|
// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]]
<div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: 1px solid #333 ; padding: 5px; width: 220px;">'''Archived discussions [[Talk:Penis/Archive_1|1]]'''</div>
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
==Inclusion of a list of slang terms for the penis==
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'
I removed the slang terms for the penis because I don't think it adds anything to the article. We could turn the article into a massive list of slang, but what would it achieve? --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]]
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
// Script from [[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js]]
I agree that this should be kept out of the article.
//importScript('User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js'); //[[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js]]
I have Moved the slang terms to a subpage. Or perhaps there should be a [[:Sexual slang|Sexual slang]] page to encompass this whole partially taboo subject. -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]]
// Script from [[User:Lupin/editcount.js]]
Do we really need to have slang for 'penis' in Wikipedia at all?
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/editcount.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupEditCounterTool='custom';
popupEditCounterUrl='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:$1?ectarget=$1';
// installation of the wikEd editing page extension
:Yes
// install [[User:Cacycle/diff]] text diff code
I mean, how often have you been looking through Encarta or Britannica and found a page where THEIR editors tried to remember all the names for the male copulatory organ??!!! - Mark Ryan
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cacycle/diff.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
// install [[User:Pilaf/Live_Preview]] page preview tool
:Irrelevant. This is an *INTERNET* Encyclopedia, and the Internet is about sex. In fact this article would be a reasonable central organizing metaphor for the entire project, as we are virtually sure that every contributor will eventually contribute to this file.
//document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
//+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pilaf/livepreview.js'
//+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
// install [[User:Mboverload/RegExTypoFix|RegExTypoFix]] common typo fixer
Y'know, while I'm probably among the more squeamish readers of the pedia, it's kinda nice to have a list [[:Penis/somewhere|/somewhere]]/, and an encyclopedia is probably the best place for somebody who just wants to know without having to wade through a lot of other crudeness. A person learning english, for example, is probably wise to be informed enough not to be left out in the cold. I was around 20 before I realized the other meaning of "Johnson"...
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cacycle/RegExTypoFix.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
// install [[User:Cacycle/wikEd international]] translation here
Are you seriouly planning to add penis nicknames in every languges ? The page will grow to several Gigabytes.
// install [[User:Cacycle/wikEd]] editing page extension
By the way mine is nicknamed Charles-Edouard :)
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cacycle/wikEd.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
[[User:Ericd|Ericd]] 03:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
It is a bit ridiculous. Do we need ANY slang terms for cock errr penis? [[User:Zocky|Zocky]] 04:10 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
// [[User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js]]
No we don't. I say it should be removed.
//importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js');
//assessmentMyProjects=["Songs","WikiProjectSongs"];
Hm. Having the English slang terms was dubious but the slang terms in other languages is not at all needed. Add those to the penis article in the correct languages. This is the English Wikipedia. --[[User:Maveric149|mav]] 07:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
mav, why don't we just get rid of all the slang terms. It's so silly
: Agreed. we don't need them. -- [[User:Tarquin|Tarquin]] 11:22 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
I took the liberty of removing the slang terms. I think there's just too much controversy over it. Perhaps a separate page could be created, as mentioned above by [[User:The Anome|The Anome]].
Created the [[Sexual slang]] page. I think it is nicer this way. And I also think that perhaps the piercings section should go somewhere else...maybe on [[Genital piercing]], which currently just redirects to [[Body piercing]].
