Talk:Baculum

message: Some transmen indeed do have bones via Phalloplasty#Graft_from_the_leg. Jidanni (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that about skin? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If a mentally ill person swallows a switchblade, we wouldn't say "the human body sometimes contains knives" in an article on cutlery.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:448:C300:6E10:0:0:0:E02B (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmen 

message: The article says that 'The phallic meaning of the term is unique to English', but just by looking at the names of the articles in other languages that link here, you can see that that can't be completely true.  French, Spanish, Portugese, Slovenian and Tagalog all have articles that are either named 'baculum' or something very similar.  I can't read Cyrillic, but it looks like Russian and one other Cyrillic language use the term too.  Was this a mistake, or does it mean something else but is badly phrased?  If you think this is a mistake, it might be a good idea to take it out.130.216.70.117 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And Catalan. I forgot to mention Catalan.130.216.70.117 (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I was about to make this comment; I'm glad to see someone beat me to it. I suspect what the author meant was that the word doesn't mean "penis bone" in Latin. However, it is clear enough that the term is used in many languages besides English, so I propose the following re-wording: "Baculum is Latin for a cudgel, stick, scepter or stick, as in the phrase argumentum ad baculum. The "penis bone" sense did not exist in Latin." 71.58.213.140 (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: EDIT: Of course I meant to write "cudgel, staff, scepter or stick". Sorry. 71.58.213.140 (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I was about to make exactly the same comment. If nobody knows what the sentence is supposed to mean, how about removing it completely? 86.20.66.253 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique to English? 

message: I have deleted the section titled 'Adam's Rib' first introduced by Kokopelado in March 2013 that other editors have removed and restored repeatedly over the past several weeks. This section, as can easily be established by comparing its content with that of its immediate source, is a partially edited and improperly cited direct quotation, in which only a final, closing quotation mark was given, contrary to standard citation practices; the user who first added the section made some clumsy attempts to paraphrase the material, saying, for example, 'Authors think it is far more probable', without, however, clearly indicating that most of the material is quoted directly (nor who the authors are). As it stands, this section is almost undoubtedly in violation of copyright law, as its immediate source may also be. The relevance of the section is also far from clear, in stark contrast to the prominent place that it has occupied in the article (almost twenty percent of total length of the article prior to my edit!). The cited source is a blog (hardly an authoritative work) which is itself quoting part of a letter to the editor (Gilbert, S. F. and Zevit, Z. (2001), Congenital human baculum deficiency: The generative bone of Genesis 2:21–23. Am. J. Med. Genet., 101: 284–285. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1387; note well, this is not a peer-reviewed journal article, but merely a letter!) that contains the speculations of a couple of scholars regarding the interpretation of Genesis 2:21-23. One of the authors is a faculty member in a Biblical Literature department and is, therefore, probably qualified to engage in detailed exegesis of Genesis, but absolutely no lexicographical sources, commentaries, journal articles, or other peer-reviewed works regarding the interpretation of Genesis 2(of which there are a vast number) are cited in the letter. We are therefore left to assume that the letter is engaging in (albeit erudite) speculation uninformed by any prior scholarship on Genesis; in any case, it cannot be taken as representing the consensus of qualified scholars on the interpretation of the biblical passage, and should not be given so prominent a place in a Wikipedia article, unless its validity can be demonstrated independently. Spurius Furius (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering why that wasn't mentioned in this article. The fact that it was published in a real journal (American Journal of Medical Genetics) (in a non-April 1st issue) implies that despite the whimsical nature of the suggestion (to us), it's not tongue-in-cheek. I think there should at least be some mention of it here, especially if it's just short and to-the-point; 'It has been suggested that the "rib" in the biblical story of Adam and Eve is actually a mistranslation of an ancient–Hebrew language euphamism for baculum, and that its removal is a creation myth to explain its absence in humans.' -- Limulus (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Adam's Rib' 

message: Whales are noted as lacking baculum in one section, and then a later section discusses them.  This appears to be a contradiction. 68.99.198.26 (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whales 

message: Is this going to be of any use?  --ClemRutter (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reference?  

message: Wondering if some expert could answer my questions. I was fascinated by this subject, as I have never heard of a Baculum before reading the article on the Dire wolf. I guess my understanding of bones is lacking, but I always thought that bones were 'attached' to other bones. Does this Baculum actually form in soft tissue free of connection to other bones? The Dire Wolf Skeleton shows it unattached. Would that make it the only type of bone in animals bodies not attached to other bones? Maybe some biologist could elaborate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.186.15 (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all bones are attached to other bones.  The kneecap (patella) is not. J S Ayer (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Nor is the hyoid bone. J S Ayer (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this bone form unattached to other bones? 

message: The clitoral bone also exists and is a completely separate bone, according to this page at multiple points, but the link for the clitoral bone found at the beginning of the "Presence in mammals" section links back to this page. Does it exist somewhere else and I just can't find it, or should someone make it? 
Apologies if I have broken any Wikipedia rules or conventions: I have had this account for ages, but have seldom used it. 
Hippyhipster (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Delinked. It doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. This seems to be a WP:No page case. We do have a Pseudo-penis article, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clitoral Bone 

message: Os clitoridis and os clitoris are both used here, and both appear to be acceptable.    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/os_clitoris    I'll add it in the lede.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. I will also add os clitoris to os clitoridis. Leangle30 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Os clitoridis, os clitoris