Talk:Erection/Archive 1

message: *The caption says, "An uncircumcised human penis in both flaccid and erect states." I don't know if it's just me, but the flaccid penis is obviously uncircumcised, but erect penis appears to be circumcised. Are they the same penis? The pubic regions look different. --Fallout boy 16:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Noticed something about the photo

message: In the penis article it was established that modification and mutilation terminology is confusing or inaccurate.
It was established by consensus that "altered" is both a neutral term and covers all forms of genital modification and mutilation without focusing on the particulars too much.  Consequently, I am reverting the last change. DanP 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's be clear.  There are a multitude of genital modification and mutilation practices.  Why are you trying to highlight one that is not present, while ignoring all the others.  Obviously you are going against both established precedent without a clear reason, while at the same time describing a self-contradictory viewpoint (you did not add "unpierced" to the description).  If you are trying to lend some legitimacy to genital mutilation, Wikipedia is not the place to do it.  Try to see both perspectives please. DanP 12:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to "lend legitimacy" to circumcision; it already has that legitimacy in Western cultures due to widespread practice.  In fact, so many people are circumcised that many don't know what a flaccid uncircumcised penis looks like (for instance, I never saw one until after I was in college).  Most people do, however, know what an unpierced penis looks like.  This is why it is appropriate to note that the penis in the photo is uncircumcised, whereas noting that it is not pierced, not dyed bright blue, or not decorated with a little pink umbrella would just be a non-sequiteur. Nandesuka 12:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: DanP, your last edit on this article  violates the 3RR rule. I'm sure this was accidental on your part; please undo your reversion so we don't need to report it. Thanks. Nandesuka 12:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is clearly a false accusation.  By no means did I violate 3RR.  It's sad that you feel the need to trumpet circumcision in this article, yet at the same time other genital mutilations you feel aren't worth mentioning.  It was established by precedent that "altered" encompasses any and all genital modifications and mutilations.  Why you can't see that is almost baffling.  DanP 14:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I've added all of the adjectives without judgement one way or the other.  I hope all of the bases are covered now, and that we can all be happy. DanP 01:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I don't like it at all; it reads clumsily and distracts from the article (which, after all, is about erection not circumcision).  My strawman proposal is that we should leave "uncircumcised" in place -- it was the original adjective used until recently, after all -- until we come to a consensus here.  Deal? Nandesuka 04:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  Your fetish should not be the topic of this article.  Stop singling out circumcision, and practice NPOV editing, would you? DanP 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm trying to.  I'm also trying to come to some sort of a reasonable agreement with you here.  You don't like the adjective "uncircumcized".  OK.  That was the adjective that was historically used in the page, and several editors besides me seem to think it's perfectly adequate.  I'm not demanding that it stay that way forever, I'm simply suggesting that we try to come to consensus here on the Talk page here before changing the status quo ante.  Won't you work with us to develop that consensus, DanP?  I am sure you mean well, so I'm extending the olive branch here.  Let's work this out here on the Talk page rather than in the article. I will refrain from discussing your sexual and bodily preferences, and would like it if you could avoid calling me a child mutilator or fetishist.  Nandesuka 01:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: DanP your protectivism is pathetic. LIllIi 23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo description 

message: I fail to see exactly how this article is in need of attention due to quality, aside from petty arguments about a photo being black and white to keep from seeming pornographic (A penis is a penis, whether depicted in black and white or in colour; deal with it). Sources are cited, the only slang words are, appropriately, in the "Slang" section. I see no spelling or grammatical errors, and appropriate vocabulary and scientific terms are employed. Would someone kindly offer an explanation for the tag, or should I just remove it now?
Adamdavid85 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason for it either. Surely people who slap on this tag, often defacing a valid article, and then just walk away expecting someone else to do the work they prescribe, should at least have to state what they find so objectionable about the article? Flapdragon 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with this picture? 

message: I do not object to displaying photographs of an erect penis. I consider this a very valuable piece of information and do NOT think it is pornography at all!!!! (People who label "erections" with "pornography" must still learn a lot about life, yes.) But do we really need a second display - this time a circumcised penis - to show what it is all about??? Doesn't the one photograph we already have here suffice? I think it does alright. I would like to see the second photograph being deleted. It's absolutely superfluous. Anyone agreeing with me??
--Fromgermany 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, I agree with you, but you're new to Wikipedia and probably haven't discovered the "circumcision wars". There are some very strong feelings on both sides of the circumcision issue here, and if both pictures aren't here, one or the other side will feel discriminated against. --Angr (t·c) 11:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  more photographs?? 

