Talk:Penis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penis article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q:I have an issue with a picture on this article.
A:You can post a message on this page about your concern. If you add or remove a photograph from the article, do not be surprised if someone else undo's your edit within hours. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. However from an editorial standpoint, debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page.
Q:I have an issue with a certain type of penis not being represented in photographs on this article.
A:See answer to previous question.
Q:I would like to upload a picture of my penis.
A:Unfortunately, the realities of supply and demand are not in your favor. There is a large supply of Wikipedia editors willing to photograph their penis in the name of science. However, the demand is much lower. If you feel that your penis is more deserving of placement on the article page, you are free to make your case below.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
About archives


Contents

[edit] Only Uncircumcised?

This article contains only pictures of uncircumcised penis' and one with the foreskin retracted. For the sake of the subject of the article I say a uncircumcised picture should be added

Couldn't agree more! Those images basically ASSERT one thing: that ALL white males have circumcised jewish penises. Unfortunately (or should I say thankfully) we don't all share this trait. The US has a "mindset" on ritual medical circumcision, many other western countries don't, and if one looks deep enough one will find that the norm comes over as uncircumcised. So, why show circumcised images throughout the entire article if it is not representative of a "world view"? (and why isn't there a tag saying so?)

Those images promote a one sided view, a false view, a jewish-american view. The only credibility in that is to the gullible. Which is even worse. 81.151.108.130 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You are both mistaken. There are only two pictures of circumicised penises in this article, under the "Altering gentialia" section, one showing it to be flaccid, and the other showing it to be erect. The rest are all uncircumcised, which you will see if you look at the captions. Asarelah 23:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow, the anti-semitism is obvious here. Circumcision has nothing to do with Judaism in this day in age. Most doctors recommend that baby boys get circumcised for health reasons. There are health benefits to being circumcised. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's unhealthy to be uncircumcised. Rather, circumcision is associated with lower rates of the transmission of disease (among other benefits). More to the point, I would imagine (perhaps a doctor can verify this) that there are more non-Jewish circumcised penises out there than Jewish ones. The phrase "Jewish penis" and "Jewish-American view" is just ignorant and sounds bigoted. ask123 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most doctors do not recommend circumcision by default. The current medical consensus is that the health benefits are to small to weigh up the risks. Accoding to the British Medical Association, “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[1]
I agree that "Jewish Penis" phrase is bigoted, but I believe that the majority of men in the world are uncircumcised (correct me if i'm wrong), and this article should represent a world-wide view Cambrasa 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's amazing how people still think this way. Sneakernets 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there should be any pictures here anyways. Some things shouldn't be seen for a while, especially by some interested weird 12 year old kid.

Wikipedia is not censored. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. Ketsuekigata (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right: Wikipedia is not censored. But other Wiki policies and guidelines (e.g. no original research, verifiability, cite sources, etc.) naturally vet racism out of the analysis of topics in articles. After all, absurdly racist points of view will not be able to adhere to these policies and guidelines. ask123 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they should show both circumcised and uncircumcised. And big and small penises. Those guys in the pics should be embarrassed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.64.82 (talk)

The size of the penises used in the pictures and diagrams of this article is irrelevant... I take it you are joking here (I hope). ask123 (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice the blatant anti-semetism of the second and third paragraph of this discussion? Why are "circumcised" penises and Judaism inextricably linked as a single idea? Other cultures circumcise, and circumcision is practiced for medical and personal reasons as well. "circumcised jewish penises" doesn't make any sense, you racists bastard.

Actually if you look into the history of it in the 19th century (in the U.S. anyway), it does have a lot to do with Jewish influence. Gimmethoseshoes (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it has nothing to do with "Jewish influence" but, rather, to do with the influence of the scientific and medical community. Your statement would be true only in the context of an era in which circumcision was performed only for religious reasons. In other words, modern doctors did not widely adopt the practice as a result of the influence of Jews who spoke of the practice. Rather, it was widely adopted for health reasons. Jews were the first to perform circumcision, but it was for religious reasons. Being the first is different from and unrelated to being a popularizer or influencing the wider acceptance of something. Also, please you sign your posts (by placing four tildes [~] after your comment). (I signed it for you.) Own what you say (or, in this case, write)... Cheers! ask123 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

