This is an archive of past discussions about Penis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I removed that edit because it is not particularly accurate, and if it were, it does not seem very encyclopaedic in that position. If we are to have a paragraph for every animal with a different coloured penis... well! Anyway, it might be red, but to compare it with the grey fur or outer epidermis is nonsense. The red is more like mucous membrane such as in the uncircumcised human glans, rather than "skin". You might as well say a white man has a red skin because of the colour of his gums. And anyway, while you are at it, remember that the scrotum of the vervet is a vivid blue. Before I stand still for that edit, it needs to be suitably notable, relevant and accurate. After that I'll have no complaints. JonRichfield (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
How do you know this edit was not factually accurate? Are your assertions based on actual research, or are they based on speculation alone? Jarble (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I happen live in South Africa, and know very well what a Vervet looks like close up. An author must supply citations and avoid OR (among other things) in insisting on the inclusion of material, not to challenge it. It is not for me to prove that the material is inaccurate on the basis of someone else's research, and if it were, it still would have to be notable and relevant, neither of which it was in fact. Not to mention the scrotal colour. OK? JonRichfield (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Secret citation aid?
OK, I admit it: there are all sorts of WP goodies that I should know more about. But I could use a bit of help. In the wail at the top of the penis article there is a complaint about folks not using the Google Books Citation Generator. I tried it at the linked site and it worked pretty well I thought, but I can't see where I was supposed to have guessed it might be available. I can't even find it by searching. I must have cited a hundred or more google books in the last couple of years, and maybe even more www.archive.org books, often very laboriously. Is this new? Are there facilities for www.archive.org as well? Etc etc... JonRichfield (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Check Help:Citation tools. There doesn't seem to be one for www.archive.org but if google have it indexed (which they probably do) you can use the gbooks tool and then swap the url to archive.org. SmartSE (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Since you put it that way, enough dithering; I now have made up my mind along the lines in the following (earlier) remark.
Weeelll... I am unsure. I don't think it matters much one way or the other. On the one hand I like keeping topics together and thereby reducing duplication of content, a disastrous indulgence that invites contradictions and entails complications in maintenance. Conversely, as long as Piz is kept clear of technical information on Penis in general, there seems to be no reason to include any of its content in Penis, as it is of no technical biological interest to speak of. It might well be argued to be of no significance other than clutter in the technical article. OTOH, the pizzle article does IMO contain non-overlapping, adequately encyclopaedic material to justify its separate inclusion. I think on balance I would OPPOSE the merging, though perhaps adding a hatnote to Pizzle, referring to Penis, might be good. JonRichfield (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Why would it be necessary to keep "biological information" separate from "non-biological" or "non-technical" information? Jarble (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The section about the cat penis links to an article about the anatomy of cats and only has one uniformative sentence about cat penises. Please remove the link. --87.156.41.166 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Penis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡03:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
@User:NeilN and User:Melonkelon: I wasn't even aware of the concept of citation overkill until now - I didn't realize that it was possible for an article to have "too many citations". Can this article's quality be improved by deleting its least reliable citations, while leaving its most reliable citations in place? Jarble (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I directed Jarble to WP:Citation overkill and this section of the talk page, as seen here, here and here. Considering that the Penis article and therefore its associated talk page are undoubtedly on his WP:Watchlist, I'm not sure why he's just now responding to you guys. One reason for his citation overkill, as currently seen with the first line of the Mammals section, seems to be to cover text that states "different" or "many," or something similar. But like I stated, he should find one or two WP:Reliable sources (or even just stopping at four would be fine) that state "different" or "many," or at least shows one or both of those aspects, not add a bunch of WP:Reliable sources just to support that text. There is a How to trim excessive citations section at WP:Citation overkill for guidance on this matter. WP:Bundling, for example, which is a guideline and cites WP:Citation overkill, is very useful and I use that; it can be used not only with the examples currently shown at WP:Bundling. But there is no need to bundle many reliable sources; 25 references is extreme no matter what. WP:OVERKILL is an essay that is often followed; despite being an essay, it is deferred to in WP:Good article and WP:Featured article nominations. You will never see a Wikipedia article make it to good or featured article status with as extreme of citation overkill as Jarble has displayed in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no picture of human penis? An article about penises should have a picture of human penis. Maybe several, with one from each age group.