message: One of the photos is not uploaded properly (as in red link) that led to its non-existance. Should it be removed? If not, why?
:Finally, the non-existant image was removed. --Gh87 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The non-existant image 

message: I would like to translate the excellent German Wikipedia article :de:Morgendliche Erektion (translation: morning erection).  In the introduction of this article, this phenomenon is called "morning wood."  Surely, there must be a more scientific name for it.  What should the new title be for this nonexistant article?  GilliamJF 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Morning wood" 

message: In the external links section there is a link to an individual wikipedia photo. Is this appropriate and would it be more reasonable to link to the penis category on wikipedia commons? Biggishben 12:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: There's no visible difference between the "erect" and "unerect" circumcised d*ck. It looks just the same only bigger. 201.23.64.2 04:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the circumcised  picture? 

message: I have deleted the penis photo at the top of the page. This way we don't offend those who stumble across the page and find a 
big hard cock but there are still two remaining, perfectly adequate shots of erections further down the page where they serve excellently to illustrate the article. In this way the easily offended will have a chance to go to another article but there'll still be good pictures of two gentlemen who 'have wood.' This article exists perfectly well with two penis examples. Also whoever added this picture must understand the page existed for months without a picture upon immediately opening the page and despite the fact bona fide must be assumed, in this case I am somewhat suspicious of puerile desires to have ones own 'boner' on wikipedia. If you revert my changes I will simply revert it back, no argument or discussion. AntonioBu 12:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: This picture seems to be no better than the other ones that have been added and removed in the past. Biggishben 09:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ----
Agreed.  Here is my picture.  Actually, I think it is pretty clean (non-porn like). The others I saw seemed to lack clarity and lighting which is important in an information picture. One thing I wanted to demonstrate was the difference between just being erect, and being fully erect and excited. Once erect, the penis can extend or lengthen slightly more and the head swells if it is extremely aroused.  For me the difference can be a half inch.
--Trevor100a 21:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. Not a idea for an image. However what's going on with the diagonal line at the bottom of the first two images? And the text isn't needed. Fishies Plaice 02:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: like the photo a lot(not in the sexual kind of like, in the academic sense of like! lol), they have you have done it with the angle of the camera and the presentation of the photos etc...   it just needs a cleaner backdrop without the distracting objects? Also it would be kind of nice to have a more average/typical sized cock. Oh well, whatever. I don't mind, mine is similar! hehe...  Mathmo 09:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new picture 

message: I did research about erection in the school library and I got detention because the teacher who kept an eye said I was visiting a porn site. Please, this article can't be viewed in public. Remove the images. One alternative is to clearly warn of the content before the page is loaded or provide a link to the picture, preferably also with a clear warning as to what the content of the image is. --Scotteh 19:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm really trying hard to WP:AGF, but this claim sounds like utter bullshit. Why didn't this student show the teacher the article? Why didn't they file a complaint with school administration? Chances are that some adult at the school has at least the marginal intelligence to recognize that we aren't a pornographic site. Sorry, but it's your own fault for allowing yourself to get railroaded into detention. Question authority, always. --130.127.121.188 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Owned --AnYoNe! 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok Everybody

message: Should we add a bit in about a male being unable to make an erection go back down? 163.118.215.31 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ability to control an errection 

message: The two pairs of current photos do a good job of illustrating "erection".  I don't think we need more photos to demonstrate various degrees of erection -- the reader gets the idea just fine from these pairs.  However, these photos might leave a reader with mis-impressions about the size/appearance etc of a penis when not at all sexually aroused.  These pictures just show "start of erection" and "after erect".  It would be good to also have a previous picture, of a totally small/shrivelled/limp/floppy penis. (See also - Seinfeld ref: "shrinkage") 69.87.204.22 11:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add flacid photo

message: So many people say that pictures of erect penises are inappropriate because children may see them. Now, how could it be inappropriate if they are looking it up? If they know the term, they should know what one looks like. Besides, they'll see one at some place in their lives, especially boys. So, please, stop saying that it's inappropriate without a good reason.
Whiffle Ball Tony 23:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is This inappropriate? 