African and Aztek tribesmen performed penile mutilation as blood sacrifice to deities since the dawn of time. It's far from a Judaic tradition. However I agree with the posts above that support 'natural' penises, our preferences aside, whilst some of us are cut let's face it, the vast majority of men are not and further it's the 'natural' state of the penis. 122.107.56.47 (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Jew, we could care less what the world does with their penises.66.235.9.15 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

O.k, I know this may be a bit disputed right now, but I would like to move a picture of a circumcised penis up into the info box. To avoid any disputes that there are too many images in this article already, I may use the already existing one (near the bottom). Please keep your cool about this, and give me some feedback to tell me whether or not it should be put up right now. It is simply a fact that a VERY large amount of the worlds population have circumcised penises. Jetblue1717 (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do it, it will be edited within hours by someone else. IMHO this is just one additional reason to make the infobox graphic a neutral illustration, and then include thumbnailed relevent pics in the main article relevent to their section. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 10:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC) (i just don't care anymore...this isn't why i joined wiki)

In order to be fair why don't we upload an image that has both together. I created such an image but I am unable to edit the page as I am a new user and my account has not auto-confirmed yet so I am asking if someone else can take a loon at this image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Penis-Composite-CirumsisedandUncircumsised.jpg and then if they think that it makes sense to do so, make it the title image. Thanks! Geosand811 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually seems like a good idea. But the picture seems a bit rough, unfinished. If you could make it slightly less garish, then I'd be glad to recommend to to the community. Jetblue1717 (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size of erect penis in image

I liked the previous circumcised pictures- (erect and not) they showed a nice-looking penis that was not especially big- it was more representative of a lot of us!

Yeah I agree, that's a big dinger.

IT SHOULD BE AVERAGE SIZE. Main picture is so not normal. This site should be informative, not some guys need to show off how big he is.

I'm not sure exactly which image is referred to, however, the erect penis at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Erect_penis_with_labels.jpg looks much larger than average; it looks about 8 inches. I recommend it be replaced with an image of a more average sized penis. Given the popularity of this page (I think it's in the top 200 most visited) I suspect some readers will believe the picture represents an average penis, so it may cause unnecessary body image anxiety.

As I said in an earlier post, it doesn't matter if the image depicts a penis that's a little larger or smaller than normal. The only thing that's important is that it presents a scientific/medical perspective of that part of the body. One's insecurities or anxieties are not the problem of Wikipedia or its editors. That arguments over "anxiety" and "insecurity" are just diversions from the job at hand. In this case, however, the image is likely a porn image and is, therefore, not appropriate for Wikipedia. On the other hand, if the replacement image is an example of medical photography depicting a penis of above-average size, deal with it, people! ask123 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The best way to know that these penis pictures do or do not represent the average human male penis size is to go out and personally inspect as many penises as one can. Keep notes. Small penises cause snickers, average sized ones cause no reaction, and large ones generally cause a sharp inhale known medically as a gasp. Jcitrix (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It also could just be a small guy with a normal size Mhocker (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any point of reference in the photograph to give an accurate idea of what size it really is. There's no perspective. We don't know how his body is really proportioned. Asarelah (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urination picture