Trust me, we have been through that discussion ad nauseam. Meanwhile note that there is a hatnote directing curious parties to the human organ, or vox humana. JonRichfield (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not true. No reason has been given, other than prudishness. JonRichfield is one of the main censors. His answer above is reflective of his argument - but perhaps he could expand. I second the request above.5.28.89.25 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no image of a dog penis?
There should be. You might argue that there would be one on the dog penis article, but there wasnt, untill i re added it. This one would be fine here -
Proposed Merger of Pizzle with section on "Human use of animal penises"
The section on "Human use of animal penises" contains a flag asking for comments on a suggestion to merge the separate article on pizzle with that section. I know very little about either subject beyond what is in these two articles, and I'm therefore not qualified to edit the substance of either. However, in my view, the separate article in pizzle seems to be of sufficient magnitude and with sufficient references that it deserves to keep its separate status. The present article on "penis" is already sufficiently long and with sufficient references, it seems inappropriate to merge the articles on that ground. Secondly, the subject of the pizzle article is sufficiently different, it deserves to be kept separate on that ground. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is a mess; lots of dissimilar bits of text thrown together. I refactored the sections a bit, removing those with just one sentence, and condensed the hatnotes.
Right now the canine section is too long, as it just transcludes the standalone article; that should be condensed to a few sentences. Similar balancing and narrative are needed in each section. There are random anecdotes from individual animal orders, but no real overview or narrative to make sense of them. – SJ +09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Removal of inappropriate image from the article
Please don't ask for a head count--this is a confusing discussion, if only because of unclear indentation and images thrown about. I read a pretty clear consensus that the image shouldn't be removed, but that replacing it with a better image, one showing "morphology/function/physiology" (in the words of one editor), one of "a living, functional penis of a healthy animal in a natural function and context" (in the words of another), would be beneficial. (I think there is some agreement that penises shouldn't be pickled and put in mason jars, that's that not their "natural context".) I do not see a clear consensus to remove the pickled stuff; editors are encouraged to pick a better dick, and to perhaps prepare a nice penile gallery. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.
Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images.
Fine for Icelandic Phallological Museum does not mean fine for Penis. Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic, which is why this image was appropriate there, not as the first photo here! That said, it could perhaps be moved to the Human use of animal penises section, and you might consider adding information about that museum there.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )04:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Editors should not open an RfC unless some significant effort has been spent in becoming familiar with the article and after engaging with other editors on talk. Obviously the images used in this article have been a source of fascination for an endless stream of editors over the years, and it should be assumed that there is solid consensus for the current article as it has been stable for some time. The term "subpages" is not appropriate as they are not used for encyclopedic content; possibly that term was meant to suggest that the image in question should be further down the article—there is no reason to do that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Though, neither heart nor lung has for its first image a shriveled, colorless, lump of tissue in a jar. It's difficult to gain much information from this photo. If it were up to me, I may not even include it in the article, let alone put it first.--Taylornate (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems the opposition was mainly about not wanting to have a human penis as the lede photo, rather than about this being an appropriate lede photo.--Taylornate (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
"Does this picture...look like a penis" Yes, it certainly doesn't look like my penis, but there are obviously (non-human) penises.
"and should it remain as the lede picture?" Frankly, I don't care, but there should obviously be a picture of a penis in the lede section. Wikipedia is not censored.
