e. more appropriate). Various terms could be substitute in for appropriate/inappropriate, and my opinion shouldn't be dismissed because I chose that word. There is enough on this discussion page already that indicates it's time to remove the 3 pictures I mentioned above, and wait until pics that people approve of are posted. MK Dempsey 22:08, 19 September 2009.

There certainly are several objections, all similar to yours, but consensus being what it is has decided that your opinion is not the right opinion and that the images are wholly appropriate. If you wish to gain consensus for your opinion then please feel free to go ahead. WP:RFC would be a good place to start so that you can learn to correct way of doing so. Meanwhile you've had your stab at WP:BRD so please do not remove the images again until you have gained consensus to do so. Incidentally it's not considered good form to write as an IP editor and sign your comments with an existing account name as there is no guarantee that you are the legitimate owner of that account. --WebHamster 11:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, simply counting the objections on this page is mis-leading. Long standing editors have become bored with the constant attempts at censorship, and generally leave objections to be countered by one or two editors. Reading the archives shows the true consensus, which is that editors who think pictures of penises on the Penis page is wholly appropriate, indeed, they are essential, far outnumber those who want them removed. Any change to the long-standing version with images would need a far more robust indication that consensus has changed (eg. a RfC). The wider wikipeia community long ago decided that pictures of body parts are appropriate for body part articles, to the extent that the chances of a majority !voting for image removal is vertually nil.Yob Mod 18:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Only Adult Penises

I'm not sure whether it would be illegal to have pictures of an undeveloped penis here, but I think it would certainly be a good way to convey development of the organ. The main problem I see is that a minor cannot give legally valid consent to the picture being publicly available. Gboycolor (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NSFW for Jimbo's views in this area. This is, as you point out, a legal and ethical minefield.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Penis gowth and age

Can we take out the dubious information saying that penis growth completes sometime between 18 and 21? While scanning through this article that particular line caught my attention. It isn't sourced. It wouldn't surprise me if there really is an old and bad source for it, but I really doubt that the information is accurate nonetheless. It is contradicted in the full text of two recent studies: pmid 12350491, and pmid 11223678. The first of these only measured in men 19 to 38, but no reduction in size was found in the youngest males. The second of these studies was a large scale study, retricted to 17-19 year olds, and there was no significant difference. I don't think there is a clear answer to this question, and rather than put an answer down for this I think it's best to just leave it off the puberty and penis pages altogether. Yetheu (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pluralis

first sentence is "The penis (plural penises, penes, penii) [...]" and later in the text it says ""Penii" is sometimes facetiously or mistakenly used as a plural form of "penis" instead of "penes" or "penises," its correct forms.".

Which one is correct?

Function

The penis can be use for peeing and sex/reproduction.

Picture

Dont you think that the picture Iceland -- 2008-08-08 13-23-17.jpg could just be a bit disturbing, not that there is anything wrong with it but it could be a bit disturbing to other people of the looks of it, people might think of it as a bit disgusting, should we possibly erase it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerG518 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Variability in size of flaccid penis in the individual male

I think what would be helpful is side-by-side pictures showing how much the size of a flaccid penis can vary in a particular male throughout the day, along with some explanation in the article that just because a male's flaccid penis looks small at a particular moment doesn't necessarily mean his erection is smaller than average. Some males have very elastic tissue(and some don't), and the size of his flaccid penis can vary by a number of inches throughout the day. There's a widespread myth that one can tell how "hung" a guy is by seeing him nude without an erection. This is false. So I think one of the ways in which this page could be helpful is in dispelling this myth. I think this can be done in the following manner: 3 pictures side by side of a healthy-looking penis, all of the same male who has an average or larger erection size... one who happens to have very elastic tissue. The first picture would show what his flaccid penis looks like at its smallest (of course, things contribute to this; for example, cold water, vasocontrictors like Adderall or caffeine can make the penis shrink). The second would show what it looks like at its largest (not a partial erection, just his full flaccid penis size). And then the third could show his full erection. Mousemill (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Too anthropocentric.