If we have a picture of a penis ejaculating, why not urinating? I mean, the penis ejects urine far more often than semen. This article really does need more pictures. Most anatomy articles have far more than this one and attempt to show every possible variation of the organ in question. Just look at hand and human leg. They have way more pictures than this one does. We don't want to imply that male wikipedians are afraid to post penis pictures right? What does it say about Wikipedia if there are more hand pictures than penis pictures? I think it smacks of censorship. 24.10.113.1 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a public domain picture, or perhaps make one yourself, then by all means, go for it. Asarelah (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You might want to check the articles he refers to. There isn't a single picture in either of those links he mentioned. There are either drawings or X-ray pictures, suggesting that this article has far too many pictures. Which I tend to agree with. Britannica wouldn't have a picture of giant erect penis at the top of an article either, and it certainly wouldn't have 11 (!) photos of human penises, let alone one that is ejaculating. DDSaeger (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Britannica doesn't have articles about Gwen Stefani either, that hardly means that we should delete her article. And those anatomy articles should have pictures too. Asarelah (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, sure, they need eleven pictures of hands too, all obscuring the general scientific structure of the bodypart. No. One picture of a hand would suffice - possibly two: one for each side. Just like that, two pictures suffice for a penis - erect and flacid -, and they should not be at the top of the article, because they are far less informative than the drawing. DDSaeger (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have trimmed away some of the more repetitive and duplicative images here. It is perfectly appropriate for their to be photos of penises on this article. It is also perfectly appropriate for us to edit reasonably such that we illustrate a topic to the degree that it requires, not to sprinkle photos around the article in some sort of wish to comply with the No Penis Left Behind Act of 2007. Nandesuka (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The article seems far more encyclopedic now (even though I don't think there's that many pictures that've been removed.) DDSaeger (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What about circumcised and uncircumcised? Penis piercings? Diseases of the penis? All of those things are relevant to the article. Besides, it isn't quite the same as hands. You see hands every single day, people rarely see anyone's genitals besides their own. Perhaps we should have a gallery at the bottom of the article, the way the breast article does. Asarelah (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, the pictures of circumcised and uncircumsides are still there. As are the piercings. The diseases aren't there, and shouldn't be. They get their seperate articles. All that has been removed is the pictures of the ejaculation and the erect penis on the top of the article. DDSaeger (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the pic of the labeled flaccid penis with the diagram used in the main box. I put back the erect one in the main box. Drawed diagrams shold not be the main pics for external organs. Bobisbob (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The erect penis picture is a poor one to use in an article lede, in my opinion. It's both distracting and illustrates both more and less than the article requires, and sets an unencyclopedic tone. As you obviously have strong feelings about this image -- since it is your image, after all -- why don't you seek consensus here before replacing it? Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not my image I just cropped a pre-existing image and why do we have a picture of a flaccid penis with a few labels when we have a whole diagram with all the important labels. Also the diagram does not focus on the body part so it can't be used as the main picture. When it comes to external organs we should have photos or at least realistic drawing. Bobisbob (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Illustrations should be 1) illustrative, 2) clear. Despite the experience of some, penises spend most of their lives flaccid. It is the normal state. One would always put the customary state in the lede. Further, one would use a line drawing in preference to any photo precisely because of all of the silly questions ("Why not with bells on it?" "Why not a photo of a bris in progress?" "Why not one that curves?" "Why not one swinging?" "Why not one with a condom on it?" "Why that color of condom?" "Why not a really exemplary one like Long Dong Silver's?"). A line drawing avoids all of the problems of particularity. A medical diagram illustrates the actions of the penis (see the urethra? there's your 'why not urinating?') and does so far more clearly than any photo. From a photo of either a limp or hard penis, I can't see how it works, why it got that way, etc., but from a medical drawing, I can understand all of those. By no means is a photo "better," except as ornament, and by no means whatever would any photo of any penis be appropriate in the lede. Geogre (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Per the consensus here I've replaced the lede image with an illustration from Commons. Note that this in no way implies that photographs don't belong in the article -- the illustration is simply much a much stronger image to use in the lede. Nandesuka (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
What consensus? I don't see how there has been any consensus here, much less a consensus to replace the image you replaced with such an illustration. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


(Not sure this belongs under urination section, but to stay in chronological order of the discussion...) I actually like Nandesuka's edit ( 4 June 2008 version ) better than the photograph. It serves the purpose of detailing the anatomy without the sensationalistic distraction of a photograph. (Not saying photographs don't belong in the article, but the diagram seems to fit the lead infobox better in a scientific anatomy article about a penis) Is there somewhere else in the article the photo could go, and have the diagram (which has more of a serious, textbook, encyclopedic feel to it) as the lead photo? -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, we absolutely should have good photographs in the article. But that particular photo, in context of the lede and infobox, was both distracting and superfluous (illustrating as it does structures other than the penis.)