"Should this article be illustrated with pictures of penises, or should they be restricted to subpages?" Yes, this article should have an appropriate number of pictures of a penis. Again, Wikipedia is not censored. Guy1890 (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The lead image is fine. The article needs more images - the sections on bats, primates and humans are all bereft. Medicine/biology illustrations of the basic structure of mammalian, avian, etc penises would be good too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I see your issue with this. Wikipedia has a love/hate relationship with sexual imagery. At the moment, "uncensored" can often mean "censored yet replaced with something relevant". That could mean we now use more acceptable drawings or, in this case, pickled/jarred whale penises, instead of the more explicit penis itself. I can't say what should be done about this, as it's a more pervasive issue than this little talk page can handle. But I'm not sure at all what you mean by "restricted to subpages". Subpages aren't used on articles except for some cases of transcluded content. equazcion(talk) 00:01, 15 Sep 2013 (UTC)
I would recommend selecting an illustrative example of a penis as the first image, perhaps a diagram showing internal structure that penises tend to share. However, I do not think that a picture of pickled whale penises has no place in the article—they are penises, and even if they do not look like human penises, they can serve as an illustration of what penises can look like in other species. — daranz [ t ] 21:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Daranz - some diagram comparing multiple species, or showing internal structure, would be helpful. The current image is appropriate for the article and ok for the lede if not perfect. – SJ +09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I recommend you look at a comparative article, say Vagina. Look at the photos there, they are mostly medical illustrations, not photos of exotic genitalia. Could we go in this direction here, meaning, less focus on which species penis is pictured and more on the biology of the organ?
I think we should consider the educational purposes of this entry. Suppose an individual has a question about infertility, impotence or prostrate cancer and comes to this page...wouldn't a diagram of the physiology of the penis be more relevant than a photo of a mallard's penis? I'm not saying that this is an either/or situation but I'm arguing for a little detachment...what would be included if this was an article about the eye, hand, foot, liver or heart? That's what a penis is, a biological organ.
It also seems odd that there is not more of a connection made to Phallus which is the cultural symbolism of the penis. At the least, the article should be included, prominently, under "See also". LizRead!Talk!18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Human penis is exactly what I mean by a subpage. Used as an excuse to keep images off this page, and focus on pickeled whale penises. I am doubtful anyone searching for penis expects to see fotos of them in jars.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )01:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This would be better - may be broken, but isn't in bottles! A partially-broken statue of a penis, located at the Sanctuary of Dionysus on the Greek island of Delos♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )04:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I seriously believe that the photo of a partially-broken statue of a penis, located at the Sanctuary of Dionysus on the Greek island of Delos is closer to peoples visual expectations for the lede image an article about penises than jars of whale penises. Personally I think the majority of people would expect to see a photograph of a human penis, however I am well aware that censors watch this page and will insist that those interested in a human penis will type human penis not just penis, and that they consider seeing a photo of a human penis in the penis entry could shock. I think [[2]] would be better as it is not shaved and is flacid, but I am more concerned with removing the freakshow exhibit from pride of place - the article is penis, not penes for a start!!!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not use Wikipedia for any sort of campaign—some may be pro, and some may be anti censorship, but no editor should use an article or talk page as a forum to promote their personal views. Any proposal regarding the encyclopedic topic of this article needs to focus on benefits to the encyclopedia, without an editorial on "censors". Anyone with access to the Internet will have no trouble finding enough human penis pictures to satiate any appetite—in fact, this article has the handy Penis#Humans section which links, naturally enough, to Human penis. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment IMO the reason the article is a mess is partly because the opposing parties with opposing agenda make it impossible to formulate and maintain anything coherent. We've been through this business (wearily) a few rounds already. My own prejudice is that WP subject matter in general and decidedly in this article should be coherent, relevant and uncompromising, and that the pictures should match. In other articles I occasionally have compromised to the extent that I acquiesced in the movement of explicit lede pictures to a page down, rather than waste weeks of edit warring on good working time and space. So: please don't waste time and space on accusing me of prudery, anyone. Now: That lede picture is crap. It is crap where it is, and it is crap for any purpose other than demonstrating the crap that amateurs think belongs in a museum. It is zoologically uninformative and without context. It doesn't belong in the article at all. Someone said: "Article on Penis. Picture of penises. Seems pretty relevant to me. Article on Heart, pictures of hearts. Article on Lung, pictures of lungs..." That exactly illustrates what is NOT a relevant criterion. A braised lung might illustrate an article on cooking, but not on morphology/function/physiology. A Valentine heart might illustrate an article on art or kitsch, but not cardiology. A slice of jerky might indeed be muscle, but it would make a lousy lede picture for an article on muscle tissue. And those pickled, distorted, shrunken whale penes are about as appropriate to the article as those examples would be. They are disgusting, not because they are penes, but because they are travesties. They give no idea of function, living appearance, morphology, proportion, or, without the caption, even what they are, let alone how they work or why; show them randomly to uninformed members of the public and see how many can so much as guess what the objects might be. If you were to get a fifty percent hit rate, that would be impressive. What I would like would be a picture illustrating a (probably mammalian) living penis in a reasonable pose (not human, because we have the human penis article and a huge selection of wearily repetitive material in WM Commons) and in the body of the article, a lot more comparative pictures of penes of other animals. Unfortunately I have no such examples available out of copyright. I suspect that something diagrammatic might be best, but if anyone has anything better (which the shrivelled whale dicks certainly are not, I'll be right behind him/her). In the light of the history of this article I fully realise that I am wasting my time here, but I did get the RFC... JonRichfield (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
As ianmacm said in the last RFC, "This RFC is achieving very little. Please suggest a specific image for the infobox, and see if a consensus can be found to use it." I don't think anyone is taking the suggestion of using a broken statue of a penis seriously. --NeilNtalk to me13:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I second NeilN . Propose an alternative photo (or two) that should replace this image.
Biology is a science, and an article on penises falls under that. Presumably that is why that particular list was chosen. — daranz [ t ] 22:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
a picture or diagram in the lede? ABSOLUTELY. a picture of pickled whale penises in bottles as the lede image? NO. Shove images off to subpages? NO. support Daranz request for " a diagram showing internal structure that penises tend to share" to go as the lede image.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me, but the diagram strikes me as a demanding spec; for a single diagram to deal with more than a mammalian penis (and even that pretty cursorily) would take an act of genius! It would take a page full of diagrams even to give some idea of the major classes of morphology. Not saying it is impossible, but don't look my way...! JonRichfield (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Human penis is not a "subpage" (whatever that is), is a separate article and one I think is in better shape than this one. "Penis" refers to a biological organ of mammals and is non-species specific. It is the generic category while the ones involving specific animals are specific. I don't see why some Editors take this logical organization of a topic as some sort of slight. LizRead!Talk!00:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree, except that limiting it to mammals is too limiting. In achieving a balanced biological overview we need not even limit it to vertebrates. JonRichfield (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind a separate page for human penis. What I mind is the effort to use classification as an excuse for prudery and censorship. It is beyond question that almost everybody knows what a human penis looks like. As has been pointed out, the internet is full of such files. How about this as a temporary replacement for the pickle cabinet? Herm with erect penis. Marble, ca. 520 BC. From Siphnos.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )23:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have no idea what you're talking about. Read the conversation again. No one has suggested not having a photo of a penis as the lead image. The only one doing anything that could be called censorship is yourself. Suggest a better representative image for consideration. I don't think statues fit the bill but others may disagree. Lungs or Liver may provide inspiration. --NeilNtalk to me23:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Support removal, these images unbalance the quality of the article, they should be intrinsecly related but they are just related and too subjective, what a pickled whale penis has to do with this article, seriously, pictures should be related to anatomy or monuments, but only in their respective sections
