Psychology Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality C‑class High‑importance

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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I propose this section to be revamped/removed. It appears to be either a joke, or either some highly POV phallus-obsession. Wanka 18:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we ought to find sources for some of them. I'm sure many (especially the more recent ones) have been discussed elsewhere. jdb ❋ (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Gherkin & Swiss Re are improper names. Might as well use Gherkin Ghosts&empties 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar and flag? Wow, a testament to some people's stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.214.179 (talk • contribs)

Maybe they meant "flagpole"? But I tend to see Wanka's point; this list seems kind of juvenile. JakeApple 16:10 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Russian Orthodox Church (House of Worship) should not be used as an example of a phallic symbol! Please correct, and replace with something else, another photo... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Godunov_ostrov.jpg/180px-Godunov_ostrov.jpg

Most Phallic building in the world? http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/phallic/winner.php Perhaps "phallic architecture" wouldn't be inappropriate Graldensblud 13:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saddened. Should I add this, or was it left out for a good reason? -Kasreyn 08:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. There already is an article on Priapus but it should be mentioned here and linked and all that good stuff. Go for it. Carptrash

Wouldn't vulval or vulvallic be the feminine word/equillivant for phallus/phallic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.17.26 (talk • contribs) 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Vulval or vaginal works, I believe. -Anonymous

• no there is another term used i cant think of it or find it at the moment though --voodoom 07:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Although it is debated, I believe the most-commonly accepted term is 'yonic', from 'yoni' for the female genetalia. If anyone is viewing this and has an opinion, please record it! If no one's got an argument, I think I'll start a page in the next couple of days. EDIT: Although it is unreferenced, further research reveals that Yoni lists 'yonic' as the equivalent. *shrug* PaladinWhite 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the term "cteis" may be what you are looking for. 72.213.144.148 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more modern stuff, some psychological dude probably said something about the fact that kids draw them all over other kids' pencilcases at school, I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find something interesting about modern examples. I don't really care if this article is rubbish or not so I cba to find anything about it/write it in, I just came on it for a laugh so dont expect me to do anything about its current state of poorness. Plebmonk 00:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Orthodox Church (House of Worship) should not be used as an example of a phallic symbol! Please correct! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3e/Godunov_ostrov.jpg/180px-Godunov_ostrov.jpg

Is this the appropriate article under which to discuss studies related to this topic? If that is of any interest to anyone, I can include some cited research on this subject.

HonorableMan 21:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article need more work. It look a friend's dialogue, not an encyclopedic article. Mostly the psychoanalysis issue. Moreover some remarks are childish. Need a idea, a reasoning. Anselmocisneros 21:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I agree withe the section, per wikipedia rules it must go. Please provide quotations of notable researchers who point out of abundance of phallic symbols in architecture. `'mikka 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is sentence 2 or 3 of the article. " Any object that visually resembles a penis or acts as a symbol for it may also be referred to as a phallus". To deny that the structures pictured below are not phallic because an expert has not said so seems ludicrous and absurd. I feel that the Phallic architecture section should be placed back in the article.

Agreed, this should go back in.Erikacornia 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carptrash 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a somewhat overlooked area in architectural history research, but I will see what I can do. Carptrash 23:57, 23 January

2007 (UTC)

However, these folks http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/phallic/nominees.php not only include the Nebraska State Capitol and Ypsilanti Water Tower in the competition, but the Tower actually wins, being named the most . . ..... well, check it out for yourself. Carptrash 00:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  Nebraska State Capitol
• 
  Cemetery monument
• 
  Ypsilanti Water Tower
• 
  Cemetery marker
• 
  The London "Gherkin" aka "Cristal Phallus", "Towering Innuendo"

The phallic shape is often used in architecture and frequently include detail that is almost alarming. For example Bertram Goodhue's Nebraska State Capitol contains at it's tip Lee Lawrie's statue of the Sower or Seed Thrower. Since this is exactly the place where the male "seed" exits the phallus it is difficult to imagine that this relationship was unrecognized to the architect and sculptor.

Other notable examples of blatantly phallic architecture include the Ypsilanti Water Tower and others.

The phallic firm can often be found in cemeteries, particularly from monuments of the Victorian Age.

For the origin of the phallic inuendo (Gherkin) of the Swiss Re building in London see 30 St Mary Axe.