Now that we've got some discussion going, I'm going to elaborate on the point I was alluding to in the first place. Why do we have all these pictures of penises? Why the picture of an ejaculating penis? Why not a urinating penis? Because of the sexual nature of the object in question. It is my supposition that men have bothered putting pictures of their penises on Wikipedia rather than pictures of their hands because it is titillating and they are provided an excuse to engage in an act that would otherwise be considered lewd. I'm not questioning whether this article needs pictures or not--hell, I find the idea of having circumcised and uncircumcised penises visually compared rather interesting and appropriate for the article. What I am pointing out here is what I believe is the true motivation for the whole picture problem in the first place... and the reason why this controversy doesn't exist in the hand and leg articles. No one is taking pictures of their hands and putting them all over the hands articles--why here? Why? And because of the answer to that question, it lends greater weight to the side of the debate over this article that wants fewer pictures rather than more. Because there's an underlying motive for these pictures being here that has nothing to do with educating people about anything--one that can be ignored, however, by putting forward these false motives and pretending that only prudes would object to their presence. There is a strong false dichotomy here: "either you're a censoring prude or you believe this article needs a picture for every paragraph". Thus, I would suggest that this article needs perhaps 1 external illustration, 1 cutaway diagram, and perhaps one actual picture. The circumcision pictures belong in the circumcision article. The ejaculation pictures/video in the ejaculation article. And so forth. 24.10.113.1 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

People see hands and legs every single day. People generally do not see sex organs every day, and thus pictures of sex organs have more educational value. Anyway, there is an RFC at the bottom concerning pictures and the amount that we should have, so perhaps you should put your concerns down there. Asarelah (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I am creating a good picture for this article, perhaps it will make people happy!

I have read through this talk page extensively and have seen alot of bickering over the images. Perhaps the community would like to see the image I have created. It depicts an uncircumcised penis in four different states. -Flaccid -Flaccid with foreskin retracted -Erect -Erect with foreskin retracted

It is of almost exactly average length at approximately six inches erected, rather straight.

It is well lit and up against a solid backdrop, all pictures from the same angle.

Shall I upload it and replace the existing picture? If so, I will to wait for this account to autoconfirm, I believe. Ranchoahn (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We have plenty penis photos. We don't need anymore. Please don't bother. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Awwwww. This one's of higher quality than the existing one. Any other opinions? Ranchoahn (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You would be approximiately the 79th user to create an account for the sole purpose of uploading a penis photo (and we can only guess whose). This isn't anything new here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and try it. See it they'll be accepted. 69.29.254.57 (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(Would award you the WP:SANDWICH barnstar if one existed.....) Unfortunately there is not already a shortage of Wikipedia editors willing to sacrifice themselves to take pictures of their penis. If you think your particular penis would make better encyclopedic content, then you are free to upload it to Commons and then suggest its inclusion on this talk page. If you make dick-pic-related changes without getting consensus first it is more likely to hit the cutting room floor from another editor within hours. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) strikethru edit -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 09:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on the picture

Since there's gonna be an edit war over the main picture, why not vote? Bobisbob (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I second -- caveman 80(my 2 cents) 02:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, a possible compromise would be to post a tasteful anatomy type illustration to the lead photo (like the one in 4 June version or something comparable from Commons or something), and then to satisfy people who desire a photograph, find a relevent place elsewhere in the article for that. my 2 cents. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (WP:DGAF) -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally think the curent one is fine, but then there is the problem of the labeling of the scrutum. The one you cited is too abstract, I'll rather have a more realistic detailed drawing. Bobisbob (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that this article is not, properly, even necessarily about the human penis. That's one reason that an abstract diagram should be preferred for the lede. Nandesuka (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So? The Eye, Vulva, Nose, aren't nessarily about humans but we have detailed photos. Imagine someone looking though those articles, with there detailed lead photos and then came to this one and it saw a abstract drawing. Bobisbob (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, no voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is explained clearly in WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. If we cannot reach an adequate consensus, then this talk page should be listed in Requests for Comment. Asarelah (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, so find consensus. If I'm not mistaken, there are 2 main views here. (1) The lead photo is too informal for a formal serious encyclopedia. (Try to imagine it in a print encyclopedia or textbook). (2) The other viewpoint is that nudity is natural and the page should have pictures of human penises coming out of the yin yang. So why don't we change the lead photo to something that better fits an encyclopedia article's tone, and have the photos elsewhere (maybe even a small thumbnail in the 2nd paragraph?). There must be some way to satisfy both parties. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Not to mention that placing photographs of penises in small (250px or whatever) clickable thumbnails would make the article more user-friendly for users using public terminals. (The point not being to censor the photos but to make the page a little less NSFWish. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 04:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC) (WP:DGAF) -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 09:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. A diagram in the lead would be fine with me, as long as the photographs are kept. We could create a gallery and add various pictures of medical conditions and show modified penises (whether through circumcision or piercings or what have you) without cluttering up the entire article. Asarelah (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(De-indenting). First off, I'm philosophically fine with there being photos in the article where appropriate (I think the photo of the piercings, for example, effectively illustrates the modification subtopic). I take a little issue, however, with the ambiguity in the statement "as long as the photographs are kept." At various times in the past, this article has had upwards of 20 photos, presumably because everyone feels that their penis deserves top billing also. So I'm a bit wary of arbitrarily declaring that we have some Status Quo of Pictures based on nothing more than how many pictures happened to already be in the article as of the date we started cleaning up. I'd much rather we determine what, specifically, should be illustrated, and then find appropriate pictures (which may include some of those already in the article). That makes more sense to me than "working backwards" and saying "We already have 6 pictures of penises in the article, so let's figure out where they should go". Am I making sense?
If "as long as the photographs are kept" you didn't mean "we have to keep every existing penis photo in the article, just because" but instead meant "I think it is wrong to expunge all penis photos from the article out of some sense of prudishness," then I fully agree. The article needs photos, but we must use our editorial judgment to use them in such a manner that they enhance, rather than distract and detract. Nandesuka (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I assure you, I certainly did not mean that we should keep every single picture of a penis that was ever on here. I mean that it is wrong to expunge all the penis pictures out a sense of prudishness. We just need a reasonable amount of pictures to illustrate the subject, selected carefully for quality and for educative purposes. Asarelah (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

