Talk:Human penis/Archive 2

User Anthonyhcole removed the van Maële image of a boy peeing as being child pornography. Now, van Maële was undoubtedly a lewd old man, and the image is from an undoubtedly pornographic publication, but is it child pornography in and of it's own? It was the best image we could find, the result of quite a bit back and forth. I have no wish to start an edit war with Anthonyhcole, but I would like to ask for some directions of how to find common ground. Could we crop the image, removing the girl showing her genitalia to make it more acceptable? Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We could spend all day debating whether this is child pornography, but is it really necessary anyway? My !vote is not to include this, because it is another good example of "Hey, this is old and out of copyright, let's have it in the article!" I think we all know that men pee while standing up and women while sitting down, and the image adds nothing that text cannot explain adequately. Let's show a bit of decorum here, this is supposed to be a serious medical article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally like to have images in an article. The pint about being able to stand is not really "medical", rather a practical one. As for "old and out of copyright", it was the only reasonably clear picture with a decent resolution of the relevant point to be found. We really should have a picture, but I'm not married to van Maële. Ideally, we'd have someone standing in the snow with heavy winter clothing peeing, that will really show the salient point of practicality. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Martin van Maële was not known as a serious illustrator of medical textbooks, and his work is being used out of context in this article. The deliberate use of an upskirt view of the girl on the left of the image might run into legal difficulties today, but as the saying goes "The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there". An image illustrating urination should have a better source than Martin van Maële.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is the wrong venue for this discussion. If people seriously want this image banned from the internet because it is child pornography, then that should be a file deletion discussion, on serious legal grounds, immediately, at Wikimedia Commons. If it is not child pornography, then there seems to be no argument to expunge it from this article where it has been in use for some time. Equally, it is currently in use on 6 other language versions of Wikipedia. My point is that there can be no half measure, where it's a bit like something that might be wrong, so let's censor it away from here, but it's OK for Commons, the German WP. etc. Either it is child pornography, and having a copy in your hard drive cache places you in serious and imminent of arrest and imprisonment, or it is not, in which case there's nothing to discuss here, and the image should be linked here as elsewhere on Wikipedia and Commons. --Nigelj (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

In the previous contributions, I tried to avoid opening a discussion about whether this is a suitable image for Wikimedia Commons. Personally, I think that this is a silly and cheap image when it is used to illustrate urination this article, and that the (sigh) header is fully justified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

An image of a prepubescent girl with her legs spread showing her vagina is completely inappropriate. I have no intention of trying to persuade anyone who doesn't see this is child pornography. Of course it is. Why do you think the dirty old man drew it? Anyway, if anyone restores it, I'll be recommending at the very least that they be topic banned from all nudity and porn images and all anatomy and medical articles on en.Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Describing Martin van Maële as a "dirty old man" has clear WP:NPOV issues. The real issue is whether a 100+ year old cartoon image by an erotic artist is suitable for illustrating the subject of urination.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole was just over at User talk:Jimbo Wales crowing about this deletion as a success story in his efforts to censor Wikipedia. The idea that a mere line drawing of a little boy peeing is "child pornography" is ridiculous - and it conflicts with the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of prohibition of simulated child pornography even for very realistic drawings of frankly sexual activity. He might try to claim that the material is "obscene" in the United States - but can he show us proof that this drawing has ever been declared obscene in the 110 years that it has been floating around, even when the laws had vastly less respect for the constitution? What I see searching "martin van maele" and "obscenity" online is that Larry Sanger claimed that some of the man's work was child porn in 2010 in allegations to the FBI - and here were are ringing in 2014 and there's been no action. That tells me that this is nothing but a POV crusade with absolutely no interest in improving the article. Wnt (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wnt, claiming an old drawing is child pornography in the legal sense is ridiculous. We can discuss whether the image is ideal (it is not), whether it shows the salient point (it does) and whether a better could be found (we'll have to make one I suppose). Removing the image as an act of censorship should be discussed in the appropriate place first, and threatening a topic ban for anyone reinstating the image is an attempt at forcing censoring on other editors and is a break of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and WP:CENSOR. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If Anthonycole really thinks that this qualifies as "child pornography" then he should warn the FBI or something. In the meanwhile, removing with only this justification and without any replacement, it looks like just an attempt of censoring images where pee-wees are shown. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, that alternative image is not very good, you can barely see the stream of water against the background. Surely someone could peruse commons:Category:Manneken_Pis_(Brussels) and commons:Category:Manneken_Pis and find images that show the topic better? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: Agreed, please find a better way of illustrating urination than an old cartoon.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I am still waiting for Anthonycole to call the FBI and get this image removed from Commons. I'll just point out that, by this standard, Rembrandt's La femme qui pisse should be qualified as hardcore porn.