Make this article about penises. Not human penises. Most of the content currently in this article should be in its own article, Human Penis. Animal and plant penises should be topic of this article. --65.92.54.164 (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree a separate article should be created, good idea. 99.249.228.146 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Penile sensivity graph

This graph, which contains some interesting information, is probably best located in this article. I have tried in the text to avoid this getting dragged into a pro/anti-circ dogfight Johncoz (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition, which gave an extraordinary amount of weight to Sorrells et al. If sensitivity/sensation studies are to be included, then a representative selection should be included (and illustrated). There is no justification for giving special treatment to one study, especially given the controversial subject area. Jakew (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be the only study that has tested all areas of the penis. I think excluding it is unfair to the public.--Studiodan (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The text and graph are fully within the letter and spirit of NPOV. The text also linked explicity to the sexual effects article which summarises all the main studies, and explicitly stated that interpretation of the data was a matter of debate. The use of WP:UNDUE would preclude Wikipedia ever graphically illustrating ANY study unless we illustrated ALL of them. Finally, there is nothing particularly controversial here, regardless of one's position on circumcision, imho. I would be interested in the views of other editors. Johncoz (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with displaying results of other studies. However, their is no other study which has tested all the areas of the penis, so it doesn't seem to be a concern for clutter at the moment. There seems to be interest in censoring the details of this study, which doesn't seem to follow NPOV at all. Selective use of language to remain neutral is important, but omitting information is unfair to the reader.--Studiodan (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We can't discuss every study in every article: it's simply impractical. Even if we could include every study of penile sensation and circumcision here, doing so would mean that we have essentially the same content in two different locations, meaning twice the maintenance burden. So, as a practical matter, it's beneficial to keep information in one place, and consequently it is inevitable that information will be omitted from this article. The best approach is to include a sentence here along the lines of "There is ongoing controversy regarding the sexual consequences of this procedure; see sexual effects of circumcision". That avoids giving undue weight to any one study, while informing readers where information may be found. Jakew (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, being that you also removed the graph from sexual effects of circumcision. However, I disagree, these results are relevant to the anatomy of the penis, and (as I said prior, regarding your concern of a need to add other studies) there is currently no other study that has tested all the areas of the penis, so clutter isn't a current concern at the moment. We shouldn't censor important information from the reader.--Studiodan (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been about fifty or so studies of the sexual effects of circumcision, and I completely agree that the precise methodology chosen by Sorrells et al. is unique. However, that doesn't mean that their results are more valuable than those of other studies. They're no more and no less valuable. For NPOV treatment, their results should be presented alongside other studies, in order to avoid giving the reader a misleading impression. Their study should not be given special treatment. Jakew (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here: the graph is not some sort of advertisement for the study, but an illustration of the data, which as you have pointed out, Jake, is subject to different interpretations, a point explicitly made in the proposed text. Why this data? because it is the most comprehensive in the current literature. Johncoz (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Johncoz, it is not the "most comprehensive". It is no more and no less comprehensive than other studies. It is more accurate to say that it is the study that included the greatest number of points when measuring the sensitivity to the lightest touch. But sensitivity to the lightest touch is not the only thing that matters. What about sensitivity to vibration? What about spatial perception? What about sensitivity to hot and cold? What about sexual sensation or pleasure? Sorrells et al. are not comprehensive in these respects, because they did not even include them in their study. Other studies did, and in terms of these measurements, those studies are the most comprehensive.

By arguing that special treatment should be given to Sorrells et al. on the basis that it is the "most comprehensive", you are effectively endorsing Sorrells' belief that sensitivity to lightest touch at various points is the most important issue, the one worth assessing. But that's just one of many viewpoints, and we need to treat them all equally. Jakew (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not endorsing anything, including what's "most important". Fine-touch sensitivity is at least susceptible to some kind of empirical measurement, unlike woolly, subjective concepts like "sexual pleasure", hence such a study produces hard data that can be graphed. No claim is made in the graph or the proposed text that this data has implications beyond itself: that's up to the reader to decide. We are simply presenting the data. And I repeat: the results do not seem controversial, at least in terms of the circumcision debate. The biggest surprise for me was the sensitivity of the circ scar, but I guess that unlike the foreskin no histological studies have yet been performed on this area. Johncoz (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I implied it was your intention, Johncoz, but nevertheless the choice of illustration does represent an implicit judgement about what information is felt to be important about a subject. For example, imagine for the sake of argument that Marilyn Milos and Edgar Schoen both had a choice of a single image to illustrate a brief article about circumcision. Who would you expect to choose this particular image? I would expect Milos to do so, because she believes that the sensitivity of the penis to light touch is an important issue. I'd be astonished if Schoen would choose to do so, however (though he might choose a table showing the results of the HIV RCTs). So the choice of illustration can say quite a lot about what the author considers important, and so there are NPOV concerns. Similarly, we need to consider the amount of weight given to a study. To take one extreme, suppose that a reader just looks at the headings and pictures: the only information about circumcision (s)he would receive is the light-touch sensitivity of various penile points, the importance of which is itself controversial.