...so it has to be a picture of a human erection/penis? Why dont we post a picture of an elephants, would that be detailed enough for you.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.204.247) (talk)

Want a minute, why can't we have a photo for the lead? We have then for buttocks and vulva. I think you guys are making too much of a big deal out of it, the last photo was fine, at least it's anatomically correct and isn't something a 3 grader can draw. (no offense to the person who made the current photo). Bobisbob (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A photo for the lead of an external body part is perfectly appropriate. I agree that the drawing is pretty useless. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone name a context in which it is socially acceptable for a man to expose his own penis for "educational purposes"? If you tried that in a sex ed class you'd get arrested. --69.124.44.191 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A medical textbook, for one. Not to mention the fact that books like the feminist health book "Our Bodies, Ourselves" has many pictures of female genitalia. Asarelah (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone did a good job editing wiki recently but now someone undid it? This article was perfect it had diagrams/drawings an ok example pick. Now today once again its back up to a total of 7 seperate images of penis photos....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.204.247) (talk)

[edit] So you guys do understand that.....

so you are now reverting back to the Penis of the month layout...? Post a penis and get "famous". Then the Lord said " thou shall have a penis battle every new month when a new young bucks penis shallith come to challenge the old for its rightful place as a shining example to all the school kids". I know theres copywright issues complicated with someone providing/drawing good perfectly fine textbook diagrams... but whatever. There is some very valid reasons for including real photos in some of wiki's articles when its really the best alternative but this is just the laughing stock of the century now. Im not just reffering to the Main Picture but the whole situation. There is good reason to have an explicit photo if it illistrates an important fact or valid unique information on the subject. So theres a time and reason for posting a few of these pics around the wiki sections..... Now I understand it might be slightly difficult for some of you Lady posters/moderators to understand what I am going to say or u could think Im off but nonetheless this is because men and women are so different but....The guy who took 27 different shots of his dingy and uploaded it, most of the countless other close up personals and the others like the ejaculation videos... tho helpfull some may be....you do realize 98% of these posters are just horny old/young perverts "getting off" literally as we speak at the thought/fact that little school boys and girls staring at an upclose resolution image of their obnoxous protutions. Its every pervert/voyers dream to have his schlong be the one that all the school kids get to see. thats why you have a new pop up penis every 3 1/2 weeks...

basically think about the guy in a trench coat who flashes 8th graders for the thrill. this is like the A-Bomb of all flashing fantasies and some guys are kicking themselves for not being the first to come up with a peni photo/ejaculation video of themselves now knowing that its fully acceptable.

Dont give me that junk about prudeness/nocensor/parental-control crap. This is an enclypedia and u are aware that even with SAFE SEARCH programs Wikipedia has the ability to bybass it so parents cant really block this site. so showing a little respect for the general population would be nice from you guys. I used to rave about wikipedia to all my co-s and friends about how great it was and that they should check it out untill I discoverd it was voyer-pervert central and I was incredibly embarrassed I even promoted you guys. The nocensor is a different debate im not getting into.