I have removed the following sentence. I do not think it is appropriate to include every Internet joke and harassment on a living person Alex Bakharev 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Russian President Vladimir Putin called on women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric paper calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol." ^[1]

(minor edit to let reference display on talk page only. Keesiewonder ^talk 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Everyone could see that Alex Bakharev himself has deleted your new insertion of Putin Phallus in "In satire" section. Here is his edit and his comment [1] Current revision (23:16, 22 February 2007) (edit) (undo) Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→In satire - rm irrelevant). So again, Biophys just confirms he is doing nothing except false accusations campaign against me. He lied that Alex Bakharev endorsed him. Moreover you have inserted the same episode of Putin defamation in the article dedicated to Political Bloggers although Putin Phallus journalist wasn't a blogger. So you just seekin to defame Putin by any means vailable.Vlad fedorov 04:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who moved the Phallus section to the talk page (Talk:Phallus#Putin). Yes, I do think the information is out of place here. It would be quite appropriate in the article Vladimir Rakhmankov. Just imagine a Pig#Pasternak article devoted to much more notable citation by Semichastny. Or a long list of sections in Pederasty and Prostitution articles devoted to all celebrities ever mentioned in Internet with the correspondent epithet. I have heard Putin named Burationo,Klein Zaches (kroshka Tsakhes) or even the Louse that roared but never Phallos.

This discussion is out of place. But I think that in chapter Pig#Soviet_propaganda (not Pig#Pasternak - I am not doing Phallus#Putin) the citation by Semichastny would be completely appropriate as an example of Soviet propaganda.Biophys 05:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one keeps Dubyas nicknames in Bush article, there is an adequate policy in Putin's article, which is fair and right. If we would list their nicknames, more than the whole articles would be description of these.Vlad fedorov 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a comment under Anceint India that came from the user 59.144.33.179 stating their opinion on the subect. I would be tempted to revert it back, though I have no idea of the accuracy of any of the comments. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could divert a little attention to it? Fitz05 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lingam article has already been mercilessly vandalised by someone offended by the association of sexual symbolism with Hinduism, which is the opposite of every art history book I've ever read. I just rewrote the Indian section to reflect a more balanced approach. I wonder how long it will last?Erikacornia 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(used to be two cents)

It strikes me that the section on psychoanalysis does not mention Carl Jung and his popular "Man and His Symbols". His trust in common knowledge did not lead him to shy away from the imaginative association of certain oblong markers with male sexuality, interchangeing Phallus and Lingam in the process, as seemed to be good practice for a long time.

No doubt the efforts of the authors of Lingam are commendable, if only for highlighting the subtle difference between Linga and Lingam (the latter still the sanskrit wording one gathers from the introduction, and presumably the one used in the Kamasutra ?)

The subtility in Phallus is less obvious, for it is hard to understand how the object can be described as mimetic while at the same time illustration and the common view is kept confined to the exagerated Penis, thus banning the imaginative approach.

In the absence of reference to Jung the lapse is understandable. It is Jung's insight in the close association of mimesis (to symbolise, to make believe) and poesis (to fashion, to make, to create) that has made him the champion he is (over Freud) to a vast majority of workers in the fields of art history and creative imageing (poets, storytellers, painters and designers).

Of course there is also my own private view that will always prefer any other illustration over that of a buckle, since I aways associate that with the interests that will try to force me to wear it. Call it biased. (... and bring back phallic architecture into the article)

(Lunarian 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In Jean Chevalier, Alain Gheerbrant Dictionnaire des symboles Paris, Robert Lafont 1969/1984 the lemma on Phallus opens with the following:

"Symbol of generating force, source and channel of the semen as an active principle. Many symbols entail a phallic sense, for example the foot, the thumb, the dressed stone, the collumn, the tree, etc. Their representation is not forceably esoteric (see linga, omphalos) nor erotic: they simply signify the generating force, that is venerated under that form in many religions."

The lemma (1984) on tower notes that Danaë received the shower of gold while kept in a brazen tower.

Wiki's lemma on Danaë adds the cave as a place of conception, the reference to female fertility need not be spelled out. The association by students of art history of the symbol with the Renaissance grotto (nymphaeum) on the other hand needs to be brought to the attention of the worthy contributors to the classical project since it is of some importance to the history of architecture.

Note that the esoteric symbolism links to Linga in which case the cited dictionnary is for the greater part in line with the contributors to Wiki's Lingam. The confusion over the distinction between Linga and Lingam (ref Burton's translation of the Kamasutra) is to be regretted.

To name the numerous experts that contributed to the Dictionnaire is beyond the scope of this lines. There seems little doubt that many would with great interest look at the phenomenal symbolism of the Nebraska State Capitol.

