Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 30 September 2006

~

Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify

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

Since when does Misplaced Pages 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,

Strength

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

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)

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 !

I think that voyeurism is replacing essential facts, one doesnt need a raincoat to be a flasher, he just needs loads of excuses to put his member on the net.

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.

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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages's (naturally unattainable) goal to accumulate all human knowledge. That includes knowledge that might be found in anatomical encyclopedias, as Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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| 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. -- 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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', Misplaced Pages 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.

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/Afbeelding:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Lorelei (talk • contribs) 10:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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 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 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 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: . 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

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 Misplaced Pages. — 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 Misplaced Pages has to be able to pay, in order to keep this article clean. But that is Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Template:Sexology-project-guidelines-notify 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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)

Sebaceous prominences

can anyone get a pic of Sebaceous prominences?