message: Could I get some feedback on what everyone thinks of the video that shows a penis becoming erect?--68.88.200.230 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is a good idea, anything like this which is a motion the public at large would be curious about should be showing by video. Mathmo 10:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: John Holmes was not available for an audition.  --Merovingian (T, C) 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on the video... just curious 

message: Anyone else think the page should include pictures of the same clitoris both flaccid and erect?  It would probably be more informative than the penis pictures because the subject isn't as well known. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are absolutely right about that mate, after all we have pictures of the other two. all we are missing is one of an erect clit. makes perfect sense.  is the missing picture from this page to make it the complete three. Mathmo Talk 19:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clitoris pictures

message: A couple of times I have tried to modify the page to use  as an example of a penis becoming erect. A side-on view, it shows more clearly the difference between a flaccid and an erect penis and allows the viewer to get a very clear idea of the physical manifestation of the penile erection. The existing photos are mostly front-on which means that a foreshortening effect makes it difficult to get an accurate picture.
Each time I have made this modification, I have been reverted. I can't find any discussion here as to why the picture I'm inserting is not to be used. I don't want to tread on any toes and do something I'm not supposed to, but I do think the picture is better than what is there now. 87.112.54.178 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erection sample photo 

message: Here's an idea for all those who like to input pictures of erections and such onto the article...
On the Earth article, one finds an animated image demonstrating the rotation of the earth (see here).
Should those with the time, guts and expertise be interested, it may be appropriate (though would require consensus) to try to replicate this animation (gif) technique to demonstrate the stages of an erection (as used for sex education/medical enlightment - and thus be presented appropriately). Thoughts? Jhamez84 18:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A genuine encyclopedic penis picture idea... 

message: How about using this to replace the video that has been removed?--68.88.196.111 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this to replace the video 

message: I.P. 68.88.196.111 is probably a meat-puppet of User:Atomaton who has posted a similar animation at Talk:Masturbation#Male Masturbation Video-Animation.
The GIF he is trying to have accepted is inappropriate per Wikipedia community standards.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#When_possible.2C_avoid_images_that_are_likely_to_offend states,
Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. <U>However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used.</U>
And below that quote is a section indicating that Artwork is preferred over photographs.
In the same way, the photos of flaccid and erect penises currently in this article do not conform to Wikipedia community standards. There is no possible rationale for why <U>a drawing or artwork</U> of flaccid and erect penises are a detriment to the educational value of this article compared with the photos. Since this is so it violates Wikipedia community standards. And drawings or artwork could be easily found or created to replace the photos. I am thus removing them.
CyberAnth 10:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It violates Wikipedia community standards

message: Plainly, a number of fellows are having great fun adding pictures of their penises to this article, and have not the slightest interest in increasing the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia thereby.
However. To pretend that there are established "community standards" on Wikipedia that discourage nudity and sexual depictions is totally false. CyberAnth links to a proposed Wikiproject guideline which he is actively involved in debating. A few things to note:
* It is not Wiki-wide, but applies to the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject, of which this article is not a part (but actually...shouldn't it be?)
* It is not established even for that project, but is still a set of proposals for discussion. The page heading states "References or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'."
* On November 30, Wikipedia chose to feature the article History of erotic depictions on the front page. Leadership of Wikipedia is apparently not shy about being perceived as sexually explicit by casual visitors.
DanB†DanD 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly did not see the proposed part of that. Right now it looks like many of prurient intent, including pedophiles, are weighing in on the matter. Let us hope that more sane heads prevail. CyberAnth 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Reverted- Wikipedia is not censored for minors, sorry. WJBscribe 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whose "community standards" are these?

message: The article says that the prostate plays a role in erection. Can you explain this role to me?--Al-Bargit 16:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostate? 

message: On the warning at the top, it says "The material lower down the page may cause some readers offence."
"offence" should be offense.
:Indeed, I didnt notice that. But its a template, so I can´t change it--ometzit<col> 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offence is a valid UK spelling. Ragzouken 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: How tha fuck does a womens nipple of her boobs erect that iz bullshit dude it's like dat all dayUser:Next Fiday
:You're an idiot.--203.70.89.148 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dat's Bullshit

message: The circumcised picture includes the sentence
"Note the abnormal bonding of penile skin due to circumcision."
yeh, thats a loada crap, the bond of penile skin to the glans in that photograph is purely unique to the person who'se picture is up there, its not due to circumcision.
It is not clear enough what this sentence refers to - can it be explained better? 68.46.96.38 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may refer to a 'skin bridge' that's just visible. It's really unnecessary (and a bit soapbox-ish) in this article, though, which is about erection, not possible complications of circumcision. Jakew 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing caption for circumcised penis picture 

