Talk:Male reproductive system/Archive 1

Males
Males are not only human; this article needs info on all other males as well. The current sections should be generalized to cover mammals and further sections added to cover other male reproductive systems. James 19:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Picture
Do people think we need a picture of a big, hard cock in the article? I think the cross-section is sufficient. WLU 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC) In medical terminology, one has to be able to trace so to say a drop of water to exiting, including the male reproductive and how/where the connections take place. It is nasty only if one intends it to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.122.10 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted a penis pic. I feel that the wikilink to the penis article is enough. If anyone disagrees, please state the reasoning.  Blue Rasberry  04:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Picture
Do you mean a photo?NO I should think not!A cross-section is already sufficient. 18:12 22 September 2007 (UTC)

biology
what are sertoli cells and where it located? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.163.103 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 1 December 2008

Fact Check
Despite being limited, the information contained in this article is correct. However, none of it referenced.

Male reproductive system (human)
The first paragraph gives a summary of the article and the general function of the organ. An obvious omission is a description of the functional role of “ejaculation.” In order to support the functional description provided, please consider the reference of: Doubilet, Benson, & Weisman, 2008, Your Developing Baby, Conception to Birth. Isbn: 0071488715

Picture
The provided picture is appropriate for the article subject. However, it needs to be opened in a new window in order to read the script.

External
The anatomy of the penis is well described and all of the links are functional. The term “cartilage” was added as a wiki link. The article should also discuss the role of the “foreskin” and perhaps the practice of circumcision. A citation is needed at end of this section; consider the text book of: Heffner & Schust, 2010, The Reproductive System at a Glance. isbn:1405194529

Internal
The internal anatomy is not well described. Perhaps this section should be divided into internal anatomy of the abdomen and internal anatomy of the testes. For the testes, a major omission was a description of the source of sperm, which are the Sertoli cells. Consider linking the image from Nature Medicine (http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n1/fig_tab/nm0100_16_F1.html). This should be followed by a link to the process of “spermatogenesis.” Furthermore, this section should also describe the function of the “Leydig cells” and “testosterone” production. For the abdominal anatomy, there should be a description of roles of the “prostate gland” for buffering vaginal pH, and the “cowpers gland” for producing lubricating mucus. Wiki links for “vas deferens” and “urethra” were added.

Other links
Consider including links to other mammalian and non-mammalian male sex organs, as well as diseases affecting the human male reproductive systems such as "testicular cancer" and "prostate cancer." For these topics consider the following links from the American Cancer Society for prostate (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/LRN/LRN_0.asp?dt=36) and testicular cancer (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?dt=41), respectively.

152.16.225.113 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Soren

"Male" Reproductive System?
I am wondering what to do about the state of all of the articles in this category of assuming people with these organs are male by default. This would not include agender, transgender, and other genderqueer people systemically, thus making the articles biased towards anti-genderqueer perspective by stating that only males can have these organs and/or factually inaccurate. I suggest a simple systematic rewrite towards the following (I would've WikiDragon'd it myself if most of the articles weren't locked):


 * Singular pronouns of "He", "him", "his" -> Epicene pronouns of singular "they", "them", "their", or perhaps modifying the instances where pronouns occur to be plural to side step the issue.
 * "Male reproductive system" -> "Biological male reproductive system"
 * "Man", "men", "male" "males" -> "Person", "people", "biological male", "biological males"

(cf. my proposal in female reproductive system discussion) YEloi (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Placement of human sexual diversity
YEloi, your comment that discussing the sexuality of agender, transgender, and other genderqueer people is relevant and important. Perhaps discussion of the diversity of human sexuality deserves more attention than to merely be represented here as a difference of symantics. Let's elevate the presentation of the diverse nature of human sexuality to it's own category within the Wikipedia schema that includes social, cultural, historical, psychological and other important perspectives.

As for your suggestion that the perspective of the articles as written, and more importantly, in this context, is biased and inaccurate, I agree. Most of the information presented here is incomplete and confusing at best. Proper placement within the overall Wikipedia schema, based on the aforementiond importance of human sexual diversity deserving a better prepared and more complete presentation, promises that it should be accurate and neutral.