Also, I shouldn't have edit-warring, but that little "undo" link looks so tempting when someone gives an based-wholly-in-ones-own-opinion-and-not-in-any-real-world-fact emotion-appealing makes-you-look-bad-if-you-revert reason in the edit summary..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't be calling for its deletion from Commons. I can imagine more than one article that it would be appropriate for. Child pornography of Martin van Maële for one. It's not appropriate to illustrate this article with child pornography. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

But I never said that La femme qui pisse was hardcore porn, this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is supposed to be a serious article along the lines of a medical textbook, and there must be more suitable images than this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, textbooks use to include schematics of the urinary tracks, like here, but no images of the action of urinating. Either it's difficult to depict on a book, or it's less informative that the schematics and there is only space for a limited number of images, or there are cultural factors at work that prevent those images from being published. Similarly, they don't usually include images of the actions of vomiting, defecating, etc. (ugh, why am I here in the internet discussing such disgusting topics?) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Vomiting, defecation and urination are not disgusting topics in the context of a medical textbook. These topics should be dealt with in a serious way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What we were after with this image was showing how a boy/man is able to urinate standing without removing his garments. Ideally, I would like one with more clothing on, and preferably one with less balmy weather. The good thing about the van Maële is that it also shows a girl in the sitting position. Ideally, she should have been peeing too, just to show the difference, but that image was the best I found on commons, unless anyone want a picture hooligans peeing on public property. The little peeing statue does 1) not have any clothing of note and 2) does not show the practical aspect of peeing. If the old goat van Maële is unacceptable, I guess I could try to make a drawing myself. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not opining on the above thread, but just for the record (I saw this thread via Jimbo's talk), community members are advised per mw:Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies#Office_Actions to delete actual or suspected illegal content on sight, then report it to LCA for review. They'll make the determination of whether the appropriate authorities need to be contacted, etc. ({{not legal advice}}, &c) However, these specific images were brought up by Larry Sanger in 2010 in a letter to the FBI, the US Senate and House. The images are still live. LFaraone 01:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What needs to happen IMO is we delete the image too. I will consider requesting a Wikipedia:Files for deletion discussion and in the meantime do support it not being included here or elsewhere on the project (in terms of mainspace it is already an orphan♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The image is on Commons, is public domain, is used on other language Wikipedias, and I'm pretty tempted to add it to Martin van Maële. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is on Commons or not is irrelevant to a discussion on deleting it from here. I would consider reverting were you to add it to said article befor trying to gain consensus on that article's talk page. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother nominating the image for deletion from Commons because it is bound to be kept. Simply finding the image tasteless is insufficient grounds for deletion. This cartoon survived the Larry Sanger brouhaha in 2010, and nothing much has changed since then.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You might actually want to read WP:FFD - What not to list here: "Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The file is orphaned, which is a legitimate reason to delete. Its going to be me (unless someone beats me to it) who will make this decision, your comments such as you cant do it, while not unhelpful, arent going to effect that decision♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SqueakBox, you don't seem to get it. The file is not hosted on the English Wikipedia. There is nothing to delete on the English Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It can still be deleted from Commons, can't it? Epicgenius (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. But as it's not orphaned there, SqueakBox's reasoning doesn't apply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO WP:IAR could well apply here to NeilN's objection and could be mentioned in any deletion proposal argument. I dont volunteer at the Commons so they can do what they want, my only interest here (if at all) is in seeing this portrait not appear in the en or es wikipedias, the only ones I regularly work on, and while removing the image from en wikipedia wont do that (cos ppl can still link from the commons) it would still serve the purpose of removing a child pornography illustration from en.wikipedia and give the English speaking wikipedia community a say on a child pornography illustration image which is on en.wikipedia. I still havent yet made my mind up, though, and am unlikely to do so before the new year now♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