Side note - I thought the new drawing diagram was fine the new drawing and that actual photo are IDENTICLE same shape same design same labels only difference being one is a black and white drawing while the other is a color photo of some 17 yearold getting out of the shower or god knows what. Do you guys even get proof of age when you allow posting of genitals? Might want to watch yourselves. That drawing was perfect and IDENTICLE its like a drawing of the actual photo which is an excellent idea. Both had 3 labels NEITHER provided more or less infomation other then what Skin color the guy is..... besides if u have a real one posted by a random user were just going to get more and more every new month someone wants their chance. THEN we have folks discussing WHY NOT lets have a new one every month and add them to the gallery just in case theres any 12 year olds out there that need a good comparison of penis sizes.

Maybe some of u like the images and find them accessible but there are limitless non porno sites that are dedicated entirely to the study of male anatomy/size/race spectrum with all the doctor/clinic taken pictures people want if thats what they are actually looking for. Not random photos of perverts every month. Please stop embarrassing wikipedia because I used to love this place. now I just laugh when I hear it mentioned on TV. btw im sure you could in the very least "borrow" a legit textbook image and if anyone/owners complain then remove it. No one is making money off of this you wont get sued. Im not suggesting you take every nude away thats not what im saying, the disease photos, the peircing, nothing wrong with a picture of breasts under the article or a picure of an anus under anus article these things are fine and yes a single generic photograph of the penis organ for an example is ok I guess but you guys and this community are just getting...not really sure what words to put there (out of control?). Some of you moderators (maybe females? I dont intend to offend) seem to be enjoying takeing the reversal stance on "explicitness" reversing the stigma and proudly boasting their personal pride over NOT being offended by penis photos and really come on now it doesnt mean you have to let wikipedia unwravel into genital chaos. There are plenty of SOFTCORE porn sites for you plust legitimate clinical sites if you are that interested. From some of these verbal posts Im starting thinking some of you are really actually "enjoying" the photos yourselves or even worse perhaps its those in control of this web community/owners too who could be posting images of themselves which would explain a few things because any normal guy knows the real story behind some dude who wants a video of himself ejaculating on the largest information hitting site in the world.

BTW in the event that you were wondering im not some prude 50 yr old lady I am a male in my mid 20's trying to give you the real perspective on the true nature of wikipedia voyerism and its actual intent. You could laugh at my post or think Im the one whos off but trust me. From one young male telling you the truth about the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.204.247) (talk)

You just did a great job of completely contradicting yourself. Good job. Jetblue1717 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I now? It would help if you were more specific rather then shooting me down without any rebuttle/explanation. If you meant about the photo: my words explain that I think the new (very recent drawn diagram - someone must have just did) that was placed in the main box was perfect and identical in every fashion/information to the actual photo although it was removed after a day so no one really saw it. Then I was attempting to illustrate my understanding that there seems to be some high preference among specific senior contributors to include-keep full detailed upclose genital photos of random persons or person since it is written that we are not censored so I am not quite sure whether or not my opinion/request will be weighed significantly in the minds of some since I dont think we need any personal nudes at all but I know that will never be accepted apparetly so im trying to take this in a negotionable approach. Example on possible contradiction from above like the Anus article, I dont see a problem with having AN anus but we dont need 2 up close shots of them. Preferbly they could have even used a non human example. But apparently some dude wants his giant anus on the front page even tho we have a human anus (female which is identical in nature).

