Talk:Phallus

I have removed the following sentence. I do not think it is appropriate to include every Internet joke and harassment on a living person Alex Bakharev 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When Russian President Vladimir Putin called on women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric paper calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol." ^[1]

(minor edit to let reference display on talk page only. Keesiewonder ^talk 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC))

Everyone could see that Alex Bakharev himself has deleted your new insertion of Putin Phallus in "In satire" section. Here is his edit and his comment Current revision (23:16, 22 February 2007) (edit) (undo) Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→In satire - rm irrelevant). So again, Biophys just confirms he is doing nothing except false accusations campaign against me. He lied that Alex Bakharev endorsed him. Moreover you have inserted the same episode of Putin defamation in the article dedicated to Political Bloggers although Putin Phallus journalist wasn't a blogger. So you just seekin to defame Putin by any means vailable.Vlad fedorov 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It was me who moved the Phallus section to the talk page (Talk:Phallus#Putin). Yes, I do think the information is out of place here. It would be quite appropriate in the article Vladimir Rakhmankov. Just imagine a Pig#Pasternak article devoted to much more notable citation by Semichastny. Or a long list of sections in Pederasty and Prostitution articles devoted to all celebrities ever mentioned in Internet with the correspondent epithet. I have heard Putin named Burationo,Klein Zaches (kroshka Tsakhes) or even the Louse that roared but never Phallos.

This discussion is out of place. But I think that in chapter Pig#Soviet_propaganda (not Pig#Pasternak - I am not doing Phallus#Putin) the citation by Semichastny would be completely appropriate as an example of Soviet propaganda.Biophys 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one keeps Dubyas nicknames in Bush article, there is an adequate policy in Putin's article, which is fair and right. If we would list their nicknames, more than the whole articles would be description of these.Vlad fedorov 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a comment under Anceint India that came from the user 59.144.33.179 stating their opinion on the subect. I would be tempted to revert it back, though I have no idea of the accuracy of any of the comments. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could divert a little attention to it? Fitz05 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Lingam article has already been mercilessly vandalised by someone offended by the association of sexual symbolism with Hinduism, which is the opposite of every art history book I've ever read. I just rewrote the Indian section to reflect a more balanced approach. I wonder how long it will last?Erikacornia 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(used to be two cents)

It strikes me that the section on psychoanalysis does not mention Carl Jung and his popular "Man and His Symbols". His trust in common knowledge did not lead him to shy away from the imaginative association of certain oblong markers with male sexuality, interchangeing Phallus and Lingam in the process, as seemed to be good practice for a long time.

No doubt the efforts of the authors of Lingam are commendable, if only for highlighting the subtle difference between Linga and Lingam (the latter still the sanskrit wording one gathers from the introduction, and presumably the one used in the Kamasutra ?)

The subtility in Phallus is less obvious, for it is hard to understand how the object can be described as mimetic while at the same time illustration and the common view is kept confined to the exagerated Penis, thus banning the imaginative approach.

In the absence of reference to Jung the lapse is understandable. It is Jung's insight in the close association of mimesis (to symbolise, to make believe) and poesis (to fashion, to make, to create) that has made him the champion he is (over Freud) to a vast majority of workers in the fields of art history and creative imageing (poets, storytellers, painters and designers).

Of course there is also my own private view that will always prefer any other illustration over that of a buckle, since I aways associate that with the interests that will try to force me to wear it. Call it biased. (... and bring back phallic architecture into the article)

(Lunarian 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

In Jean Chevalier, Alain Gheerbrant Dictionnaire des symboles Paris, Robert Lafont 1969/1984 the lemma on Phallus opens with the following:

"Symbol of generating force, source and channel of the semen as an active principle. Many symbols entail a phallic sense, for example the foot, the thumb, the dressed stone, the collumn, the tree, etc. Their representation is not forceably esoteric (see linga, omphalos) nor erotic: they simply signify the generating force, that is venerated under that form in many religions."

The lemma (1984) on tower notes that Danaë received the shower of gold while kept in a brazen tower.

Wiki's lemma on Danaë adds the cave as a place of conception, the reference to female fertility need not be spelled out. The association by students of art history of the symbol with the Renaissance grotto (nymphaeum) on the other hand needs to be brought to the attention of the worthy contributors to the classical project since it is of some importance to the history of architecture.