So you want to enforce your morality standards only on the wikipedias you work on. Good to know. And you still don't seem to understand there is no image to delete on en. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons or not, the picture is still inappropriate. The fact that you can see a boy's penis in the drawing, as well as a girl's vagina, both of whom are prepubescent kids, is enough that the picture should probably go to the WP:BADIMAGE list. Epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You can see the boy's penis on the statue as well. Are you proposing to add that image to BADIMAGE? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it's just a metal penis, but the drawing depicts a real genitalia. Epicgenius (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

NeilN, how can opening up a debate be seen as "enforcing my morality standards". Anyway I am not here as an editor to enforce my morals or advanced my ideologies but to collaborate in writing a mainstream neutral encyclopedia for the early 21st Century and I put my morals to one side when I come here which means you have no idea what my morals or ideological viewpoints are anyway. The image is on en.wikipedia.org which means it CAN be nominated for deletion, it is not a technical impossibility although it might be subject to some wikilawyering, which is a very different kind of objection. And one for which IAR might be a very good defence not that I have ever used that standard before but this is an usual case. What I am thinking about doing is not to enforce any moral standards but to open up a debate and see what the English speaking community wants to do about this child pornography illustration hosted on en.wikipedia.org. I hope you can see that nobody can use IFDs or AFDs to promote an ideology even if they wanted to, that is to misunderstand what the deletion process here is all about, it can never be about the proposer enforcing anything. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

By repeatedly referring to the image as "child pornography" when it was pointed out above that child pornography is not hosted on Wikimedia and this image received great attention in 2010 and the image is still on Wikimedia servers you are making an argument based on your own personal morality rather than any legal/policy issue. And (not surprisingly now) you cling to the misperception to the image is "hosted on en.wikipedia.org". Why don't you believe me when I say it's not? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow that was a clever use of words, it cant be child pornogrpahy cos wikipedia doesnt host child pornography is a weak and circular argument not worthy of refutation. And as for hosting, oh look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Van_Maele_-_La_Grande_Danse_macabre_des_vifs_-_04.jpg. Suffice it to say that you dont get to decide what is child pornography on wikipedia, especially when you in part base your decision on some allegations you have heard from 2010 which may or may not be true. As for your argument that cos I disagree with you I must be imposing my own personal morality, really that is a personal attack and a tired one at that, I dont need to bring my personal morality here to say this is a child pornography illustration (although what the UK police would likely call Level 1). Thus there is no point continuing this discussion unless you have some new coherent points to make♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... From your link: "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons.". See the tabs at the top of the page? Hit Create. "This image is on Wikimedia Commons—not on Wikipedia." Coherent enough for you? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is unseemly. En.wikipedia covers a good number of countries on several continents, an it is the de-facto main version and draws editors from non-anglophone countries liker myself as well. We are bound to run into widely diverging cultures and legal standards, so that what images are inappropriate and what constitute child pornography varies quite a bit in is far from as clear-cut as several editors here suggests. One persons art is another persons child pornography and vice versa. Thus, what I, or you, or any single persons feels is an appropriate picture as such (and not only for this article) can not be decided by any sort of "this is obviously child porn and if you can't see that you are not fit to edit" type of arguments. Either we will need to agree on criteria for what constitutes child pornography and apply them universally (or find where such criteria has been agreed on before), or we need to have a mandate from Commons to form a committee and go through all potential child pornographic images and delete the inappropriate ones. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Couple points: 1) Despite Squeakbox's casual dismissal of LFaraone's input, Maele's drawings have been closely scrutinized. See Reporting of child pornography images on Wikimedia Commons for more information. 2) I think the only definition of child pornography Commons would accept would be the legal definition the state of Virginia (where Wikimedia servers are hosted) uses. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was the discussion, not the image, I characterized as unseemly. Considering the episode you linked to, the whole discussion is moot. If removing these pictures is what lost Jimbo his administrator status, then I guess anyone doing the same will suffer a similar fate. The only remotely feasible suggestion forwarded here is Epoigeneticus' suggestion of putting it on the WP:BADIMAGE list, but from my understanding images going there are those used as vandalism (and I fail to see this old drawing having any such use). The only thing that needs to be discussed here is if the image 1) is useful as an illustration for this topic and 2) if there are better ones. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The bilateral corpus cavernosa reservoirs should be depicted along with the urethra to the lower center. It might be of interest to note that many pet supply stores sell 'bully sticks' as dog toys/treats. They are nothing more than the unsheathed penises of adult bulls that have been slaughtered. They would typically be of the Angus or Hereford variety. The cross section can be viewed readily in these examples.