Wikipedia isn't a usage guide, it's an encyclopedia; please see [[talk:vagina]]. I think we were basically just trolled. --[[User:LMS|LMS]]
== Erect penis photograph? ==
True or false: the picture that narrows the Erection section of this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. [[User:66.245.86.121|66.245.86.121]] 18:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:ALthough it's close to the edge of what is acceptable, I think there's general agreement that clinical photos are acceptable. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 18:27, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
:Shouldn't it either be in a different section, or show a more erect penis? [[User:Marnanel|Marnanel]] 18:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please see: [[Wikipedia:Profanity]] and [[Wikipedia:Choosing appropriate illustrations]]. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 18:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If we ''are'' going to show an erect penis, we should show one that is ''fully'' erect, rather than semi-erect. This also suggests that we should discuss the angle of erection in this article, and its variability. -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 07:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:There was a paragraph about this in the normal variations section. I've moved that to the erection section. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And it should show an entire penis, not one that has had some of it amputated. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 13:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Without invoking the circumcision wars, it probably makes sense to have an uncirumcised penis depicted here, as it represents wildtype. Oh, and for anyone who does not like photographs of erect penes, may I suggest producing a good anatomically correct drawing? -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 23:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Uh, that's exactly what is at the top of the page. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 23:42, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
::No, that's a flaccid penis. There are lots of noteworthy changes between the erect and flaccid state: many anatomical features only come into play during erection. The fundamental biological function of the penis (apart from providing an extension of the urethra) is to be erect in order to facilitate sexual intercourse. -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 07:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::: Hopefully there will eventually be a good selection of videos and images illustrating the process and accompanying changes. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::::If soeone wonders whether those would be clinical in nature, consider that I once spent several days at a medical trade show in a booth adjacent to one with continually looping video of a penis pump in use on a human penis. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 14:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:There should be two photos, one of a natural penis and one of a circumcised one. And the photos don't need to be nearly as large as the one that was just removed.[[User:Matt gies|Matt gies]] 01:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:: Larger would be good, particularly including details of structure. We don't yet have a good image for ''glans'', ''frenulum'', ''foreskin'', ''pearly penile papules'' and an assortment of other structural details. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis.jpg|thumb|200px|Flaccid and erect penis]]
I have taken some pictures, should it be included in the article? I can add labels for the specific parts--[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 12:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: I'd give it a go. Don't be shy! --[[User:Minority Report|Minority Report]] 12:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Some info on the picture (right) - Uncircumsized, normal leghth (not a small specimin like most medical photos), colour photo with a black background, <u>fully</u> erect in second photo. But the first photo is more zoomed in than the second.--[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 13:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::: Looks good. I'd put it in if I were you. (Sorry this subject is almost impossible for an Englishman to write about without lapsing into ''double entendre''. --[[User:Minority Report|Minority Report]] 13:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::::I've been bold and replaced the black and white image. You might want to tweak the caption. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (Tart, knees hot)]] 16:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::*Oh goodie, more pics. Now can we all just calm down and consider why we need four pics in this article? - [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 02:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::I'm perfectly calm, as is everyone else with the possible exception of you Robert. Note that I ''replaced'' the b/w image with a colour one. What have you got against the picture above? [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (Tart, knees hot)]] 11:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:::::*No you didn't Theresa. You replaced a black and white pic of an erect penis with '''two''' colour pictures. The pic of the flacid penis should either replace the appropriate black and white one lower down in the article or be removed. Quite simple really. - [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 03:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::::The flacid and erect photos are on the same image so I can't do that. If you really object to the tuly ''enormous'' number of penises on this page I suppose you could remove the b/w flacid one, I won't add it back in (although someone else might I suppose) [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (The snott rake)]] 22:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The obvious question which no-one is asking; Clawed, is that your penis? - [[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]] 20:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:yes--[[User:Clawed|Clawed]] 22:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
::Then I applaud you; you show an admirable level of commitment to the Wikipedia project. '''May your penis symbolise the penii of all mankind forevermore.''' On a more serious level, would it be possible to 'smart blur' the picture with Photoshop? I believe it works well enough as an iconic image at the moment - it is ''Penis'' rather than ''a penis'' - because the colours are so red as to make it more of an illustration than a photograph, but I believe you could forestall possible controversy by making it more abstract. -[[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]] 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::You want him to deliberately degrade the image? Why would we want a blurred image? [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (The snott rake)]] 22:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
::::Photoshop's '[[smart blur]]' is a clever little thing which is used a lot by Playboy magazine etc; it leaves edges sharp and only blurs large sections of colour. The end result is a photograph that looks like an airbrushed illustration; the detail is still there, and the image isn't 'blurry' as such, it merely looks more abstract. Indeed Playboy magazine seem to use it for exactly this reason; people find it more acceptable to ogle obviously-artificial ''images'' of naked women rather than actual naked women. And I would never ask ''anyone'' to degrade their penis. -[[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]] 10:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Image==
Is it too much to ask to attempt to keep this encyclopedia G-rated and safe for all the family? I support a version which links to the penis images, but does not display them in the article page. Is this really too much to ask? This sort of thing can get this whole site blocked from libraries. --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 02:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I do think it is too much to ask. Far, far too much. On the [[Talk:Clitoris]] someone came up with the excellent idea of a children's Wikipedia. It occurs to me that tt ought to be possible to fix the Wiki code to suppress articles or sections, or even images, that are marked up in a certain way. This would enable the reader to set his or her own preferences by category. --[[User:Minority Report|Minority Report]] 23:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:It was been decided that clinical images are acceptable, as they would in any other encyclopedia. Beyond that, Wikipedia is not censored. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 03:09, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
::This is not a medical textbook, it is an encyclopedia. Graphic images of human genitals are not shown in encyclopedias. Period. --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 03:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:::Because... ? People who read encyclopedias aren't entitled to the same information as medical students? - [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|§]] 04:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) Period.
