Talk:Human penis#Image for peeing while standing - again (sigh)

Wikipedia is supposed to be for all ages and not just adults, and why I do believe it may be better to have a medical diagram that is just as informative, if not even more for the lead pic. I wasn't comfortable with this but after doing a deep search on wikicommon, I found this and propose it as a replacement for lead pic.Diagram_showing_the_anatomy_of_the_penis_CRUK_284 My given reason to replace it is that if this was a medical journal for university students. Such a photo shouldn't be a problem at all. But we should remember that younger readers may be traumatised by the photo. And while I respect the Wikipedia community's preference for real photos, I advocate for a much more inclusive approach that considers the real diverse age readership of Wikipedia. 49.195.62.91 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

:Seconded. I can't help but wonder if uploader of current photo (info says "own work") gets off on the notion of people seeing their ugly damn dick on wikipedia. We don't need anything this graphic on wikipedia. Well, I don't anyway. I realize I was dumb to type into Bing search (for points) "What does a penis look like?" when I know very well. Didn't expect what I got when I went to the wikipedia link though. lol 68.52.185.132 (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::See WP:NOTCENSORED. I'm not a great fan of people uploading dick pics just for the fun of it, but this is a medical article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::Although Wikipedia isn't usually censored, its editors often remove images that they find offensive or objectionable. Many images were removed following this discussion, for example. Jarble (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

::Actually came to this page because I wondered if people have been doing that or if there had been a lot of competition to be the penis on the article .

:: and yet, apparently this was uploaded in 2012 and has been here ever since. Because it's a good representative picture. It is not being presented in a particularly erotic way, it is not erect.

:: on top of Wikipedia's anti-censorship policy I think having a photo is better than having an diagram abstracted away from the human form. If a child goes out of their way to look up what a human penis looks like, this gives them a more realistic impression then a Google result full of porn. And that is healthy. Just my two cents 2601:C2:781:EB50:C499:B529:E1B9:8EFC (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

:I think an illustration would be better than the photo we have. It doesn't have to be a cross-section like the one above. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Crossroads}} The article already includes several illustrations that are more detailed than the one above. According to this guideline: {{quote|Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.}} If this illustration is a "suitable alternative" to a photograph, should the photograph be removed? Jarble (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:::See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Images for general advice. One common pattern for an article on a sexuality-related subject is to put a diagram first and have the photo(s) later. However, there's no requirement to do this, and a labeled photo is IMO also a good approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

::::The best option in my opinion is:

::::* One diagram

::::* One circumcised penis

::::* One uncircumcised penis

::::* One transgender individual's penis (cut or uncut)

::::Around half of the world's men are circumcised and notable minorities are transgender or non-binary. Multiple images are also a feature of similar pages. The arguments by ZZZ don't hold up to scrunity.

::::Adding a circumcised penis into the images and going to start a discussion over the diagram/transgender individuals in a few hrs. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:I like having a photo, but would prefer it be a more aesthetically pleasing penis. 96.29.239.149 (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In the spirit of accuracy, would it not be best to use/include a photo of an unshaven penis and scrotum, pubic hair being typical of secondary sexual development? For reference, the article for vulva includes both shaven and unshaven examples. Lenie Clark (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

:I’m more concerned about the size. The penis in this photo is very small. Can’t we replace it with something closer to average? 2A01:4B00:88F4:CE00:ED85:96C7:B5F:C02E (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

::Agreed. Why would I want to see pubic hair when I could see a nice big clean shaven cock? Ahahaha, in all seriousness, I agree Aliy Dawut (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Same! RobertWikia9627 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Disagree. The article should just feature one image of an uncircumcised penis. _ZZ^Z'S 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::That does not make sense. There's many other body parts on Wikipedia that showcase variant traits between them. The human penis widely varies and there's no requirement that we only need one picture. At least two (circumcised and uncircumcised) are needed and I'd additionally support adding a transgender individual's penis. The majority viewpoint is for inclusion. You always removed other important info from the article in your edit change. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::idk if we even need a literal photo of a human penis here, if we do the one we have is fine. A penis is a penis. Should we have a gallery of penises of every different color, shape, size, circumcision status, pubic hair content, girth, "yaw of the shaft", etc? Is that next? Please people. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::are you seriously arguing that the penis in the picture is TOO SMALL? This is very silly. The goal is not to produce an image most accurately representing the median flacid human penis. Really silly. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:::We should have one circumsised one uncircumcised and a flaccid and erect version of both. All unchsaven! 115.130.36.86 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Discussion top|result=This became stuck at WP:SNOW oppose for quite a while. There have been no comments in favour of merging, other than by the proposer. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm wondering if it's time to merge this article back to Penis, given that Wikipedia has no articles for 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina'. As a result, female human sexual and reproductive organs are conflated with animals, while the male human organ gets to be separate from animals. This is misogyny Wikipedia has no interest in perpetuating -- #shesaid. The other option, of course, is to create separate Human Vagina and/or Human Vulva articles. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:You could start a requested move discussion, but personally I'm happy with the status quo. It was agreed a long time ago to split this into a separate article, as it is more of a human biology article than an animal one.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you for the tip for this new editor. The solution may better involve creating a 'Human Vulva' or 'Human Vagina' article, but I'll see what the move request generates. Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Separate articles could be created if those two articles had enough detail about zoology. Wikipedia has an article about animal clitorises, but not animal vaginas or vulvas. Jarble (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:To avoid sexism and misogyny, this page should be merged back into Penis as there exists no corresponding 'Human Vagina' article, implying that female genitalia are less human than males'. This discrepancy also goes against WP:NPOV Dcmcdcm-wiki (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

::If you don’t like it, then make a human vagina article yourself. 2A02:C7C:75A8:C300:8D9E:EC89:F706:D106 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: See my comments above. There is enough information here for a standalone article, and I don't think that the misogyny argument is all that convincing. If this were a human biology textbook, the information would not be added in with the penis of other animals.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, the split being warranted given that the topic is well-developed; readers are best served by having the content separately discussed, the readership likely to be be different for the two articles. It would be great to expand Vagina#Other animals such that a separate human page was warranted, just as it would be great to see the same thing happen for other anatomical structures. Klbrain (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this even requested! Just dont merge back with Penis article admins RobertWikia9627 (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Can't risk another run. Speedy close the discussion please. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This seems to me to be an attempt at making a WP:POINT. If you want a human vagina or human vulva article, then you are more than welcome to create it, instead of generating disruption here. — The Anome (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, apparently, this has been a standalone article for a very long time and there is not really any good reason to change that. The argument falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT Piccco (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, particularly when discussions over at Talk:Vagina appear to be heading the opposite direction. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:Oppose The penis article contains significant information on non-human penises. Merging would result in a rather messy article, and perhaps loosing content. Horsers (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:If you are unhappy then why don’t you create an article yourself on the human vagina? 2A02:C7C:75A8:C300:8D9E:EC89:F706:D106 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}

I'm in agreement with others here. We should at least have a circumcised (it's half of all men in the world) and maybe even a transgender woman's penis on the page. Many body part article on here have more than one picture. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:There is a labelled photo of a circumcised penis under this section: Human penis#Circumcision. – Anne drew 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

::Agreed. There are no fewer than 27 photos of penises on this page, 4 of which are circumcised. If anything, several of the uncircumcised ones could be removed. There's no need for more. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:As others have pointed out, variety is already adequately showcased in the status quo version of the article. Piccco (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)