(...and will you please bring back phallic architecture into the article...please? no? yes? )

(Lunarian 12:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

is there any image of that , looking more serious? means less like the SPARTAA guy petting his penis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.199.106 (talk) 01:56, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that this page has been vandalized quite frequently according to the page history. Should the admins be notified to semi-protect this page? Sandy of the CSARs (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

" From Apis sprang the race of unicorns, that ridiculous beast of ancient writ whose learned brow lengthened into a gleaming phallus, and from the unicorn by gradual stages was derived the late city-man of which Oswald Spengler speaks. And from the dead cock of this sad specimen arose the giant skyskraper with its express elevators and observation towers . We are the last decimal point of sexual calculation..."

Henry Miller in Tropic of Capricorn ISBN 0586020004 (Granada ed 1980 pg 177)

"It was a vision of crystal fairyland, a transformation scene in some Olympian pantomime-cruelly vast in scale, cruelly blue above, and cruelly white all round in the glare, with only here and there rock shadows black as jet, and dark fantastic pinnacles of dolomite jetting up from the slopes in phallic towers with streaming flanks of wetness in the sunshine"

Reginald Farrer in Rainbow Bridge (1921, on plant hunting in Tibet -quothed from Cadogan Books 1986 pg 83 ISBN 0946313482)

Lunarian (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Phallic Architecture ?

Why was the "India" section removed by an unsigned user? No justification was given and I propose that the section be reinstated immediately. Also, this page ought to be protected given the childish games people get up to with its contents. Denihilonihil (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offering Image:Soft-2.jpg.

The issues I have with this are: 1) The article is about Phallus. Most often phallus is used in the context of an object of some kind shaped generally like an erect penis. Secondarily it can refer to an erect penis itself, although this is a less common usage. Your image is simply of a male penis. As we have images on the penis article that document the secondary definition well, I think we should focus on the primary definition here. 2) We have a ready supply of erect male penis images on the commons site we could use for the article (See Image:Erect penis.JPG, Image:Human penis erect.jpg, Image:My non erect & erect penis.jpeg, Image:Human penis flaccid and erect.jpg, Image:Superficial dorsal vein of the penis (erect).png, Image:Erection Homme.jpg, Image:TypicalHumanPenisScale.jpg, Image:Pompeya erótica6.jpg, Image:Human penis07.jpg, Image:Illu repdt male erect.jpg, Image:Erection partial.jpg, Image:ErectPenis54.jpg, Image:Human penis.JPG, Image:Circumcised penis - Flacid and Erect - High Res.jpg, Image:Erection by David Shankbone.jpg) with new ones being added every day.

My preference would be for an image that matches the primary usage of Phallus as an object that is erect penis like or erect penis shaped. The current lede image, showing a phallic costume in a parade is pretty good, even if slightly varying from the/my ideal image preference. Perhaps Image:CandlePenis.jpg, Image:Lovci mamutu stylized figure.jpg, Image:Pranger-Bonn-Münsterplatz-052.JPG, Image:天狗の面鉄輪温泉PB060289.jpg, Image:Phallus ravenelii torrey.gif, Image:KdVDeadSpermBank.JPG, Image:Barrel man revealed.jpg, Image:Danxiashan yangyuanshi.jpg, Image:Nationalmuseet - Cophenaghne - Male figure.JPG or Image:DelosPhallus.jpg.

3) In your image Image:Soft-2.jpg the lighting is poor, and does not compete well with many of the other images, and is not erect.