I agree that the results themselves do not seem to be controversial by themselves, although their interpretation is, as is the importance of their results (relative to other studies). And it has been questioned whether their data can be generalised to the wider population. As an aside, I'm not sure why the circumcision scar should be a surprise: if you use t tests to compare the circumcision scar with other areas, there's little evidence of a statistically significant difference between it and other points. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are very concerned about implications, instead of the data. However, would you feel better if the results of Bleustein or Payne were also displyed right next to Sorrells?--Studiodan (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a start, but I think studies that have assessed overall sexual sensation & satisfaction (Masood, Krieger, Kigozi, etc) should also be represented. Jakew (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then that's progress. Let's all agree to make a graph with Bleustein or Payne's results as well. Then we can decide if a sentence on sexual sensation, from a perspective of medicine (you know, nerve endings and the like) is appropriate, or under weight given circumcision in this article. My personal view is that the reader can go to circumcision to read that stuff, but these results are interesting and useful enough to show different response zones in different areas of the penis. Blackworm (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you (anyone else reading, or anyone you may know) can pass the full report of either Bleustein or Payne (not just the summary/abstract) to me so I can input the raw data into Excel, that would be greatly helpful (let me know if you need an email). Thanks.--Studiodan (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have both, but will have to look through my files to see whether I have them in electronic format (I usually use paper for reference). As noted above, I think we also need to incorporate studies such as Masood, Kigozi, etc., to avoid giving preferential treatment to one type of study design. Thinking about it, though, I think that this is the wrong place to illustrate such studies. The reason is that there is only a very brief summary regarding circumcision in this article, so it is comparatively easy to introduce undue weight. It seems rather non-neutral to illustrate the summary in the circumcision section with studies of penile sensitivity, which is an issue raised by opponents of circumcision. What about studies of, say, HIV, which is an issue raised by proponents? Illustrating the subject of circumcision with one but not the other seems to introduce bias. I would therefore propose that we continue discussion at Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision. Jakew (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be helpful. I think it would be useful to have this data for analysis in illustration, if it so ends up being used here (somewhere on wiki in general, not specifically to this article).

As to where these illustrations can (or should) be located, that depends on the reason for illustration. i.e., it might be best to illustrate in an area regarding function and/or anatomy, instead of regarding the circumcision debate. My original idea (for Sorrells') was to place it next to mention of the study (since that seems most immediately relevant), and then see where the wiki project takes it from there.

Regarding studies that are not based on direct measurements. I feel those are best suited for the circumcision debate, and those based on direct measurements are of interest to anatomy and/or function in general (not limited to the circumcision debate at all).

However (for the time being), I otherwise agree that it might be best to take this to Talk:Sexual effects of circumcision.--Studiodan (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncircumcised and circumcised penis.JPG

The .JPG reads "A circumcised penis (right) compared to an uncircumcised one." Should be rewritten as "A circumcised penis (right) compared to a natural one."

The word uncircumcised is discriminating. We do not put the prefix "un" in front of body modifications and label people with them if they have not had it done. We do not say some one is un-rhinoplastied if they have not had a nose job. We do not say someone is un-castrated if they have a scrotum. We do not say a woman is un-footbound for having normal feet. The word uncircumcised should read "natural" or "normal". Hypochristy

No. The purpose is to compare the two types of penis, so in fact the purpose is to highlight the fact that one has not been circumcised. The correct term for a penis that has not been circumcised is indeed 'uncircumcised'.

The terms 'natural' and 'normal' are both problematic. Neither penis is artificial, so both are 'natural', and whether either is 'normal' depends on context: in some societies uncircumcised is the norm, in others circumcised. Jakew (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Natural" is not problematic. Circumcision is a body modification and is therefore unnatural. In any case, I'm happy about the change that was made. It now reads "Two different penises. The one on the right has been circumcised." It does without the words "uncircumcised" or "normal/natural". Hypochristy

You're failing to discriminate between the process and the end product. Circumcision is a human decision to modify the body, but the photograph isn't of circumcision. It is of a circumcised penis, and a circumcised penis is natural (it certainly wasn't constructed in a factory). Similarly, cutting one's fingernails is an act that modifies the body, but a hand with trimmed fingernails remains perfectly natural.