::::Err....Someone here would find medical textbooks very disappointing indeed... - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 04:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:::::Not having read any medical textbooks, I'm moved to say then that we should replace this graphic with whatever graphic is in the medical textbooks, so as to satisfy Cantus' sensibilities. Or are medical students expected to "play it by ear"? - [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|§]] 04:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::::::Well, it depends on the text a bit. Accepting the "Penis Challenge", I've looked at two Internal Medicine texts: only one has a picture of a penis, and that's "the penis before and after testosterone treatment of an intersexual patient". I suspect one would do better in a text of Endocrinology, Anatomy, or Urology. I guess you're supposed to know what a "normal penis" is by medical school, as illustrations tend to be pathological. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 04:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:::I'm definitely puzzled by the news that encyclopedias do not show "graphic images of human genitals." I'm pretty sure my old Britannica did; those were the most thumbed pages when I was a child! Where does all this new prudery come from?
:If you want a filtered internet, please use one of the large number of filtering programs which are available. However, I would support a page with most images on it, leaving only a few more than the modest selection which are here at present in the main article. It would be somewhat messy to have forty of fifty images in this article, even though there are plenty of variations for them to illustrate. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 03:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake why on earth is anyone horrfied by a part of the human anantomy? This is so childish. A penis may be in an erect state without sexual arousal (such as a natural aid to continence in sleep). But honestly why are people so hung up about any sexuial connotations. It is this very kind of opression that creates imbalance and unhealthy interest in the "forbidden". A penis is part of nature get over it! [[user:Dainamo|Dainamo]]
== Metric conversion ==
From last version by 80.191.66.199:
:The average human penis is 5 [[inch]]es (15 up to 17 [[cm]]) in length when fully engorged with blood during arousal
Are we implying that metric people on average have longer penisses? :p -- [[User:Ferkelparade|Ferkelparade]] 23:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Five inches is normal?? I thought about six inches was the minimum you could have without getting embarrassed. Just goes to show how much pressure society puts on men... [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 10:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== Comparative anatomy ==
My sentence relating male and female anatomy was removed as "unwieldy". Unless the information is considered wrong or irrelevant, I suggest that its unwieldiness be removed by editing, rather than by deleting. I have restored it, in its own section. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 15:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:The new section works considerably better than where it had been, though we may want to include something on why the two anatomies are homologous. Do we have an equivalent section on [[vulva]]? - [[User:Jredmond|jredmond]] 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::Yup, there's a section in the [[vulva]] article listing the homologous male structures. As to ''why'' the structures are homologous: males and females use almost the same genome, and it's much easier and more efficient to make slight modifications to a single body plan than to come up with two different plans altogether. Rather than have one section of the genome make an ovary and another section make a testicle, you use just one section to form the common precursor of both and then change things slightly towards the end, under the action of hormones. If something's easier and more efficient, evolution is more likely to find it. However it doesn't ''always'' find it: even though the [[vas deferens]] and the [[fallopian tube]] perform a very similar function, they are ''not'' homologous but constructed separately from scratch. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 17:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Axel, this is a very clear explanation. It should be (after the removal of the intentional viewpoint) merged into the article... -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 22:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Maybe better to put into [[homologous]]? Since it isn't really specific to the penis. [[User:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]] 00:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
== Modification/mutilation ==
I've changed the "modification or mutilation" items to just "modification", and in some cases altered the text altogether. As we've discussed (and discussed and discussed) at the [[circumcision]] and [[genital modification and mutilation]] article, the word "mutilation" tends to carry negative connotations, while "modification" is more neutral. Since the distinction between "genital modification" and "genital mutilation" is often blurry, I'm going with the more neutral term. (Also, putting "modification or mutilation" every single time is rather awkward.)
I'm also changing "bifurcated" to "split" and rephrased some sentences for clarity's sake.