If are you looking for alternative images, you can browse through Category:Wikipedia restricted images which I just stumbled into today. Of course, it's human anatomy and you'll need Admin approval to post it to this article. But it does offer some alternatives to the current lede image that some Editors are unhappy with. Maybe those folks can post a link to a preferred image or two and people can weigh in. I'm not sure if there is a category like this for other species. LizRead!Talk!21:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Suggested alternative image It occurred to me to look under other headings in WM, so I looked under the category Mating. I avoided human illustrations because of the separate article on that theme, as already discussed. I found few really good pictures, and none perfect, but I found this one, which though far from perfect is about the opposite of the whale penes: it shows a living, functional penis of a healthy animal in a natural function and context. It also is conspicuous in context (some other good pictures drew criticism because the penis was not the most obvious object in the picture (I disagreed, but never mind that!) Equine penis erect in preparation for mating
There is of course the problem that there are more contexts in which penes are key elements, such as in urination, but you cannot have everything at one (the wale penes were practically nothing functional at all). Liz's category of Category:Wikipedia restricted images includes a good one of penile urination, which I would not object to, though it is a human penis, but here is another not too bad picture that might be welcome for those who reasonably insist that sex is not the only, nor necessarily the most relevant context: Penis in urination Modify captions according to preference. I do not insist on these as being the best or the chosen pictures, but IMO they do exemplify something more useful and appropriate than what we have had so far. Just my few drops contribution... JonRichfield (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Function of the penis
In the introduction, it is claimed that the only major function of a penis usually is sperm transfer. This is probably not true, as it can be argued that a vast majority of intromittent male genitalia also have a function in stimulation (Eberhard 1985). Penises can also have functions in antagonistic coevolution and sperm competition, but how widespread this is can be hard to estimate. The sexual selection pressures can often be very strong, as evident from the morphological diversity of male genitalia; and the traits that are involved can easily be argued to be major functions.
Since "stimulation" is such a loaded word it would be wise to keep it out of the introduction, but it is prevalent enough to prove erroneous the claim that the only major function is sperm transfer. I suggest that the paragraph is rewritten to the following:
The primary function of the penis is intromission and sperm transfer. In placental mammals, the penis also bears the distal part of the urethra, which discharges both urine during urination and semen during copulation as the occasion requires.
Eberhard, William (1985) Sexual selection and animal genitalia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 244 pp
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.
Elephant penis confusing/contradicting info
The article says: "An adult elephant has the largest penis of any land animal at 6 feet (1.8 m) on average.[2] An elephant's penis can reach a length of 100 cm (39 in) and a diameter of 16 cm (6 in) at the base." So is it 180cm on the average or 100cm at the extreme? Needs clarification.
Photography
The picture of the male human penis is circumcised and very small. I'm not sure this is representative of the average male anatomy, at least outside of the middle East/N. America?? Rather unencyclopedic, IMHO.
Imbalance
At least in mammals, and certainly in humans (and, even though Wikipedia is not supposed to show preferences, this is after all written for humans), the amount of time a penis is used for urination is far greater than that used for ejaculation of sperm. However, there are only two mentions of urination in this long article. More on this role is needed. At the same time, despite the concentration on sex, the one picture of a human penis is nonsexual. If we're talking about sex, then lets have a picture that is relevant.
Contradictory Information
In the section on bird penises, the article makes two contradictory claims:
"The Argentine Blue-bill has the largest penis in relation to body size of all vertebrates; while usually about half the body size (20 cm)"
"The Lake Duck is notable for possessing, in relation to body length, the longest penis of all vertebrates; the penis, which is typically coiled up in flaccid state, can reach about the same length as the animal himself when fully erect, but is more commonly about half the bird's length."