Anyway, the new caption is slightly problematic, because it describes only one of the two penes, which isn't quite WP:NPOV. However, I don't intend to fix it just yet. Jakew (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any (even slight) WP:NPOV problem, however, we could say something like "Two penises, the one on the left has a prepuce, while the one on the right does not". Personally, I think the way it's currently labeled is best, and I don't expect to see any complaints.--Studiodan (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, then, you would not see an NPOV problem with (when describing a group of schoolchildren) saying "here is a girl, here is a boy, and here is a black girl" (assume, please, that the first two children are white)? I would: it carries the implication that white skin is to be expected and that black skin requires mention. If one is truly neutral with respect to skin colour, one would either comment on the color of all children, or of none of them. Similarly, one should do the same with respect to circumcision status. As I indicated, I intend to fix this in future. Jakew (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a rather strange analogy. If black children were modified white children, then such a comparison might make sense, however that is not the case, and so the analogy doesn't apply. I think not circumcised would be better than uncircumcised, however I don't see the need.--Studiodan (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV applies whether or not one is a modified form of the other. Jakew (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, there are issues of amelioration and pejoration when dealing with the terms "natural" versus "unnatural" that go far beyond the academic definition that's being asserted here. One needs but look to advertisements for food and medical products to see that the words have potential bias attached. Furthermore, we're dealing with something very controversial. It would be quite a different matter if, for instance, we were discussing a "gibbon in its natural state" or "margarine's natural coloration". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur that advocating the word "natural" in this context is, transparently, intended to push a point of view. Nandesuka (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The caption in article currently says, "Two different penises. The one on the right has been circumcised." Is there a problem with that? --Nigelj (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See my comment dated 12:01, 20 February 2010. Jakew (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a strange analogy, because the whole point of these two photos is to show the circumcision. If the purpose of the children was to show their clothes, and the caption mentioned skin colour, that would be odd; if the purpose was to show their ethnicity, it would not. The rest of your discussion above revolves around the word natural, but the caption currently uses the word circumcised. What is wrong with that? --Nigelj (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If the purpose was to contrast their ethnicity, then one might say "here is a white girl and here is a black girl". One would not (I would hope) say "here is a girl and here is a black girl" — if the purpose of presenting both girls is to compare and contrast their ethnicity then the fact that one girl is black is no more and no less an issue than the fact that one girl is white. Similarly, both penises are presented because the purpose is to compare the two, to illustrate the difference between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis. Consequently the correct thing to do is to restore the previous caption, which described the state of both penes: "A circumcised penis (right) compared to an uncircumcised one."

There is no problem with the word currently used. The problem is that only one type of penis is described. Jakew (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a compromise because you and others couldn't agree between the use of uncircumcised and natural or normal in one case. The point about a compromise is that everyone is equally (un)happy. --Nigelj (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My personal feelings are not at issue here. The issue is one of WP:NPOV, and as I stated, I intend to fix the problem at some point in the near future. Jakew (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's such a big problem that only one is described. Look at the examples in WP:CAP; image captions do not need to be self-references. In fact, one might argue that they might technically be discouraged (WP:SELFREF). Might a caption that, in very plain language, describes circumcision work better? For instance, "Circumcision is a common procedure in which part or all of the foreskin of a penis is removed."

Another suggestion I might have would be to consider "not circumcised" (or "has not been circumcised") as a less irking form of "uncircumcised". Apart from that though... I might simply ask why the side-by-side is even necessary, and what it really adds that a standalone pic of a circumcised penis cannot offer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I worry about the wisdom of trying to accomodate a viewpoint that correct usage of a perfectly ordinary and neutral adjective is, in some way, upsetting. It seems to me that English speakers who find part of the English language irksome should really expect to be irked. Similarly, if someone finds the word "and" upsetting, I have every sympathy for them, but I will oppose any attempt to use contorted language in the encyclopaedia in order to avoid using the word. Nevertheless, I agree with your point that a side-by-side comparison is unnecessary, and I've replaced the image with one of a circumcised penis. Jakew (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Main Image Upgrade

File:Labelled flaccid penis.jpg

Proposed

Current image is simply useless as it only show the shaft of the subject of the article. Everything else not shown or blurred so it can be a photo of a finger body. I propose to replace it with another labeled image, which is sharp and good. What rationale is there to keep old blurry image? WP:NOTCENSORED - Yestadae (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good. Huge improvement on previous. --Nigelj (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections here; agree that it's an improvement. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The old picture was in black and white for no obvious reason. This image should be OK for the infobox.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In its favor, I see that it is color, instead of black and white, and so more realistic looking in my opinion. From a medical or scientific perspective it is roughly equivalent to the previous image, perhaps slightly better. My description would be that the image is of a white male probably in the mid thirties with an average sized, uncircumcised, non-erect penis. Although it is as fairly representative of the topic as is possible, it would be nice to have images that show other aspects of the topic. Having said that, I see that there is an image of an uncircumcised penis on the article, as well as an erection development image. Perhaps images of the topic that are towards one end or the other of the bell curve, as well as men of other races? But -- those would be elsewhere in the article, and we are discussing the lede image.