- [[User:Jredmond|jredmond]] 03:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:Keeping the voluntary cut, but removing the involuntary one is POV. Involuntary cutting is more common. Modification has a connotation of voluntary involvement, and usually connotations of improvement (a modified engine). Mutilation may have a social connotation just the opposite, but enough men such as myself feel violated as to merit both points of view. [[User:DanP|DanP]] 19:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where the word "modification" automatically connotes "good", but no such connotation is as strong as the negative ones associated with the word "mutilation". Also, using "modified or mutilated" when discussing practices like genital piercing or tattoing is disingenuous; it tends to imply that some penises are pierced or tattooed involuntarily. (This creates a very disturbing image in my head of roving Prince Albert gangs, tackling unsuspecting men in dark alleys and giving them body art.)
In any case, saying "modification or mutilation" for ''every single practice'' makes this section painfully awkward to read. IMHO, it'd be better to use that particular phrase only once (with the wikilink) and find different ways to express that the penis is somehow different as a result of whatever practice. This will reduce the N/POV arguments about what is and what isn't mutilation, and improve the aesthetic value of the section. - [[User:Jredmond|jredmond]] 20:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The word "altered" is shorter than "modified", and does not indicate improvement or mutilation. Would the term "altered genitals" be better for you? I think "modified" is more offensive to me than "mutilation", as "modified" implies just a small (ie. trivial) loss, but both are cultural distinctions, not dictionary ones. I think "modification or mutilation" is value neutral, even more so than "alteration", but sound neutral. [[User:DanP|DanP]] 20:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:"Altered" works; in fact, that's what I suggested as a neutral compromise over on the talk pages for [[circumcision]]. :) However, we need to avoid overusing it like we had "modified or mutilated". I'm re-phrasing some of these sentences so they don't rely on "alter" or "altered" or "alteration" for everything.
:That opening paragraph seemed incredibly awkward, and I could not come up with a suitable replacement to introduce the section. I've replaced it with a link to the main [[genital modification and mutilation]] article, and indicated that circumcision is especially controversial when performed on infants and young boys.
:I had used "decorated" to characterize the addition of body art. It seemed to me like an appropriate word choice, given the voluntary nature of and typical motives behind such enhancements, and using it gives us a chance to skip the "alter" echo for at least that one paragraph. I'm putting it back.
:Finally, I'm doing some formatting and minor clean-up so that this section reads more easily and fits more closely with the rest of the article. - [[User:Jredmond|jredmond]] 21:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
== This sentence in the "Fears and reassurance" section is ugly... ==
:''"Possibly due to shame incolcated in regard to genitalia, some people suffer from misunderstandings and resultant fear."''
Ouch. I ''think'' I know what that sentence's author is trying to convey - some people have issues with their own genitalia - but I can't think of a prettier way to phrase it. Someone please help!!! - [[User:Jredmond|jredmond]] 21:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
----
== Poll ==
----
Robert Brookes and his sockpuppets vandalize this article. I would like to take a poll about the contested sections:
Robert Brookes removes information about hypospadias and the raphe. This is the [http://WikiPedia.Org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Penis&diff=6310631&oldid=6287165 diff.] I believe that the the version of Robert Brookes is incomplete. I would like to take a poll. For preventing ballot-stuffing, I suggest that only people registered before 2004-10-01T00:00:00 GMT/UTC have the right to vote in this poll. I propose that the poll last until the end of the week. I shall define the end of the week as 2004-10-10T00:00:00 GMT/UTC.
Now that we established the rules, let us define the questions:
¿Should we include the information that circumcision sometimes cause iatrogenic hypospadias and that the raphe runs from the præpuce to the perineum?
Yes:
# [[User:Walabio|Ŭalabio]] 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
I recently registered but am voting anyway, since I made other contributions. How about adding a little about penis wrinkles? Walabio, you're writing English, not Spanish, so there's no inverted punctuation. [[User:Lysdexia|lysdexia]] 05:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
----
No:
#
----
Comments:
The article is more informative if we include the complete information. [[User:Walabio|Ŭalabio]] 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
[[User:Walabio|Ŭalabio]] 08:17, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)
: I have not yet figured out why in the world Robert would oppose these parts of the article. Even the proponents of circumcision are aware that the outcome varies, and now the Friends of Robert even mess with the [[frenulum]] article. This is a bit like opponents of circumcision deleting every extremely rare foreskin problem, which we are certainly not doing. Complications of hypospadias are common enough that I think it should be there. Perhaps we should add other complications of circumcision (skin bridges, keloids, suture tunnels, etc.). If [[paraphimosis]] and [[oedema]] are residing right in this article, why can't we include facts about circumcision problems? Or would Friends of Robert rather we just delete every problem on both sides from this article? [[User:DanP|DanP]] 23:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
----
=== Poll Closed ===
----
Since the poll was coming out one sided, I let it run a few more days. 100% of respondents agree to include the information about the raphe and hypospadias. I declare the poll closed and the information should be included.