Atom (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phallus has four definitions of Phallus, 2 of which chiefly describe it as another word for penis, the other 2 describe it as an image or carving of a penis. "an object of some kind shaped generally like an erect penis" is not given by any. In this context I can see no reason not to include a photograph of an erect penis, and will add Image:ErectPenis54.jpg.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I will remove it again. Please establish consensus before adding such clearly controversial images. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reasoning. I see nothing contraversial in adding a photograph of a phallus to an article on the phallus. I think the image I added was " an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position " in line with WP:GRATUITOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, please explain why you made a ridiculous claim that you added the image according to talk page discussions, based on you adding a single comment to a thread dating from 2008. And then explain how an image of a (semi?) erect penis can be 'non-sexual'. And then explain why you have developed this sudden obsession with spamming Wikipedia with pictures of the male genitalia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy the way you phrased that paragraph was confrontational (even noting the IP uer's comments on your talk page) and it won't achieve anything. Regarding the image I agree that there is no need for it and have removed it again. 93.96.148.42 according to WP:BRD, please don't put it back without a consensus being achieved here. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little context here may clarify. 93.96.148.42 is currently engaged in discussions regarding the adding of images of human genitalia to multiple articles (which he/she is of course entitled to discuss), and doing it in a distinctly confrontational manner (which isn't helpful). Such matters need to be settle by consensus, with due regard to Wikipedia policy, and not by per-emptive addition of what is clearly going to be controversial material, followed by edit-warring to include it. WP:BRD actually requires discussion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does clarify thanks for that, but we as experienced editors need to be setting the example and standard of what is expected. Regarding the image on this article, looks like the IP user has stopped adding it. Hence why I cited it :). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Can you make a coherent and concise arguments as to why this photograph of an erect penis is inappropriate on the page devoted to phallus which means erect penis. I see no consensus on this page in favour of the omission of such an illustration, but mention of unexplained (at least on the talk page, where such explanation should be made) deletion of it. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored and should be open to improvement and discussion. I meant non-sexual as written at WP:GRATUITOUS "but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive." 93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer? The topic 'Phallus' in the sense of meaning 'an erect penis' is covered elsewhere - in our human penis article for a start. The topic of this article is clearly the phallus as a cultural/symbolic object - and need not duplicate other articles. Actually, it shouldn't duplicate other articles, at this would make it a content fork. And with regard to the particular image you have chosen, it isn't exactly the best representation of the penis as a 'phallic' object anyway. Without wishing to malign the individual concerned, it appears to be either towards the lower end of the norms regarding length, or to be less-than-fully extended.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump thank you for engaging in discussion. I agree that the photograph I added is not the most phallic, but I was trying to avoid offense. It might be better to use http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HQ_SAM_CFE.jpg which shows an erect penis next to a flacid one, which, to me, minimises the sexual element, although it could be argued that the flacid penis is irrelevant to the article. You say that this article is about representations of the erect penis rather than the erect penis itself, and that adding a photographic representation of an erect penis would make a content fork. I argue that a photograph of an erect penis is relevant and helpful to the article on phallus because it a) depicts the subject of the article and b) provides a visual reference for the cultural and symbolic objects shown that derive from the phallus. There are more than enough photographs on wiki-commons to avoid duplication.

Sorry, but that image doesn't "[depict] the subject of the article". It depicts the subject of the article human penis. As for 'a visual reference' the article is already replete with images of the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump the sources say that one meaning of the phallus is erect penis. This article is about the phallus. There are currently no photographic representations of an erect human penis in this article, which is about representations of the penis. There is no consensus on this page for this omission, and your argument fails to explain why such an omission should be made.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fun to add provocative images to articles, but there is no shortage of dick pics on the Internet (nor at Wikipedia), so the issue boils down to what material would be WP:DUE for an encyclopedic article. The proposal to add "look at my erection" pictures to this article fails that last point (my characterization of the picture refers to the genre, not to any editor here). Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the erect penis, and representations of the erect penis so a photographic representation of a penis is WP:DUE. There are no shortage of images of anything on the internet, so your argument rests on unstated opposition to images of penis's. The representation I have suggested adding does not show the face of the person, so I do not see how "look at my erection" applies. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are already images of penises in the article, there is no reason to add a real penis to that. As has already been stated Wikipedia has an article on the Human penis so we don't need to duplicate it. I don't know how much clearer we can make that. In any case there is a consensus against adding it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored some material that was deleted by unsigned users with no explanations, such as this edit and this one. I also added back the architecture section with a ref tag. It's unreferenced, but so is a lot of other material in this article and it is interesting (I'm surprised the Washington monument was not included). that's all I plan to do to this article, as I followed a broken link to get here and tracked it down to an unexplained deletion. I have also identified a user who needs to be blocked, and I will make the appropriate report. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the first post in this discussion (January 2006), I suggest the removal of the architecture section which is heavily under-sourced and leans more towards personal pontification - it's hardly encyclopaedic material. (10 May 2010) User:Uq —Preceding undated comment added 23:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I have restored material deleted by an unsigned user. Looking at the editor's history, it appears that he is systematically deleting material he believes is detrimental to India's image. He has been deleting this material for at least two years. If you are that user, do not delete material without discussion. If it is unreferenced, tag it as such, but don't delete it. If you continue, we will go to the noticeboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a photographic image of an erect penis appropriate in this article about the erect penis, and representations of the erect penis? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:03, July 21, 2012‎ (UTC)