I believe its preferable to use a well detailed drawing (for the penis and such)like the one that was briefly in place. But with people being insistent on the actual photos then at least ones to be used should be taken from a clinical setting or a third party contributor is preferable over some of these lonely-horny 40 yr old beerguzzler's whose bored with an erection and a digital webcam on saturday night in his basement. I also believe such a thing would end the monthly "vandalizing" by individuals preferring to contribute their own personal "art" on the main showcase once wikipedia accepts a detailed well portrayed artistic renderings of genitalia with numerous labels and info to end it once and for all. There will be no more hilarious competitions of lonely pervs trying to get their "members" famous when they see that wikipedia has decided to take a more proficient stance on the quality of its content. Also I do not intend to offend anyone when I stated from before my observance over this heavy preference among specific seniors here to having images. Just because some of you (ladies?) like/enjoy seeing the image of a penis(s) doesn't mean its the best choice to have or if its even neccesary and if I am mistaken in that assumption then I apologize. If its a photo of a penis with a medical condition then yes it definitly deserves a plac. But argueing on the subject of how I dont see why a contribution/donation encylepdia ends up being translated into a front page penis gallery. Whether its the jollys of those who are Posting the images (which is certainly true) or the jollys of those who like looking at them we dont need this silly jumble mess cluttering in a respectible information distributor. But its good too see someone altered the main photo to something that sorta seems a tad bit more suitable, although I still fail to see how its any more informative then the previous drawing accept that they added an additional arrow label. but I do still prefer as I have stated above in my earlier post a well detailed drawing which YES can in fact be more detailed and explanative by drawing then a random photo with arrows on it. But its good to see Wikipedia continues to evolve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.204.247) (talk)

[edit] The use of a photograph vs. an illustration for Lead Photograph

I'm not a prude either, or a 55 year old lady. But the first thing I want to see when I load a Wikipedia page is not necessarily some guy's wang (even if he does get his rocks off knowing that everyone from 25 year old gay guys in North America to 15 year old school girls in India are seeing his penis.) If every person with unremarkable penis size (such as the pics currently in the main article body) in the Western world wants to post a thumbnail link of their penis in this article, at least they could keep it in the message bodymain article sections and not poster-sized as the lead photo. I'm not a prude, but come on... this is an encylopedia. There are plenty of sites for people to post self-pics of their penis. (Including Wiki Commons, which we have a link to). If someone wanted to convert the current lead photo into a black-and-white illustration using photo software (making it look like something more deserving of lead status in an encyclopedia article), and then label that, I wouldnt' care that it is actually depicting a real Wikipedia editor's wang (even if he is getting his rocks off at the fact (See WP:SANDWICH). My 2 cents. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC) WP:DGAF -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So what's wrong with my proposal of a diagram at the top and a gallery at the bottom? Isn't this a reasonable compromise? We can just put one picture of a normal penis in the gallery and revert any new self-pics of a penis unless they illustrate something important like a medical condition. Asarelah (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think diagram for lead is great (If the native population does not like the simplistic one placed there earlier, there are other possibilities such as Gray's anatomy plates) Personally I don't think we need a gallery (though I wouldn't fight the existence of one) since the Commons link serves that purpose. That isn't to say we can't have individual photo thumbnails within the sections alongside relevent text though (like circumcision/uncirc sections, other physical variations, etc). IMHO. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 21:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

-- caveman80(my 2 cents) 09:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC) WP:DGAF

(makes sure there isn't any mustard on my PB sandwich and goes off to ngaf :-) ) -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 09:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Asarelah, that sounds fine to me, but it seems like some people aren't reading the talk page, as near as I can tell. Nandesuka (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put in a RFC. I think we need a fresh perspective. Asarelah (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested comment on society (including sport, law or sex) for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsoc list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


The lead image should show what the subject is and be an overall illustration of the article's topic. I think that a photograph serves that purpose much more effectively. A diagram might be useful to illustrate certain things that would be difficult or impractical to show through photography (such as internal anatomy), but doesn't really represent what a penis looks like. I really don't understand why you're so adamant that a diagram would be preferable. Whether you're a prude or not, the removal or relocation of an image because readers find it undesirably explicit is censorship, is it not? I don't see how a matter of fact photograph of a penis as the lead for the penis article could possibly considered unencyclopedic. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There should be some sort of way to have the image hidden until clicked on, for those who, as Caveman stated, don't want to see a guys wang first thing. Otherwise, I would agree with Asarelah, and put a diagram on the top and a picture on the bottom.--ਊ Abhorcosm See Me | Tell Me 05:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've since retired from caring about the photographic content of this article, but for the record (since my name & previous comments were referred to).... the current version (cropped and in black and white) isn't as distracting (IMHO) as previous choices.. (The b&w gives it some of an artsy fartsy feel like an anatomy textbook lead chapter, and the cropping makes the picture less PA-WOWIE, THIS IS MY WANG, GROVEL BEFORE ME lol. (goes back to not commenting on penile photographic controversies))
P.S. -- if we go back to edit wars, i propose as our lead picture :-D -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 15:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)