Note that the esoteric symbolism links to Linga in which case the cited dictionnary is for the greater part in line with the contributors to Wiki's Lingam. The confusion over the distinction between Linga and Lingam (ref Burton's translation of the Kamasutra) is to be regretted.

To name the numerous experts that contributed to the Dictionnaire is beyond the scope of this lines. There seems little doubt that many would with great interest look at the phenomenal symbolism of the Nebraska State Capitol.

(...and will you please bring back phallic architecture into the article...please? no? yes? )

(Lunarian 12:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

is there any image of that , looking more serious? means less like the SPARTAA guy petting his penis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.199.106 (talk) 01:56, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that this page has been vandalized quite frequently according to the page history. Should the admins be notified to semi-protect this page? Sandy of the CSARs (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

" From Apis sprang the race of unicorns, that ridiculous beast of ancient writ whose learned brow lengthened into a gleaming phallus, and from the unicorn by gradual stages was derived the late city-man of which Oswald Spengler speaks. And from the dead cock of this sad specimen arose the giant skyskraper with its express elevators and observation towers . We are the last decimal point of sexual calculation..."

Henry Miller in Tropic of Capricorn ISBN 0586020004 (Granada ed 1980 pg 177)

"It was a vision of crystal fairyland, a transformation scene in some Olympian pantomime-cruelly vast in scale, cruelly blue above, and cruelly white all round in the glare, with only here and there rock shadows black as jet, and dark fantastic pinnacles of dolomite jetting up from the slopes in phallic towers with streaming flanks of wetness in the sunshine"

Reginald Farrer in Rainbow Bridge (1921, on plant hunting in Tibet -quothed from Cadogan Books 1986 pg 83 ISBN 0946313482)

Lunarian (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Phallic Architecture ?

Why was the "India" section removed by an unsigned user? No justification was given and I propose that the section be reinstated immediately. Also, this page ought to be protected given the childish games people get up to with its contents. Denihilonihil (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for offering Image:Soft-2.jpg.

The issues I have with this are: 1) The article is about Phallus. Most often phallus is used in the context of an object of some kind shaped generally like an erect penis. Secondarily it can refer to an erect penis itself, although this is a less common usage. Your image is simply of a male penis. As we have images on the penis article that document the secondary definition well, I think we should focus on the primary definition here. 2) We have a ready supply of erect male penis images on the commons site we could use for the article (See Image:Erect penis.JPG, Image:Human penis erect.jpg, Image:My non erect & erect penis.jpeg, Image:Human penis flaccid and erect.jpg, Image:Superficial dorsal vein of the penis (erect).png, Image:Erection Homme.jpg, Image:TypicalHumanPenisScale.jpg, Image:Pompeya erótica6.jpg, Image:Human penis07.jpg, Image:Illu repdt male erect.jpg, Image:Erection partial.jpg, Image:ErectPenis54.jpg, Image:Human penis.JPG, Image:Circumcised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg, Image:Erection by David Shankbone.jpg) with new ones being added every day.

My preference would be for an image that matches the primary usage of Phallus as an object that is erect penis like or erect penis shaped. The current lede image, showing a phallic costume in a parade is pretty good, even if slightly varying from the/my ideal image preference. Perhaps Image:CandlePenis.jpg, Image:Lovci mamutu stylized figure.jpg, Image:Pranger-Bonn-Münsterplatz-052.JPG, Image:天狗の面鉄輪温泉PB060289.jpg, Image:Phallus ravenelii torrey.gif, Image:KdVDeadSpermBank.JPG, Image:Barrel man revealed.jpg, Image:Danxiashan yangyuanshi.jpg, Image:Nationalmuseet - Cophenaghne - Male figure.JPG or Image:DelosPhallus.jpg.

3) In your image Image:Soft-2.jpg the lighting is poor, and does not compete well with many of the other images, and is not erect.