[[User:Walabio|Ŭalabio]] 01:34, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
----
LOL ... what was the number of participants? The results are binding on no one. - [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 10:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Erectile Bone==
What the heck is an erectile bone? Can anyone provide information that it exists? [[User:DanP|DanP]] 17:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I think the name for this is [[penile bone]]. Many animals have one. Humans don't. -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 09:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:: So says the article. I've never heard of such a thing in any anatomical study. I think this should be substatiated by at least some mention of anyone actually seeing such a thing in any species. Is it the pubic bone? Or what is it? It could be urban legend.
: Many mammals have them. The ones I can remember offhand are the walrus and the sauropod dinosaurs.[[User:DanP|DanP]] 21:49, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::See Beresford WA, Burkart S. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=604330&dopt=Abstract The penile bone and anterior process of the rat in scanning electron microscopy.] ''J Anat.'' 1977 Dec;124(3):589-97. -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 13:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Also see pictures at [http://www.skullsunlimited.com/baculums.html]. -- [[User:Karada|Karada]] 14:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, humans occasionally are born with the penile bone. It is generally surgically removed. [[User:Kim 金|金 (Kim)]] 02:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*Do you have a medical source for this? If so please post it. - [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 02:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a very good memory for such trivia. I'll try to find the reference, but the memory goes back to the previous millenium. [[User:Kim 金|金 (Kim)]] 02:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
==Iatrogenic hypospadias==
[[User:DanP|DanP]] inserted the claim that [[hypospadias]] can be iatrogenic (e.g. caused by medical treatment). Has anyone heard of this? [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I've not heard of this. What mechanism is DanP suggesting for this? Pre-natal effects of hormone therapy? Botched surgery? -- [[User:The Anome|The Anome]] 08:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::"Iatrogenic" means "caused by doctors", so "iatrogenic hypospadias" is a fistula caused by medical error. Not exactly plain English![[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] 03:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== <nowiki>{{sex}}</nowiki> ==
The sex warning seems reasonable to me, but aparently many other people don't like it. Why? [[User:Quadell|<nowiki></nowiki>]] – [[User:Quadell|'''Q'''uadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]]) ([[User:Quadell/Request for assistance|help]])</sup>[[<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:48, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:If it seems reasonable why not go ahead and reason it. There is a debate/vote going on in [[Talk:Clitoris]] which this seems to be an attempt to preempt.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 00:56, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
:Why? See [[Template talk:Sex]]. [[User:Mirv|—No-One]][[User talk:Mirv| ''Jones'']] [[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|<sup>(m)</sup>]] 01:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Please discuss here. The clitoris poll is completely unrelated to this message. By the way, Quadell, can you assist me in reverting this page? Thanks. --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 00:58, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:Are you really calling for an edit war? If you can make a good argument, do so, but do not start trouble. -- [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] [[User talk:Netoholic|@]] 01:15, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
What is everyone's thoughts on the content warnings in [[Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse]]? Why there and not here? Double standards anyone? --[[User:Cantus|Cantus]] 01:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
:(response already posted on [[User_talk:Sverdrup]]) Inappropriate and ugly (<nowiki><h1 /></nowiki> should only be used once per article—for the article title at the top. Oh, wait, I checked the source now, and it turns out it is using <nowiki>==''' blah ''' ==</nowiki>, which is just as bad). If someone doesn't want to see images of what an article discusses, he/she should set his/her browser to not display images. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 01:35, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:
:Your comment perfectly illustrates the argument made on [[Template talk:Sex]]. Where should the line be drawn? Elbows? Clitoris? Sexual abuse? The only way to be NPOV is to not draw the line. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 01:44, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I endorse the <nowiki>{{sex}}</nowiki>. Many Wikipedians with children may agree. Chmod007, the line should be drawn as far as daytime TV - swimwear OK, genitals no. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:"Daytime TV" in which country? POV! Can you explain to me why a parent would want to prevent his/her child from seeing images of genitals? When I was five, my parents and I read ''Where do children come from?'', fully illustrated. What is it about scientific documentation of human sexuality that you believe could corrupt children so easily? — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 16:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
David, which country has daytime TV on public/mainstream channels that feature male frontal nudity? Your parents had the POV to be very liberal, and I declare a POV in being somewhat more conservative. The warning ''only'' pertains to the images as far as I am concerned. Cantus is quite right in pushing this template, and your POV is not affected if the template stays. ''Nobody is removing the pictures.'' [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 16:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I modified message (which is not <nowiki>{{sex}}</nowiki>) and it is now fully acceptable to me, since it is factual and to the point. I oppose any template that in a blue box at the top of the article gives undue prominence to the notion that sexuality is offensive. And I oppose the general [[Template:Sex]] message, especially on articles such as Penis and [[Clitoris]], since the images on these pages are not explicitly sexual. There is no need to get harmless Wikipedia blocked by censoring software, just because they choke on the <nowiki>{{sex}}</nowiki> ''template''. If they choke, it should be based on actual article content. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 16:56, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:As for daytime TV, I don't think [[Sveriges Television|Swedish public television]] has any clear guidelines on nudity, nor is it controlled in the laws that control the broadcasts (as some things are, violent pornography is completely banned, for example, and graphic violence is heavily restricted during daytime). The images in this article could certainly just as well be part of a daytime educational program, and a couple of years ago a youth show created some public opinion waves depicting masturbation at 7 PM. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 17:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's important to remember that no one will be offended by the image. What they will be offended by is the breach of what they think of as a universal rule. If you look through the comments by the antis, non of them say's that the image offends them, it is always somebody else. The presence of the warning is proof, in the mind of some, of the existance of this rule. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to caharcterize information in this way. It is also not practical as it requires the layout of the page to be further adjusted so the image cannot appear on the same screen as the warning. It fosters a belief in forbiden knowledge. Can you produce some evidence of what % of the population will be offended and what % feel it should be their for some other reason, and what those other reasons may be. The motivation of some users is unclear. I want a warning that warns about the warning, as I find the warning offensive, and I feel a significant propotion of the population will agree.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 19:13, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
:Well, the images are actually offensive to me. ''There you go! An anti speaks his mind!''
:Okay, David has given a nice cool exception to the practical rule adhered to in virtually the whole world. Will we base policy on the Swedish precedent or the UK, USA, Dutch, French etc...
:JIrate, your <nowiki>{{POVW}}</nowiki> is also really quite offensive to superstitious little me. I suppose I should insert a warning about your warning. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 19:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Hmm, is it time to add '''Wikipedia is not a television channel''' to the list of [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]]? We're an encyclopaedia. We shouldn't base policy on Swedish television policies, nor on UK television policies. I simply answered your question of which country's television would show nudity during the daytime. — [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 02:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Keep the disclaimer out==
I should point out - we used to have individual article tagged with individual disclaimers. When we created the general disclaimer, we removed the individual tags in favor of having '''every page in the database''' link to the general disclaimer (which, in turn, links to the content disclaimer - [[Wikipedia:Content disclaimer]]). Cantus' suggestion to the disclaimers back goes against the previously-decided policy. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]]
02:30, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
:That policy is a legalistic policy. What i mean by this is that, medical disclaimers, legal advice disclaimers, safety disclaimers and the like are there to both warn ''and'' to prevent wikipedia getting sued by people who follow dodgy medical advice and harm themselves. This warning is entirely different. IMO it is more akin to a spolier warning on an article about a book. Just as some people might read an article about Harry Potter without expecting to have the plot revealed, it is also true that ''some'' people might visit a page on a sexual organ without expecting or wanting to see a photograph.There is currently a very active debate on [[talk:clitoris]] about this. Rather than do it again here would people who are interested please comment there. There is also a vote going on that you might like to put your name too. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (Not the skater)]] 13:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Come on, please. This is an encyclopedia. When you look up "penis" in an encyclopedia, you expect to see pictures of penises. Can we please assume a reasonable degree of maturity on the readers' side? [[User:Kosebamse|Kosebamse]] 20:50, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I suggest we take this to the mailing list, as it affects several other pages on the project. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I suggest it is done in public, where everyone can see and judge.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 21:09, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
:I agree it should be public. But it needs to be all in one place. So can we all argue on the clitoris page please. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (Not the skater)]] 21:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Unprotected==