For the presentation of reproduction discussed here, you must agree that in all life that perpetuates its' species by sexual reproduction rather by the formation of new individuals from a single individual without the involvement of gametes, presupposes that entities with the organs presented here are male by definition, not withstanding variation in development and alteration by human intervention.

Autoandragogist (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Testes
Men have testes, but in this article they are not mentioned.--Miguelferig (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the article to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 21:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Male reproductive system → Male Reproductive Anatomy (human) – I feel that the name of this article is misleading in terms of its content. As James pointed out sometime ago, the male reproductive system isn't restricted to human males, so an article of this name should contain a more well rounded treatment of male reproductive anatomy and physiology. Having this article name occupied by a discussion of human male anatomy additionally prevents editors from creating and users from finding content related to animal reproduction as a whole, which I feel limits the goals of the biology wikiProject.

Using this article title to describe male animal reproduction more broadly would also allow the information currently on the Sexual reproduction page to be moved to an article (i.e. this one) where it can be organized in a better way. Where the information is currently, it is displayed under the "Animal" section, which limits the headings and subheadings that can be used to visually divide the information. As a result, this portion of the Sexual reproduction article looks like a wall of text that is difficult to navigate and find information in.

I do see a need for this article and its contents seeing as how most Wikipedia users are human and therefore most interested in human anatomy. That is why I would like it moved to a more appropriate and specific title so that this space can be used to describe male anatomy more generally. Creigpat (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support animals may also be male, and most also have reproductive systems. Suggest Human male reproductive system or Human male reproductive anatomy instead (or Male human reproductive system or Male human reproductive anatomy)-- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per WP:MEDMOS. I just noted this here at WP:Anatomy, but, as was stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7, we commonly include an Other animals section in an anatomy article that is primarily about humans and only break that content out into its own article when the split is needed. Like WP:Spinout states, there is no need for haste. Per WP:Content fork, it is better to cover all aspects of a topic in one article unless a split is needed, instead of causing our readers to go to more than one article for that content. Indeed, if an anatomy topic that is about humans and other animals covers both, it is a more comprehensive article. And if splitting the content does happen, it should usually follow WP:Summary style; if this article is moved to indicate that it is about humans, instead of simply being expanded to include non-human animals and/or plants, it should be moved to Human male reproductive system, which is the title that it was at before Doc James moved it on September 3, 2014; similarly with regard to the Female reproductive system article (as seen here and here). I'll alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion., I would offer you a Welcome template, but, looking at your relatively few Wikipedia edits thus far, including the fact that you knew how to start a WP:Requested move, I can tell that you are not completely new to editing Wikipedia. You are somewhat new to editing Wikipedia; that is clear by the MOS:HEAD and WP:REFPUNCT issues at your sandbox. If you feel that you need a Welcome template, I will give you one. Someone is likely to post one to your user talk page regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:DISAMBIG. If there was enough content, I think this would be a good idea. However there isn't. So we needlessly separating the content, which I do not feel will help readers. A better option would be to create or add content so that readers can learn about the anatomy in other animals, and then expand this so that a split would make sense. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction. There is a very large amount of content on reproductive systems available in other animals. What about a merge to form Human reproductive system instead of two separate articles for males and females (which would point anyway to subarticles)? That would at least be consistent with the diaspora of other reproductive articles. To centralise discussion on the suite of articles, I'm starting a thread at WP:ANATOMY here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I replied here regarding LT910001 (Tom)'s change of mind on this matter; I understand where he is coming from on that, and explained my view. Flyer22 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Flyer22 and as there is no general equivalent article (nor should there be, but that's another matter). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the MOS we have a section at the bottom called "Other animals" that when it gets too big links out to "Male reproductive systems in other animals". We keep the main articles human centric as we are human. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia has an established bias for humans and against animals. This particular case brings no new arguments to overturn the established precedent in thousands of other articles.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not just about anatomy. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per the thorough and accurate analysis of Creigpat. This topic warrants it's own anatomy page called Male Reproductive Anatomy (human) or Human male reproductive anatomy. WP:MEDMOS is misinterpreted by several posters here: It states that an optional 'other animal section' is allowed, not mandatory. There is so much content on this topic in Wikipedia that it is hard to argue that we currently don't have enough text, let alone will never have enough text, for a separate article on the human male reproductive anatomy. The subject is large enough and important enough to have it's own page. It has to be clearly identifiable for readers as an article about human, and only human, anatomy. This is very important. It should therefore be in the title. The statement by Doc James above is not included in the MedMOS. Check the link and see for yourself. There are no naming conventions, they are up for discussion. And this is a case where it clearly makes sense to have the word human in the title of the article.-- Melody Lavender   20:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No misinterpretation of WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy on my part, and stating that several people above have misinterpreted it is a stretch. I'm certain that all of the editors in this thread know that Wikipedia Manual of Style (MOS) guidelines are not mandatory, though such guidelines are usually followed by very experienced Wikipedia editors. Doc James is obviously correct about us having an "Other animals" section in WP:MEDMOS; his point was that WP:MEDMOS shows that we treat medical topics, anatomy topics included, as "humans are primarily the topic of the main article" (when it makes sense to do so) and "we include an 'Other animals' section for non-human animals"; we might break that section out into its own article, keeping WP:Summary style in mind, when it warrants one. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not the slightest hint in the MedMOS that gives you a basis for the name change that was, again, performed without any, any discussion at all (on September 3rd, link further up in the discussion). In this specific case there seriously was not even the attempt to pretend to have a discussion, the page was simply moved. Flyer, saying that this is somehow covered by the MedMOS over and over again doesn't make it more true. It just isn't there. This is an attempt to evade the discussion about a naming convention by mass-moving articles while inaccurately citing MedMOS in the edit summary, and trying to create a precedent. It works: look at the statement above where user Raspberry says, oh, we have been against animal content for ever, let's have some more bias. I'm all for having good human anatomy content. But not at the expense of animal anatomy. There has to be room for both. Again: the content needs to be written for readers, and giving them an article about human anatomy but carefully deleting any hint that it's about the human anatomy (Doc James deleted the word human even from the first sentence during the stealth move of yet another article) makes no sense from an editorial perspective. Excluding animal content is against NPOV and trying to cover animal content in a general article is not good for the readers who need quality content on human anatomy, because given the way the project works, animal editors or newbies will add stuff about other animals into this mixture. -- Melody Lavender  05:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrong on various counts, as the vast majority of these matters have already been extensively debated at WP:Anatomy (including the second discussion I noted in my "06:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)" post above)...with the involvement of WP:Med editors as well. And no one above stated that there is no room for both human and non-human animal content; I and others in this thread have clearly stated that there is room for both. You simply don't like how we often go about that room. We are thinking of our readers when we title anatomy articles; WP:Primary topic is a part of that; there is no validly denying that the vast majority of our readers searching for an article titled Male reproductive system will be looking for content solely about humans. Having the Male reproductive system article mostly about humans with an Other animals section for non-human animal content (and perhaps a section for plants, though the Plant reproductive morphology article exists) until that content has its own Wikipedia article, as separate from the Male reproductive system article, does not take away from covering non-human animal content, just like having a Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals) article does not. Something tells me that you need to read WP:NPOV; being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. And if you read my reply to LT910001 (Tom)'s change of mind, noted above, I'm not exactly against his proposals. There should first be something to split before splitting; there should first be something to disambiguate before disambiguating, per WP:Disambiguation. Right now, there is no non-human animal content, or plant content, in the Male reproductive system article, and there is no Wikipedia article about the male reproductive system in non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose change of name. This article needs to be the first place that readers come to when looking for information on the male reproductive system, and a dominant portion of the material will be about the human reproductive system because that is the main topic of interest. But other related material about animals can be included, too, so the broad name is appropriate. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Our readers are human, and if anything we should create an animal article. And as Flyer22 says, this has been debated many times before. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 01:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No references
It is unfortunate that a high importance article has no references.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system in humans
This article significantly duplicates content in Development of the reproductive system. I propose this article's content is merged to Male reproductive system with a hatnote that redirects to Development of the reproductive system, which already contains most of this article's content Tom (LT) (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That it should be merged is made clear at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 9. Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)