Atom (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phallus has four definitions of Phallus, 2 of which chiefly describe it as another word for penis, the other 2 describe it as an image or carving of a penis. "an object of some kind shaped generally like an erect penis" is not given by any. In this context I can see no reason not to include a photograph of an erect penis, and will add Image:ErectPenis54.jpg.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I will remove it again. Please establish consensus before adding such clearly controversial images. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain your reasoning. I see nothing contraversial in adding a photograph of a phallus to an article on the phallus. I think the image I added was " an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position " in line with WP:GRATUITOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

First, please explain why you made a ridiculous claim that you added the image according to talk page discussions, based on you adding a single comment to a thread dating from 2008. And then explain how an image of a (semi?) erect penis can be 'non-sexual'. And then explain why you have developed this sudden obsession with spamming Wikipedia with pictures of the male genitalia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Andy the way you phrased that paragraph was confrontational (even noting the IP uer's comments on your talk page) and it won't achieve anything. Regarding the image I agree that there is no need for it and have removed it again. 93.96.148.42 according to WP:BRD, please don't put it back without a consensus being achieved here. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A little context here may clarify. 93.96.148.42 is currently engaged in discussions regarding the adding of images of human genitalia to multiple articles (which he/she is of course entitled to discuss), and doing it in a distinctly confrontational manner (which isn't helpful). Such matters need to be settle by consensus, with due regard to Wikipedia policy, and not by per-emptive addition of what is clearly going to be controversial material, followed by edit-warring to include it. WP:BRD actually requires discussion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It does clarify thanks for that, but we as experienced editors need to be setting the example and standard of what is expected. Regarding the image on this article, looks like the IP user has stopped adding it. Hence why I cited it :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. Can you make a coherent and concise arguments as to why this photograph of an erect penis is inappropriate on the page devoted to phallus which means erect penis. I see no consensus on this page in favour of the omission of such an illustration, but mention of unexplained (at least on the talk page, where such explanation should be made) deletion of it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored and should be open to improvement and discussion. I meant non-sexual as written at WP:GRATUITOUS "but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple answer? The topic 'Phallus' in the sense of meaning 'an erect penis' is covered elsewhere - in our human penis article for a start. The topic of this article is clearly the phallus as a cultural/symbolic object - and need not duplicate other articles. Actually, it shouldn't duplicate other articles, at this would make it a content fork. And with regard to the particular image you have chosen, it isn't exactly the best representation of the penis as a 'phallic' object anyway. Without wishing to malign the individual concerned, it appears to be either towards the lower end of the norms regarding length, or to be less-than-fully extended.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump thank you for engaging in discussion. I agree that the photograph I added is not the most phallic, but I was trying to avoid offense. It might be better to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HQ_SAM_CFE.jpg which shows an erect penis next to a flacid one, which, to me, minimises the sexual element, although it could be argued that the flacid penis is irrelevant to the article. You say that this article is about representations of the erect penis rather than the erect penis itself, and that adding a photographic representation of an erect penis would make a content fork. I argue that a photograph of an erect penis is relevant and helpful to the article on phallus because it a) depicts the subject of the article and b) provides a visual reference for the cultural and symbolic objects shown that derive from the phallus. There are more than enough photographs on wiki-commons to avoid duplication.

Sorry, but that image doesn't "[depict] the subject of the article". It depicts the subject of the article human penis. As for 'a visual reference' the article is already replete with images of the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump the sources say that one meaning of the phallus is erect penis. This article is about the phallus. There are currently no photographic representations of an erect human penis in this article, which is about representations of the penis. There is no consensus on this page for this omission, and your argument fails to explain why such an omission should be made.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fun to add provocative images to articles, but there is no shortage of dick pics on the Internet (nor at Wikipedia), so the issue boils down to what material would be WP:DUE for an encyclopedic article. The proposal to add "look at my erection" pictures to this article fails that last point (my characterization of the picture refers to the genre, not to any editor here). Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the erect penis, and representations of the erect penis so a photographic representation of a penis is WP:DUE. There are no shortage of images of anything on the internet, so your argument rests on unstated opposition to images of penis's. The representation I have suggested adding does not show the face of the person, so I do not see how "look at my erection" applies. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There are already images of penises in the article, there is no reason to add a real penis to that. As has already been stated Wikipedia has an article on the Human penis so we don't need to duplicate it. I don't know how much clearer we can make that. In any case there is a consensus against adding it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have restored some material that was deleted by unsigned users with no explanations, such as this edit and this one. I also added back the architecture section with a ref tag. It's unreferenced, but so is a lot of other material in this article and it is interesting (I'm surprised the Washington monument was not included). that's all I plan to do to this article, as I followed a broken link to get here and tracked it down to an unexplained deletion. I have also identified a user who needs to be blocked, and I will make the appropriate report. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the first post in this discussion (January 2006), I suggest the removal of the architecture section which is heavily under-sourced and leans more towards personal pontification - it's hardly encyclopaedic material. (10 May 2010) User:Uq —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