This article is nothing compared to the Vagina article. It's not at all bad. Why are the first pictures of elephants shouldn't a human's be the first? Just saying this so maybe someone will get it as good as Vagina. It doesn't really matter though. -DangerousJXD (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It may be interesting to add a section on the adaptations of the penis. For example, the coronal ridge has been linked to sperm competition. Specifically, the coronal ridge has been shown to remove sperm of other competitors. An evolutionary section on the adaptations of the penis would therefore expand this page. Rcuf235 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Penis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This article leaves me nonplussed with a photo of a human penis. I think Wikipedia should not explicitly show an actual human penis but more of a diagram or detailed drawing...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.27.34 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a serious article in the style of a medical textbook. Anyone who is nonplussed by a photograph of a human penis in this context isn't going to get very far on a medical training course. People have said before "why not have a drawing?" but this is a form of WP:CENSORED.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016
This edit request to Penis has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to add 2 photos showing how Asian's penis looks like.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amory(u • t • c)11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
I would like to propose a re-phrasing of the title of this section. I feel that this title does not convey what it actually refers to and is more easily confused with beastiality. I would propose the alternate title "Human utility of animal penises" or something along those lines. I feel that while 'utilise' is a synonym of 'use', it conveys a very different meaning, i.e. "using a penis" would have immediate sexual connotations while "utilising a penis" might refer to art or culinary applications. Waxworker (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
In Vertebrates § Birds, the second paragraph's first mention of the handedness of the duck's penis states clockwise. Later in said paragraph, it states the duck vagina is clockwise and the penis is counterclockwise. The latter is correct. While both claims had a source, it's a book and so I found this source instead, see fig 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871948/
The article does actually cover this, both in the lede ("in the placental mammals the penis bears the distal part of the urethra, which discharges both urine during urination and semen during copulation") and in the article body. Possibly this function could do with a little more discussion, though we prefer to use encyclopaedic language, which 'pee out of' isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The fact that the word "mutilation" isn't even on this page is absurd I think, despite there being a section on "circumcision" which uses a word that I think is not WP:NPOV "genital alteration". Wallby (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This article goes into great detail about the various eccentricities of animal penises, but there is little actual information on what a penis is. It simply mentions that many, but not all intromittent organs are penises. What is the distinction? Is there a definition? Duckduckgoop (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The penis is an intromittent organ for intromission. Nearly all male mammals possess a penis (monotremes are the only known exception), and its presence does not exclusively categorize an organism as a mammal; some birds and reptiles also have one. The evolutionary emergence of the penis dates back hundreds of millions of years to Amniotes, the shared ancestor of mammals, birds, and reptiles.
In mammals, the development of the penis is linked to embryonic cells originating from the tail bud, setting mammalian penises apart from reptilian hemipenes, which arise from embryonic cells associated with limbs.
Not all placental mammals, a subset of Eutheria, possess a multifunctional penis capable of both urine and semen discharge, but all that do are placental mammals. This adaptation originated over a hundred million years within Eutherians, representing the common ancestor of placental mammals and other now-extinct Eutheria.
A penis (/ˈpiːnɪs/; pl.: penises or penes) is the primary sexual organ that male animals use to inseminate females (or hermaphrodites) during copulation. Such organs occur in many animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate, but males do not bear a penis in every animal species. Furthermore, penises are not necessarily homologous.
The term penis applies to many intromittent organs, but not to all. As an example, the intromittent organ of most Cephalopoda is the hectocotylus, a specialized arm, and male spiders use their pedipalps. Even within the Vertebrata, there are morphological variants with specific terminology, such as hemipenes.
In most species of animals in which there is an organ that might be described as a penis, it has no major function other than intromission, or at least conveying the sperm to the female, but in the placental mammals, the penis bears the distal part of the urethra, which discharges both urine during urination and semen during copulation.
For insert somewhere:
A penis is an intromittent organ found primarily in male animals. It functions as the main sexual organ used for internal fertilization during copulation. While not all male mammals have a penis (e.g., monotremes), it is a defining characteristic of the vast majority. Placental mammals can discharge urine in addition to semen, while the penis is exclusively used for intromission in other animals. Drocj (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs a rewrite: it now consists of a short overview of the subject followed by a long list of trivia about various species. Jarble (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Done: see Special:Diff/928592318. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 09:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
![[2]](/wiki/File:Human_penis_and_scrotum.JPG){kind=link}