Pubic hair that grows on the penis itself, up to the shaft. There is some research that indicate it can be caused by a badly performed circumcision. An effective treatment is to permanently remove the hair via hair removal treatments, because of the sensitive nature of that area carefully performed electrolysis hair removal, under local sedative of the area will give the best results.

The foreskin doesn't have to retract when the penis is erected. --2.245.114.155 (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What change are you proposing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit was reverted. Past consensus is that the infobox should contain a photograph, not a diagram. The two diagrams added in this edit are not very clear at all, and at first sight it is not clear that they are of a human penis. Also, Template:Cleanup-gallery was added, because Wikipedia articles do not need multiple images of the same thing. This is for Wikimedia Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, there is no consensus, please present. This article falls under WP:Anatomy and is treated as such. CFCF (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

There also appears to be some self-promotion of user uploaded Commons images here. The gallery is mediocre and does not need to be in the article. Nor are either of the infobox diagrams very good. Why have two infobox images, when a man has only one penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmacm (talk • contribs) 11:53, 13 December 2013‎

Mostly because this is what is normally done in WP:Anatomy, and because the images illustrate different perspectives. See WP:MEDMOS before adding more templates.CFCF (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's have some views from other editors. All of the images in this article require consensus. The black and white gallery images are mediocre and repetitive, and do not add greatly to what is already in the article. Please don't edit war on this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy

Additional images in a gallery format

If you do not agree they are of high enough quality please replace them with something suitable. I am unaware there is anything. This article is an anatomy article, and will show detail as such. CFCF (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I took your advice though and removed 3 of the images that may not be all that important.CFCF (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

CFCF, it is best that you don't WP:Edit war over this matter, like you did here, here and here. You are at three reverts; be very wary of breaking the WP:3RR rule. I don't much care either way about this article (though it is on my WP:Watchlist), but there is indeed WP:Consensus to retain the infobox image you removed; check the archives. WP:Consensus is policy and the WP:MEDMOS guideline cannot override it. Furthermore, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections states: "Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition." There have also been discussions at WP:MEDMOS about not strictly following its layout recommendations; see here and here, for examples. There are times when those recommendations are not best followed. Ianmacm is right that galleries are generally discouraged on Wikipedia, and a WP:Good article (WP:GA) or WP:Featured article (WP:FA) reviewer would likely request that the section be removed from this article if this article were under such a review; therefore, I or someone else should have long ago removed "Additional images in a gallery format" from the WP:MEDMOS Anatomy layout. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted all the changes in the past 36 hours. It is not acceptable to make those huge changes with ZERO people agrees with you. Please note lots of images used on the article represents lots of effort from many editors and lots of consensus after years of discussion. Please reach consensus on talk before removing them. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is my opinion: I don't agree with the images CFCF tries to use at all. All the texts on those images are blurry and not informative. Also, It is very normal and usual to use photographs instead of diagrams as leading images on the article of human external organs, like foot, vulva, or human. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, recycling what appear to be blurry old medical textbook diagrams simply because they are copyright free and can be uploaded to Commons is not a good tactic. The infobox image was chosen as a reasonably clear modern photograph, something the diagrams lacked. Also, Commons is the correct place for multiple images of the same thing, not Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I may have gone out a bit rashly, if only because all my edits were removed indistinguishably, and reverting a large number of edits on the account that one or two are in your view not-favorable is more than anything else avoiding consensus. I have edited the page so that there are as of now; no repeat images, and no blurry images either that could be found objectionable (I had actually missed that the images were that blurry, as the images from other editions of the book are not). Images remain only that bring additional physiological information or information concerning various surrounding anatomical structures and blood-flow/innervation. I do not believe this should bring any new controversy. On the other hand I do suggest that File:Ventral and Dorsal View of Penis.jpg be removed as it does not add anything to the article. CFCF (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