I have restored material deleted by an unsigned user. Looking at the editor's history, it appears that he is systematically deleting material he believes is detrimental to India's image. He has been deleting this material for at least two years. If you are that user, do not delete material without discussion. If it is unreferenced, tag it as such, but don't delete it. If you continue, we will go to the noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This text currently appears at the top of the article. It is wrong. This article is about the erect penis, not male erections. This needs to be corrected, but anti-IP censorship prevents me from doing so.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This article is not about the erect penis. It is about symbolic representations of the erect penis and their significance. It's correct to redirect people seeking a more physiological discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Those dictionary definitions just say "penis." Can someone point me to a definition that prescribes "erect" please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

...And if the article is in any way about the subject as defined by these dictionary definitions, it is a content fork of penis and/or human penis, and must be deleted or merged into the relevant article(s), per policy. We do not allow content forks (and this is not a dictionary). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Please explain where this idea comes from?

Ah. Fair enough. Nevertheless, the lead should, in my opinion, mention the other uses of the term; and I'd still like to see a citation confirming the necessity of "erect." But content fork? No. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article content. There is already a hatnote that makes clear what the article is about. We don't need to say the same thing twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I agree. The hatnote pointing to Primordial phallus does the job. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, do you see the point being made here, that primordial phallus, a stage in the development of the (human?) penis/clitoris, belongs in its own article or one that addresses the development of genitalia, and this article isn't about that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. It is one meaning of phallus, is obviously related to the main subject of this article, and was previously part of this article. That it is not now included is self evident - but the argument that the article is not about this, so it shouldn't be included is non-sensical. There is only a hat note because I added it, as all references had previously been removed. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kim Dent-Brown - exactly - the note should read "This article is about the roles of the erect penis in symbology. For the erect penis, see erection. " - at some point it was changed to the current, inaccurate, "censored?" description.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section on Abrahamic religions on the grounds that it is about circumcision, which certainly relates to the penis, but has little to do with the topic of this article which is the "phallus" or erect penis. The Abrahamic religions, far from worshipping or displaying the phallus, made a considerable issue about keeping the genitals covered. This matter is referred to both in the story of Adam and Eve (who cover themselves in shame) and in the story of the Drunkenness of Noah in which one of the sons discretely covers his father's nakedness.

I put back the reference to two modern sects, of which one has a stated position of Phallus worship.

Amandajm (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(I am copying this from Talk:Bear in heraldry, though using the quotation that was from this page)

An instance of such an omission led to an angry letter by the authorities of Appenzell in 1579 to the city
counsel of St. Gallen. The conflict was resolved by a well-respected bishop, after nearly escalating into a
war. [Brown, Gary (1996). Great Bear Almanac. pp. pp. 340. ISBN 1558214747. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)]

There are so many things wrong with this claim that expose it as an obvious fake:

1. The reference cites page 340, yet the book itself only has 340 pages, and that's only if you include the front cover, back cover, blank pages, TOC, index, etc. (See the Google Books online preview of this book)! The alphabetical index starts on page 315, and presumably, pg 340 is the back cover, which, course, makes no such claim.
2. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I next searched the source for the word "Appenzelle", which appears only once in the entire book, and that is in a table listing discovered remains of the now-extinct cave bear. Here's the search for the word "Appenzell"
3. Further still, the word "penis" appears three times, in sections referencing only anatomical and taxonomic differences between various species of bear.
4. I could find no historical reference to support the claim that the war in 1579 -- the so-called 'linen affairs' -- had anything to do with the stated claim. They had much bigger things to fight about in 1579.

It's amazing that this paragraph has remained unchallenged for almost four years, but this needs to be properly cited or be deleted under WP:V. A Google search shows that in that time, it has been quoted ad nauseum, so the challenge will be to find a reference that is not a circular one (See WP:CIRCULAR). 140.247.0.13 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the claim seems to be real — I find numerous sources for both the red penises and for the war between Appenzell and St. Gallen, all of which predate wikipedia:

