Talk:Penis: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

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.

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.

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]

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]

You are quite right Ludichris. However, there have been some good faith edits in between now and when Autisticeditor 20 messed the page up, so we must manual go through his edits and add the missing information back. This is quite a tedious affair so I fear that it will take quite some time. Easternsahara (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. Yeah, I don’t understand why he thought streamlining things with summarization and redacting information was the best call. Like, I understand the benefit of summarizing, but one should want to retain the details, and if not, list them elsewhere. But they were just eliminated altogether.

Indeed, quite. Yeah, like I said, a lot of people made good contributions or rewrites. Hell, I’m sure he did some too. But taking away details should be a last resort in a website dedicated to preserving and disseminating information.

Thank you. I wish everyone the best of luck 🙂 Ludichris1 (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am overwhelmed with attempting to fix this vandalism but I agree it’s a good idea to fix. Specifically most of the massive removals on 3 feb 2024 should be undone section by section. GlowingLava (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all the penises here are animals, and i get the feeling most people studying penises mean to see the human variety of them — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! If this is not The Puritan Wikipedia, then a photo of a mid-sized non-erect and unaltered (i.e. natural, i.e. uncircumcised) human penis is a must-have!

The redirect Penes has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 5 § Penes until a consensus is reached. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Short penis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 22 § Short penis until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 16:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]