message: ITT tiny penises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.89.148 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OBJECTION! --AnYoNe! 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I don't understand how to make a copyright tag for an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster maniac (talk • contribs) 11:44, June 14, 2007
:All existing copyright tags are listed here. To create a new tag, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Creating new tags. --zenohockey 18:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: Shankbone, I'm very happy for you that you're proud of your large penis, but try YouPorn.com next time.  There are already 2 example pics of erections, I don't think anyone needs to see yours or your anus.  --Judgeking 20:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - I *wish* it was my large penis.  This was a professional male model I spoke to about helping to illustrate articles.  Thanks for making assumptions I'm trying to get my big ol' unit out there, but as a photographer I prefer behind the scenes, thank you.  You can compare my photos on my User page to the photos found on my body parts gallery and you will note that they aren't particularly similar.  Regardless, it's a great illustration that replaced a PRE EXISTING poor quality photo.  We might could crop it some, but I see no reason why it shouldn't remain except for Puratanical sensibility.  --David Shankbone 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shankbone 

message: I think the fact that there are only two sentences devoted to clitoral erection is unjustified. If the process is similar to penis erection, then why not move the physiological processes to the section on erection in general and then be more specific on penis erection and on clitoral erection. Now it looks like penis erection is the standard. It is not quite clear which of the processes described in the penis section also apply to clitoral erection and I'm sure that there are also differences that are worth mentioning. For example, how about some info on the size of the erect clitoris? A picture of a clitoris would also be a good idea. Zora11 09:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clitoral erection 

message: "This is often referred to as boner shame"
Man, who writes this garbage? I would like to suggest that "often referred to" should call for a citation.
212.99.207.196 22:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This is often referred to as boner shame" 

message: I can post a picture of my erect penis  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.2 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if this is how we generally get images for sexual articles. 76.252.70.136 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there is no easier way to get open source images of the body than to take photos of yourself. It would be nice if the images were taken in a more "medical" kind of way, like the vitruvian man. JayKeaton 19:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Why is the only picture in this article of a circumcised penis? Not very neutral to include only a penis in an altered state. We should have one of an uncircumcised penis. 67.171.230.83 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken. There are only two pictures of a circumised penis. The other pictures merely have the foreskin retracted.Asarelah (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, now it's fixed, but when I posted, only circumcised ones were there. 67.171.230.83 (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circumcised picture only? 

message: All gone. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now they're baack. Must've been another glitch. 65.163.112.205 (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ALL PIXES GONE !!!!

message: If your going to add more photos, don't add anymore caucasian males, as we have enough pictures of that, as well pictures require a neutral background, with as much of the penis as exposed as possible, which means no clothing, as well as no hands on the penis in any way shape or form.Coldpower27 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Photos

message: I changed [this] because it's POV to state "little can be done" since it implies increasing size is desirable.  I added a "citation needed" flag because I'm under the impression surgeries of that type mostly or completely only affects flaccid penile size.  Also, I believe the entire paragraph is dubious.  We don't discuss the fixed size of any other adult organs, do we?  Even the breast article doesn't seem to mention size as a reason for plastic surgery. (!)  Blackworm (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of erect penises. 

message: the video doesn't show the best specimen to show a penis becoming erect. Yami (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what best specimen has to do with it, but I think it should be removed as well.  We don't show videos of other body functions on Wikipedia, such as clitoral erections (oddly not mentioned in this article), or urination...  Why a male erection (and, I'll note, an ejaculation, elsewhere on Wikipedia).  I'm all for depicting the subject without undue censorship, but I think videos of this type are better left to more specialized sources, such as medical sources, or porn.  Blackworm (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the video should be removed 

message: Would not anatomical drawings or diagrams work well enough as examples? There's so much squabbling over what photos should be used, whether they should be labelled as 'uncircumcised' or whatever, when none of this is at all integral to the content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casdious (talk • contribs) 03:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawings/diagrams? 

message: Erection (penis) appears to have been intended to split out a section of this article. It may be that this article should be split, but until someone's ready to do it all at once (following proper procedure by discussing it here, of course), I think the page should be merged back here. For one thing, having two nearly identical articles could potentially lead to confusion as people start editing them separately. --DocumentN (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erection (penis) has now been redirected back to Erection. This is a comparison of the two pages at the time of the merge; on close examination none of the differences really seemed worth merging. (I used copies because I don't know of an easier way to compare two different pages on Wikipedia.) --DocumentN (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You may not feel like screaming, but I do: THERE IS NO REASON TO SEEK CONSENSUS FOR AN UNCONTROVERSIAL MERGE. Help:Merging and moving pages#How to merge pages even specifically says so. The only reason I made the proposal was because I was hoping that somebody else would merge the pages for me. --DocumentN (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal