This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anatomy B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The section where it talks about growth of penis during puberty cites a research that supposingly found out that penis stops growing after age of 17. The thing is that its not even what the research was about. I cant edit the page so if someone else can please do.

mention the average, it's 1-4 inches 70.49.81.20 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? First you'd need a RS for that claim. Second you'd have to explain how the human race would survive...;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a reliable source is necessary, and I would also point out that it is not the article for human penis or Human penis size. However 1-4 inches seems like a reasonable range for flaccid length of the human penis. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Penis size and how to measure it is often debated. The few studies done all suffer from inconsistancies, either relying on self-reporting (and obvious over estimation), or measuring the maximum length a flaccid penis can be stretched (with the assumption this resembles erect size), or measuring just a flaccid one, or whether you measure the top of the penis or the bottom of the erect penis (along the bottom is about .5" longer on average due to curvature and position). So even "reliable" peer reviewed sources when they exist vary greatly in technique and thus results. One study I know about personally (I was a participant) just mailed a post card, asked you to hold the post card to yourself and mark with a pencil where the end was. This is more annonymous, but fraught with error. Finally, most guys know their own size varies by about half an inch or more depending on the quality of the erection. Robin Williams suggested in his standup (at least I think it was he) that you measure from the anus to the tip and back again for good measure. Not sure I even want to sign this response... But I am an MD so I'm only half full of it. Its a frequent concern among most men, so knowing a bit of this helps to allay fears associated with inadequacy.

This page has one of those horrid "clean up" templates; the "specifics" given is "see discussion". I'm not seeing any discussion about "clean up" here. Is the tag necessary? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having received no response, I've removed the tag. If it's absolutley necessary it can be returned, but I'd appreciate it if specific clean-up requests could be included with any re-tagging. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the redirect at the top of the article is not easily found, especially for amateur readers of wikipedia. I have added a wikilink to the image which will make it easier to find the human penis article. Furthermore, i feel the mammal sub-section could do with an image anyway. Pass a Method talk 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some further adjustments is done to the article regarding this concern. Moscowsky (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the necessity to use a human penis photo in the mammal section. The redirection links are already clear enough. The leading photo of this page already includes several mammals. Usage of human penis picture will not help this article (nor the human penis article) but only bring edit wars. You can review the history archives of this talk page to see how many arguments there already are. Since December 2010, all the human penis features have already been moved to the independent article to reduce controversy, we should not let the problem back. --Pontmarcheur (talk) 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with the leading link in bold font and a new link in mammal section, there is no need to use the human penis photo any more. It should be REMOVED. The photo has been add/remove/change/revert like revolving doors since last month, it's not helping at all. Moscowsky (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The consensus has been (and still is) that this article doesn't need an image of the human penis, but it's certainly appropriate on the human penis article. It should be removed from this article. I notice that PassaMethod has tried this several times before and been reverted. They should know better than to try again. That's disruptive editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed by consensus some time back to have Human penis as a separate article. Without any text in this article directly related to a human penis, the image is unnecessary and off topic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion:

• The article should have something to say about the human penis, even with the separate article.
• The hatnote should not be in bold. I don't think there is any basis for that in the style guidelines.
• A picture of a human penis is entirely appropriate and I don't understand why there should be any controversy.--Taylornate (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a kind of mammal, human already enjoyed enough privileges in this article (which is a summary of penis for all species). For the controversies, they're just there. You can check the talk archives to see what happened in the past. The adding of human penis photo is against consensus and will bring edit wars with no doubt. You can find the latest war in history page. Moscowsky^-talk- 02:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize? I don't think it's fair to expect people to sift through ten pages of archives. I'm annoyed that the FAQ at the top of this page acknowledges this is a frequent topic of discussion but doesn't actually give any helpful information.--Taylornate (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? em one of the annoyed people too (lol). Anyone who really wants to add the human penis photo may do the homework and push this topic further though. Moscowsky^-talk- 03:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The burden isn't yours personally, but it also doesn't belong to the side you disagree with. I think the burden lies with those who think it is not ok to add a picture of a penis to an article titled penis.--Taylornate (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The one who wants to change should provide legitimate reasons first, currently I don't see any good reasons but only expression of personal feeling. Moscowsky^-talk- 12:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article mention the human penis, or should it just link to Human penis and make no reference to it at all?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, yes. It seems a statistical certainty that the majority of those reading the article will be human, and that a significant proportion will possess one. Or is anyone suggesting that there is a remotely-rational reason to ignore this fact? For the life of me, I can't think of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You ought to be able to stick it in anywhere you want.JSR (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite catch this discussion. So your suggestion is: When user searches "penis", the default article should be human penis instead of penis, because most of the readers only want to see the human organ article instead of anything else? --PontMarcheur (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to have Human penis as a separate article. If mentioned here, it should be only briefly and with a link to the article Human penis.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thereby giving the editorial impression that man is somehow separate from the animal kingdom? And I thought WP was an encyclopedia. Hmmm... —MistyMorn (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the consensus, then this RfC seems to be suggesting that the consensus should be ignored, without explaining why. Can someone please explain, for the benefit of those participating in the RfC, what the heck this is all about? What concrete changes to article content are being proposed? What are the arguments for such changes? And what are the arguments against? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear change proposal in this conversation at all. All the words here seem totally redundant and a waste of time. If anyone wants to change something, please say it straightly. --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. As far as I can see, the article mentions the Human penis in two places: in the strangely-named 'other mammals' section, the relative penile size of the great ape/human species is discussed - as an example of how varied this can be, even in closely-related animals. I can't see anything remotely objectionable to this - and the reasons for the variation are a significant issue of debate amongst primatologists. Well worth inclusion in my opinion. The same section also discusses the shape of the human penis in terms of sperm competition - again of scientific significance. I see no reason whatsoever to remove this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i also think the knowledge of this article seems not quite comprehensive. Maybe you can create a new section and list all the shortages you believe so everyone concerned can discuss further. --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the human penis article doesn't exist, everything is integrated into the penis article. During early 2010, creation of a separate human penis page is proposed and agreed after several months' publicity. The content of human penis is moved from penis to human penis on Dec 8, 2010. On the penis page, striking links were added to navigate users to the human organ page if they want. Hope this answers the original question "Does the human penis belong in this article". --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:. I would like to comment here but my mother won't let me.