NOT agree. The File:Ventral and Dorsal View of Penis.jpg shows the appearance of human penis in different perspective, in which way the penis looks very different; You may go on starting a new section and trying to proposing your diagrams added in the "Structure" section of the article, but change of leading image and deletion of long-time-stand images just because of your own favor is not acceptable at all. If you insists, please start more sections on talk page and reach necessary consensus first. Moscowsky^-talk- 13:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some more comments about the images you're trying to use: The upper part of image File:Figure 28 01 01.jpg is almost useless and are using bias terms "uncircumcised" to regular penises that without surgical modification; the captions of it is without reference and may violate WP:NOR; About the 2 ones you're trying to add in the "Additional Images" section: The first one File:Sobo 1906 490.png is apparently off topic, it shows the anatomy of scrotum/testicles, not penis; the second one File:Sobo 1909 571.png adds no information than the existing diagram File:Gray1158.png. About the erection image File:Figure 28 01 06.jpg, it is very detailed, maybe the erection suits it better. Moscowsky^-talk- 14:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Images have now been cropped and will be added:

As for WP:NOR it does not apply, I have not created these images, they are sourced from a reputable text-book.

While you present valid points, there are clearly forces simply meaning to refute edits for the sake of doing so. The images in the Additional images section are relevant and show both structures in the area immediately adjacent to the penis as well as structures of the penis such as the fascia of the penis which are not present in the Grays image.

Concerning the last comment about File:Figure 28 01 06.jpg this image is the only one currently on here that illustrates the physiological processes underlying erection. Instead there is a drive to explicitly show the way in which the penis erects from all possible angles? This article should not be treated differently from other articles on human anatomy, and should most definitely not decline images that show physiological processes on the account that there are other articles that do so. CFCF (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The current form of the article has now combined changes to a number of images to give proper account to all the comments above. Please do not simply revert any of the recent changes, rather discuss them here. CFCF (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, all images showing on this article should clearly focus on nothing else but human penis. Other organs like testicles, prostate, bladder has their own article to illustrate them; There is also specific articles to systematically detail human male reproductive system, and also functions like Erection and Urination. It's not helping to paste all the relevant organs and systems info into human penis article just because they're relevant, else the article will be redundant and confuse readers; only with such necessary separation, can each article be meaningful to exist. The Erection article doesn't have any detailed diagram yet, maybe it's better to add the erection diagram there. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see this happening, this article is very much on topic. I have condensed the image so that it is very small and does not take up to much space. Certainly the erection article could use better imagery, but I am only one person and haven't gotten around to anything of that sort yet. CFCF (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done CFCF (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have yet again restored the images, please do not revert again, especially when reverts lead to the article becoming incomplete or repetitive. See WP:3RRCFCF (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You receive no supports on this talk page about those images, but 3 clear objections already. Please stop edit-warring. All your images are problematic, blurry and not informative effectively ---- the female-headed side-view hairless super-long-foreskin childish crop work File:Penis_location.jpg is temporarily the only one which has a little meaning to stay on the page since showing the location of the penis adds to the topic more or less, but I guess someone else may disapprove with it and removes it very soon. Moscowsky^-talk- 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You realize you have broken WP:3RR, a rule that if broken can lead to a block from Wikipedia. I'm not seeing anything of these three clear objections you speak of. Any objections have been dealt with. Please revert your latest edit. CFCF (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I went ahead and deleted it ... I'm sorry, but I honestly don't believe that there's even one person on Earth who can figure out what a "lateral view" is but doesn't know where the penis is. And some of the other illustrations make it kind of apparent anyway. It's just wasting the time of people who read the article and end up wondering "what the heck is this image trying to show?" before they figure out it's nothing. Wnt (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived a few threads, as old/undated/unsigned/addressed/resolved. — Cirt (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Nerve damage from spinal cord injury alters erectile function and bladder sphincter control, as well. I will check on cross referencing to neurogenic bladder, spontaneous erection, and other specifics.Homebuilding (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Urination

Main article: Urination ... ...

