Talk:Penis

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Penis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 3 months

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the penis.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1:I have an issue with a picture on this article.

A1: You can post a message on this page about your concern. If you add or remove a photograph from the article, do not be surprised if someone else undoes your edit within hours. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. However from an editorial standpoint, debate about the inclusion or exclusion of certain pictures (or types of pictures) is a permanent fixture of this talk page.

Q2: I have an issue with a certain type of penis not being represented in photographs on this article.

A2: See answer to previous question.

Q3: I would like to upload a picture of my penis.

A3: Unfortunately, the realities of supply and demand are not in your favor. There is a large supply of Wikipedia editors willing to photograph their penis in the name of science. However, the demand is much lower. If you feel that your penis is more deserving of placement on the article page, you are free to make your case below.

Animal anatomy High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Men's Issues High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Ben Blatt (2014-01-08). "Wikipedia's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present". Slate.
Brian VanHooker (6 April 2022). "WHOSE DICK IS THAT ON THE WIKIPEDIA 'PENIS' PAGE?". MEL Magazine.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Please remove creationist language

Duck's penises aren't "designed". 86.31.178.164 (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done cyclopia ^speak! 10:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

God is real 50.38.69.203 (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do humans have penises?

The only current mention of humans in the article is a sentence that says humans do not have a baculum. It might also be worth mentioning somewhere that humans have penises (usually one per male human and an average of about one per two humans, if I understand correctly). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are placental mammals. Via the transitive property, they are already adequately covered here. Feel free to add a "See also" for Human reproductive system or similar, however. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that most people have terms like placental mammals (and transitive property) in their everyday vocabulary. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated lead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead photo size difference

Very odd that I was accused of "making the photo too large" when I was actually shrinking it on my copy of the page, by a significant margin. (It originally appeared at, I believe, 495px width - the preview width - for me.) I'm fine with the current size but wanted to make @Cyclopia: and others aware. It's probably a browser rendering difference when no size parameter is supplied. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral Point of View"

Don't seem biased to either a creationist or evolutionary point of view. We interpret the world through our worldviews, people! 50.38.69.203 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is long established fact and creationism is a religious belief. There are a zillion religions, and we do not give them equal time in every article just because someone believes them. GMG ^talk 19:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, macroevolution is a well-supported theory while microevolution is long established fact. Your point otherwise holds. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean...if the alternative is "a god waved their magic wand" then the argument about the differences within evolution isn't really important. GMG ^talk 23:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, we're getting off topic here anyway. All but the most conservative of Creationists see no conflict between creation and evolution. But I digress. The point remains that the article needs no change. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make the page informative again

Last year, Autisticeditor 20 (a banned user, mind you) removed a huge portion of useful and vital information regarding the page in 2024 in particular, and yet it's largely gone unchecked. Just look at all the times where it shows thousands of characters removed. Compare this page in...say... 2023 to what it is now. It looks like a "Penises for Dummies" or some Simple Wikipedia article, not because of anything new people have added or rewritten per se, but because of how much has been removed, and yet this is an important article for biology on the encyclopedia of the internet. Too much has been removed or shortened for...whose sake? Whose? Do we not go to Wikipedia to deep dive, not surface float? I'm no editor, I haven't made an edit since 2013, but very sad by what I see here. Please, will some editors please stand up? Ludichris1 (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]