I think there should be a short specific section on the human penis,- rather than just a link to it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, per AndyTheGrump, 93.96, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Testicles, Vagina, etc, etc... —MistyMorn (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, as noted above. However, also as noted above, a clear request for what is proposed would be helpful. If it's going to be mentioned on this page, I suggest a mention in the same way that the penis of other vertebrates is mentioned, ideally focusing on any unique aspect of the human penis. As an aside to my comment here, I believe the links to the Human penis article are sufficient as they stand and don't believe that additional links would be required. I hope this comment, sans childish attempts at humor is helpful. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 18:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, ie Wikipedia:Summary style? I would suggest an infobox broadly along the lines of Testicle, which seems to me genuinely informative. I agree with 93.96 that we do need a brief section on the human penis, per summary style.
FYI, I'm not ashamed of having retained a sense of humour from my schooldays [1].
—MistyMorn (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, per AndyTheGrump :) In fact I was surprised that it is left out from the article so far (or may be somebody censored it lately). --DBigXray 12:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes I would prefer to see the single paragraph at the end of the mammal section extended to a short section, say three - four paragraphs, with a "for further information" link at top IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Look, it is terribly simple. The article is about penes. You no lika da penis, you no reada da article. You lika da animal penis but no lika da human penis,you read wit da eye shut in case the word "human" appears somewhere because some salacious saboteur sneaked it in (ooooo!). This is Wikipedia. It is (supposed to be) an encyclopaedia. That means that it is supposed to contain information for people who seek information; it is not supposed to omit information for people who do not seek information, nor even avoid putting information in places intended for information, but where people who might not want information might look for no information. If information is "encyclopedic" and relevant and not OR and all that stupid stuff, in it goes as appropriate. If it appears in another article as well (such as "Human penis, for delicate spirits who never speculated in any such obscene possibility) it gets a shorter mention as appropriate and also gets linked as appropriate. What the bleep are people complaining about? The article is labelled "Penis" isn't it? Not "Sweet little Willie", right??? Has someone repealed the realities of biology without telling me or something? 'Nuff said? JonRichfield (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today by chance I noticed that the leading photo of this article is actually ambiguous, it seems to be a small collection of Whale's penis, not "from different species". Per the description on the file page, it's probably from Minke whale. Is there any biological expert who can clarify the information? Or maybe someone can go to Icelandic Phallological Museum and find out? Moscowsky^-talk- 11:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the image is changed from "penises from different species" to "non-human penises" as there is no fact supporting the previous description. Moscowsky^-talk- 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mailed to the Icelandic Phallological Museum the day before yesterday with questions from this topic, it is very nice that the curator of the museum, Mr. Hjortur Gisli Sigurdsson replied my mail with clear answer: "You are correct in assuming that the photo you refer to is from Minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata )". This should be the most credible answer. Related information on the articles is updated now. Moscowsky^-talk- 01:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, that comes under WP:OR, but I think we can like with that, unless someone challenges it, which would seem rather pointless. Thanks for checking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede tells us that the penis "is a reproductive, intromittent organ that additionally serves as the urinal duct in placental mammals". Is there any logical reason why it shouldn't actually tell the reader what 'intromittent organ' means, rather than expecting them to click on a Wikilink to find out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me the current description is OK. It's impossible to explain everything to details for one term. If you have better idea to express the term please feel free to suggest. Moscowsky^-talk- 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it is impossible to explain everything is no justification for not explaining anything. I have revised the lede to at least give some clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Has biology suddenly been rewritten, and the classification revised? Why the heck are we making an arbitrary distinction like this in the article - and note that it puts Homo sapiens firmly in the non-domesticated category. While I can see the attractions of such a classificatory scheme, I'm not sure that it is entirely appropriate. Mammals are mammals, and I don't think that there is much evidence that the males of domesticated species have any particular notability regarding their 'intromittent organs' that deserves separate treatment from the rest of us mammalian males. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this by removing the unnecessary "domesticated" headers. Moscowsky^-talk- 07:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a live mammal's penis photo can be added into the "Mammals" section. Currently there seems only a photo of five unidentified specimens at the top, and a black-white insect photo at the bottom, isn't this a little weird? Moscowsky^-talk- 08:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. People who don't read text might think this is page about marine animals at first glance. --PontMarcheur (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to use the photo on the right, it's from an elephant. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are more good examples on the German penis page which I would suggest adding - at the moment is sadly lacking in pictures - as though had been censored or something.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo added as there is no objection. Moscowsky^-talk- 03:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, is a museum piece of bottled-up, pickled penises really the most appropriate leading illustration of the topic? —MistyMorn (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. As an illustration it is practically useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there're few proper photos on Commons. Most of them look either unclear or too "fearsome". Moscowsky^-talk- 23:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]