(Crosspost to talk:clitoris, talk:penis, talk:vagina) - Ok, the disclaimer idea has been roundly rejected. I have unprotected all 3 articles (Penis, vagina, and clitoris). Let's try to keep it civilized now. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 00:04, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Please reprotect as [[Cantus]] is vanalising.--[[User:Irate|Jirate]] 02:12, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
== Phimosis ==
I wasn't too surprised to find the discussion of phimosis a teensy bit doom-laden. It can be a serious condition. However I've never once been able to retract my foreskin, and have a perfectly healthy penis. The condition is not painful, indeed the foreskin is quite sensitive but is amply elastic and provides enough freedom for masturbation and sexual intercourse. --[[User:Minority Report|Minority Report]] 00:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Legal concerns==
I can't understand why Jakew removed a quote about the legal concerns of Australian medical authorities about routine infant circumcision. Perhaps he could explain why. [[User:Michael Glass|Michael Glass]] 04:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The focus of the article is on the penis, and we should endeavour to keep discussion of circumcision brief, with lengthier discussions in the [[circumcision]] article. The RACP remarking on some unspecified person having speculated a legal problem with circumcision doesn't exactly immediate relevance. - [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 10:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*You are absolutely correct Jake, but do you think that for one moment that is going to stop your friends from attempting to slip their POV into every article they can? - [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 17:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
: Right or wrong, the viewpoint exists. The article should reflect that view without judging it as incorrect. Making a judgement in neither direction is perfectly neutral. [[User:DanP|DanP]] 19:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Part of writing an encyclopaedia article is editing down the information to a subset that is considered relevant. The article isn't judging that POV as 'wrong', it simply doesn't mention it. - [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] 19:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Disturbing images==
[[Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images]]: “This is a proposal to regulate the policy on graphic images that could be potentially disturbing to Wikipedia users. The policy shall be discussed for a period of two weeks, also giving users a chance to draft their own policy proposals, and the voting will start on December 15 and last for one week.” For anyone who is disturbed by penis, clitoris, or any other body parts (including fingernails covered with certain shades of nail polish), that discussion and a subsequent voting seems to be a good place to voice your opinion in a way more reasonable than vandalism and edit wars like the one that is taking place on [[Clitoris]]. [[User:Rfl|Rafał Pocztarski]] 06:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:Images of penis' are neither graphic nor disturbing. They are anatomical, scientific, correct and appropriate. Roughly half of the population has a penis, hence sees daily. --[[User:OldakQuill|[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak]] [[User_talk:OldakQuill|Quill]]]] 20:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
== Do we REALLY need pictures? ==
Wikipedia is a web site easily accessible (and usually frequently accessed) by young children across the world. While in your nation, you might not have a problem with a human penis, in some countries it is a very taboo thing. Before you shoot back with "PUH-LEEZE!" and "quit being so prudish!," I would like to ask you to take into consideration other cultural concerns. After all, I feel that my culture has made quite a few cultural concessions in the name of "progressivism," and I think it's high-time the favor was returned.
*I have sympathy with your position. However, it is not going to be resolved by constant reverts. I believe that there is a way in which to provide illustrations in articles relating to the human genitals which will produce both the educational accuracy and show respect for other cultures and the effect of explicit material on children. I ask you please to stop the revert war as it will serve only to harden the attitude of those who are currently driving the process of placing explicit material in the face of all comers regardless of quality on the basis of "any pic will do". Remember it is not you who has to grow up in this, what we need is a lot more maturity around here in the choice of illustrations. - [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]] 17:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
*Wikipedia is not bowdlerized. Period. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 11:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
*I recomment you stop repeatedly reverting articles (which violates our [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]]), get a user account, and wait a few weeks for any possible policy in the debate mentioned above to materialize. Then we can perhaps discuss the issue on this talk page and reach a compromise. Attempting to change the article by force, however, will not win you any sympathy. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] [[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|<font color="purple">Luke</font>]] 12:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about putting links to the images, rather than the images? That way, anybody fearing adverse consequences from viewing parts of the human anatomy that are normally publically visible only on statues could protect themselves from the perceived danger. That being said, the greater danger, in my experience, lies in a social situation in which some people have knowledge (or claimed knowledge) and can use that knowledge to manipulate people from whom knowledge has been withheld. "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours," is not always a 50-50 exchange even when both people are of the same age. [[User:Kim 金|金 (Kim)]] 02:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
| 