As a lede image, I find this image to be acceptable until some better image may arise.

I think that the proper procedure given the past history of controversy with images on this and other sexuality articles is that we should revert back to the consensus image until it is clear that there may be a consensus for changing the image. I think that is what editor Nadesuka meant in his edit summary, and he was correct. At this point a clear consensus for the new image does not seem to be apparent. I am not being critical of editor Yestadae, as it appears that he is being bold. Since there has been some objection though, including reverting back to the conseus image, that is where it should be for the moment. Atom (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg. My reasons are as follows. Firstly, there is better contrast, so the shaft is more clearly defined. Secondly, it is better cropped, showing (for the most part) only the penis and (in the background), a leg. Appropriately, the penis (the subject of the photograph) is in sharp focus, but the leg is not. In comparison, File:Labelled flaccid penis.jpg has relatively poor contrast, shows the penis as well as a large portion of public hair, scrotum, and legs. All parts are in focus, making the intended subject of the photograph less than obvious. Jakew (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely undecided on this (I have no current, definate opinion as to which image I prefer). That said, I do slightly prefer File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg esthetically (though mostly from the standpoint of photography), but that shouldn't be a factor here. I do think the new image might be better for educational purposes. However, your mention of "sharp focus" brings to my attention one of the problems I can find with File:Labelled bw flaccid penis.jpg (though very minor), and that has to do with the fact that the camera seems to have lens focus on the scrotum and pubic region, not the penis itself. Just my personal analysis, in case it helps anyone here.--Studiodan (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were down to me, the proposed new image would definitely get the vote. The current black and white image looks like something out of a 1950s text book, and it is misleading to say that there is a consensus in favour of keeping it when it the new image has received a fair amount of support. To put it another way, is there anyone here who hates the new image and would definitely veto it?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not heard anyone claim there is a concensus for keeping the old image. It has been in the article a long time, and has gained consensus by that virtue alone. I don't see any edit wars on the issue, just a calm discussion of the proposal. We should give it more time and see what many people think. Atom (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As for the arguments from Jakew, I was thinking about cropping it as tightly as possible, but that will not leave any space for labels, or they will be forced to cover the subject, which is clearly unacceptable. Hate and other emotions are against WP:NPOV and should not be used as an argument here. Yestadae (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I much prefer Yestadae's newer photo. If we are toting up votes mine would be for his replacement. Body parts — and especially intimate body parts — are seldom very attractive when pictured in isolation unless rendered by assorted Renaissance artists. The longstanding photo is mildly repulsive: his proposed replacement, whatever the issues as to photographic expertise, is vastly less so. And, may I say, more informative. I say go ahead with his replacement image and delete the b&w one And no, don't crop it further: it's cropped quite enough. Masalai (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Masalai wrote: "mildly repulsive". Sometimes I feel as if I simply cannot understand peoples personal opinions on beauty. I don't see anything "mildly repulsive" about either of these photos.--Studiodan (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the new image over the old one. The old one is in black and white, and it's slightly out of focus. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 06:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The word "hate" was not intended to be used in an emotional sense. The main issue here is to prevent revolving door edits to the infobox image. I would like to put back the new image, but not if someone is going to revert it very quickly. Any objections?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I counsel patience. Ask yourself what level of urgency this has, and the potential risk of not changing the image. I think the risk of a problem or mis-information if we wait to gain consensus (assuming that happens) is extremely low. I don't think some woman will be shocked when she has sex for the first time to realize that a penis is in color and not black and white like she saw in Wikipedia. Do you feel there is a consensus? It is not a vote -- but two out of six or seven people in the recent few days have said they like the black and white image better. Atom (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is worth waiting a few days for some more comments. Although Wikipedia is not a democracy, the votes so far are broadly in favour of the new image.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Support proposal - new image is far clearer, in colour, and (indeed) more representative, in its dimensions, of the average --Jubilee♫clipman 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BRD As there weren't any serious objections against the new image, I going to replace it now. Yestadae (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done. We'll never have unanimity but we certainly had consensus there I think. --Nigelj (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with no further cropping too. Apart from the labels, having a bit of context is no bad thing. If the image were (or could be) cropped to remove any skin that was not technically part of the penis, then we'd have no idea what we are looking at, how big it is, or where it is in relation to the rest of the body. Wikipedia is not paper, and if someone wants to have a really close look, they only need to click on the image, follow the 'Full resolution' link, zoom their browser with Ctrl-+, whatever they like. Nothing is lost by not cropping. --Nigelj (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)