During erection, these centers block the relaxation of the sphincter muscles, so as to act as a physiological separation of the excretory and reproductive function of the penis, and preventing sperm from entering the upper portion of the urethra during ejaculation.

/////

I believe that the word urine should be substituted for the word sperm above.

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The wording was correct as it stood before the edit. The "upper" urethra is the part closer to the bladder and farther from the penis. See the first paragraph of this same section and the article Retrograde ejaculation. A sphincter normally prevents semen from entering the pre-prostatic urethra and bladder while urine is prevented from leaving the bladder during ejaculation. 72.145.215.253 (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Human penis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following image:

to the info box at the top right of this article, as it includes anatomy (such as circumcision scar, corona, pubic hair) not visible in the existing image. Please include the following caption with the added image: "A flaccid penis with labels showing the locations of shaft, circumcision scar, corona, glans, and meatus. In this image, the models pubic hair is visible."

Additionally, please consider possibly replacing the image "File:Circumcised penis labelled.jpg" under "Circumcision" with the proposed image above (File:Flaccid Penis on Sheets 102373 Labeled.png), as the discussed anatomy and labels are easier to see.

Lanceinator (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think swapping the infobox picture for this one makes sense - the infobox one has a foreskin, which is the congenital state of the penis, and a circumcision scar is obviously acquired. Between the current circumcised penis photo and this one, I'm not sure which is better so if anyone agrees with changing them out I have no objection, but I will say the currently used photo has a more obvious circumcision scar. Cannolis (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

<RESPONSE>Oh, I'm not asking for it to be swapped, I was hoping it could be *added*. I thought it would be beneficial to have both images in the info box, so that both circumcised and uncircumcised, shaved and unshaven could be demonstrated here. --Lancinator.

There only needs to be one image in the infobox. Photos in this article need to be used sparingly to avoid the "me too" effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There should be a cross sectional diagram showing the location of the corpus cavernosa. This is a particularly useful diagram for men with ED who use penile injections, as you can see where the needle will enter at various positions around the circumference, and which areas to avoid and which ones to use for safe injection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedtoal (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence is way to technical. Linking to articles which explain the terms is not enough; we should replace the technical terms with less technical language - in most cases we can take this from the first sentence of the linked article.

Current version:

The human penis is an external male organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct. 

Proposed version:

The human penis is an external male organ used to deliver semen to a woman's vagina when a man and a woman have
sex. Men also use it to pee and to masturbate.

OK? filceolaire (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't approve of your proposed wording. For example, "pee" is not encyclopedic. And why should masturbation be mentioned in the lead? See WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

If I were to propose a change to the WP:Lead sentence, it would be "The human penis is an external sex organ that is part of the male reproductive system. After that, I'd state, "It is used for urination, and allows for the delivery of semen and sperm to a woman's vagina during sexual intercourse for sexual reproduction." Or I'd word the sentences similar to those examples. One thing to be cautious of with the "man and woman" part is that we sometimes get complaints about heteronormativity even when we are simply reporting on sexual reproduction. At Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", you can see that we once got complaints about not considering transgender and intersex viewpoints. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Human penis has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting to edit a statement in the second paragraph in the introductory section - "The penis is homologous to the clitoris."

I am requesting to change this statement to the following - "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures. For example, the glans penis (the head of the penis) is homologous to the clitoris."

Source: First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 (2015). Tao Le, Vikas Bhushan, and Matthew Sochat. p. 568

Spartan13002 (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be a controversy section. —User 000 name 23:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why. Also, separate criticism/controversy sections are discouraged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)