• "The bear is not easy to depict graphically. The fur should be rendered clearly but not naturalistically, and the artist must be prepared to paint the animal's male organ bright red, or he may be mocked (in Switzerland at least) for having painted a she-bear. This was actually the cause of a war between St. Gallen and the canton of Appenzell in 1579." (Neubecker, Ottfried (1976). Heraldry : sources, symbols, and meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 120. ISBN 9780070463080.)
• "An armorial bear once nearly caused war between Appenzell and St. Gallen (Switzerland) in 1578. The Appenzell people were very proud of their heraldic bear. The first St. Gallen printer, Leonhard Straub, printed a calendar in 1578 which portrayed the coats of arms of many different cities, and the Appenzeller people discovered that the sex of the bear shown on their coat of arms was not shown, although it was supposed to be a male bear. Since St. Gallen and Appenzell had been involved in a number of disputes in the past, this was seen as the supreme insult. Negotiations to improve matters were unsuccessful, and when the threat of war developed, the pages of the calendar with this bear had to be destroyed in order to pacify the Appenzell citizens." (Grzimek, Bernhard (1972). Grzimek’s Animal life encyclopedia. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. vol. 12 p. 119.)
• "In Switzerland the male organ of the bear had to be painted bright red, or the heraldist would be mocked for use of a she-bear. Such mockery led to a way in 1579 between the cantons of St. Gallen and Appenzell." (Brown, Gary (2009). The bear almanac : a comprehensive guide to the bears of the world (2nd ed.). Guilford, Conn.: Lyons Press. p. 216. ISBN 9781599213316.)
• "Er war es, der um ein Haar den Anlaß zu einem Krieg zwischen den Appenzellem und St. Gallem gegeben hatte. [...] 'Der Buchdrucker Leonhard Straub in St. Gallen gab auf das Jahr 1579 einen Kalender mit den Wappen aller XIII Kantone der Eidgenossenschaft heraus. Kaum hatte sich dieser Kalender im Lande verbreitet als es da Lärm gab: der Bär in ihrem Wappen habe kein männliches Zeichen, die St. Galler haben, durch Darstellung eines Weibchens, ihres Standes Ehrenwappen auf eine recht schimpfliche Weise entstellt usw. Die Obrigkeit von Appenzell schickte nur eine Gesandtschaft an die von St. Gallen, um sich über den Schimpf ihres Landwappens, über das Verbot gegen den Gamgrempel (Handel) und anderes mehr zu beklagen [...] die Appenzeller wurden darüber so aufgebracht, daß sie ihr Banner auf dem Rathhause ausstellten und das Volk ermahnten, sich zu einem Kriegszuge bereit zu halten.'"(Strehler, Hermann (1965). "Das Churer Missale von 1589". Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 40: 186; quoting Hartman, Georg (1818). Geschichte der Stadt St. Gallen. St. Gallen: Beym Verfasser. pp. 371–372.)
• “En nous menant chez lui, M. Kurz nous montra sur la salle en bois du tir fédéral l'ours mâle d'Appenzell et l'ours femelle de Saint-Gall, dont le sexe a été une cause de guerre entre ces cantons.” (Michelet, Jules (1959). Journal. Paris: Gallimard. p. 285 (Friday 10 August, 1838.))

I'm going to reinstate those two sentences. Heraldicbear (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

oxford dictionaries say "noun (plural phalli /-lʌɪ, -liː/ or phalluses) a penis, especially when erect (typically used with reference to male potency or dominance): the hill figure is a naked man brandishing a club and displaying a huge phallus figurative the building was a monumental steel and glass phallus an image or representation of an erect penis, typically symbolizing fertility or potency: three wooden painted phalluses"5.28.89.25 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed the section on Phallic worshipping in Hinduism. Refer link (http://www.quora.com/Why-do-Hindus-worship-penis-and-vagina-Shivling). It is a common misconception because of the term "Lingam". FtheKing (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

We do not cite Quora as a source - the content is user-generated, and accordingly fails to meet our policy on reliable sources. Having said that, the existing content also failed to cite sources, so I haven't restored it for the moment. I will however do so, with any necessary changes, if I can find proper sources - it appears to be an issue of some dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mechanical penis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The caption of the second image in the article describes it as "Phallic religious sculpture of Linga, Kathmandu street, Nepal 1973", but exactly how it is phallic isn't clear. Where is the penis in this image? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Linga doesnt mean Penis. It is a common misconseption amongst westerners. You can compare it with the cross that christians were. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Linga doesnt mean Penis. It is a common misconseption amongst westerners. You can compare it with the cross that christians were. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A well researched article is over here . Hence I am removing all the misleading content on the page. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I notice that the Etymology section only goes into the etymology of "phallus" but and not that of the "ithy-" prefix. When I have time later I'll correct it to include information from the more complete etymology found in the word's Wiktionary entry. Mpaniello (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)