• Yes A photograph conveys information that it is impossible to convey verbally that aids understanding of the article. There are no current images in the article that accurately depict an erect penis. A photograph also provides a context for the representations of an erect penis in the article. Photographs were present in the article until removed without discussion.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED includes "However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content".93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a malformed RfC, based on a loaded question, and should be closed as such. We already have penis and human penis articles, and to suggest that the subject matter of this article is "the erect penis" is to imply that it is a content fork, whereas it is clearly nothing of the kind. The subject matter of this article is 'the phallus' as a cultural/symbolic object, as represented in art/material culture. Any attempt to broaden its scope in the way proposed can only lead to the article's deletion. As for WP:NOTCENSORED, I'd ask 93.96.148.42 to stop being such a dickhead. That we have a policy that states (somewhat misleadingly in my opinion) that we don't exclude material on the grounds of censorship is never, as the policy itself makes abundantly clear, a reason in of itself to include material. If 93.96.148.42 wishes for policy to be revised to enable off-topic pictures of human genitalia to be added to whatever article he/she wants, on the basis that it is supposedly 'censorship' to do otherwise, this isn't the place to do it. Until then, it is for those wishing to include material to justify it, and to do so on better grounds than offered here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph of an erect penis is relevant to an article on the erect penis as represented in art/material culture. I do not understand your deletion argument. This article is also concerned with psycho-analytical theory. Phallus means erect penis. This is relevant, as someone looking for phallus is unlikely to be shocked by a photograph of an erect penis. Erect penis is covered in both Human penis and Erection. There is no reason why there should not be a short section on the erect penis here, linking to the Erection article- this does not create a content fork, and would put the rest of the material in context.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add the following section , but it has been deleted. I think that it should be included as it is a documented meaning of phallus, and omitting it may cause confusion. Medical Meaning In medicine phallus is used to describe the penis. It is also used to describe the sexually undifferentiated tissue in an embryo that becomes the penis or clitoris^[1], which is technically described as the first embryonic rudiment, or primordium, of the vertebrate penis or clitoris that develops from the genital tubercle.^[2][3]" 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. If you are thinking of contributing, some study of scholarly books (secondary sources) will be required. We do not add appealing factoids gleaned from online dictionaries or photo galleries. Johnuniq (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the references- they are to dictionaries published by respected publishers- The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary, Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health, and Merriam-Webster. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Etymology section is sourced to an online dictionary.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time I have added a link to Primordial phallus at the top of the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A feature of a problem editor is that they read only what they want in the message they reply to (see the "secondary sources" part). I never suggested the dictionary was not a reliable source as far as a dictionary goes. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage with the discussion. Tertiary sources such as dictionaries are acceptable sources. The information was previously in the article, was removed without discussion, and is sourced. Why do you object to this information being included in this article?93.96.148.42 (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are:

• Medical Dictionary for Health

1. penis.
2. a representation of the penis.
3. the primordium of the penis or clitoris that develops from the genital tubercle.

• Merriam-Webster

1. penis
2. the first embryonic rudiment of the vertebrate penis or clitoris

• The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary

1. The penis.
2. The sexually undifferentiated tissue in an embryo that becomes the penis or clitoris.
3. The immature penis considered in psychoanalysis as the libidinal object of infantile sexuality in the male.

The article's assertion that "phallus" means erect penis is unsourced (as is most of the first half of the article), and these dictionary definitions seem to contradict that assertion, and do include the development meaning. On that basis, unless someone presents a strong source to support the article's present definition, I'm happy to rely on these dictionaries. I haven't searched for other sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Primordial phallus be re-merged into phallus. I think that the content in the Primordial phallus article can easily be explained in the context of phallus, and the phallus article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Primordial phallus will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Since Primordial phallus was seperated from phallus without discussion in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phallus&diff=175521305&oldid=175167958) the article has failed to grow, and the wikilink had even disappeared from this page.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. This article is about one thing, and the other article is about another. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. To me they seem intimately connected.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger. The first article is a stub about the embryonic development of sexual organs in utero. The second is an article about symbology. They are only tangentially related and the original separation of the two articles (linked only by name and not by content) was correct. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This text currently appears at the top of the article. It is wrong. This article is about the erect penis, not male erections. This needs to be corrected, but anti-IP censorship prevents me from doing so.93.96.148.42 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article is not about the erect penis. It is about symbolic representations of the erect penis and their significance. It's correct to redirect people seeking a more physiological discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those dictionary definitions just say "penis." Can someone point me to a definition that prescribes "erect" please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...And if the article is in any way about the subject as defined by these dictionary definitions, it is a content fork of penis and/or human penis, and must be deleted or merged into the relevant article(s), per policy. We do not allow content forks (and this is not a dictionary). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Fair enough. Nevertheless, the lead should, in my opinion, mention the other uses of the term; and I'd still like to see a citation confirming the necessity of "erect." But content fork? No. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should summarise the article content. There is already a hatnote that makes clear what the article is about. We don't need to say the same thing twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP, do you see the point being made here, that primordial phallus, a stage in the development of the (human?) penis/clitoris, belongs in its own article or one that addresses the development of genitalia, and this article isn't about that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]