Talk:Small penis rule/Archive 1

Small penis link
I don't know how to edit the main page but can someone please edit the link for 'small penis'. Right now it redirects to 'chinese people' this is absurd. — unsigned comment left by
 * You are right and I will address it. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now it links to "Micropenis", which is not really meant here. Maybe just remove the link? --92.216.24.131 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a stub
I noticed that there is no banner on this page, declaring it a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.206.118 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thinks it's awesome that this article is labeled a "stub".--64.121.41.204 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal validity
Does this "rule" actually work? I mean, seriously, if an author bases a character on a real person and says the character has a small penis, wouldn't the small penis claim be part of the libel rather than a defense? 24.214.230.66 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Hell, if the litigation target doesn't care about admitting having a small penis, you'd be screwed too. "Yes, I do have a small penis, so he WAS talking about me, i.e. I can claim libel." - 218.208.223.130 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Libel to defend libel?
Um, hate to break it to whoever created this article, but saying that the character has a small penis is just more libel, not a defence against libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.11.168 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a legal defense; it's a risk-reduction defense, in that it makes you less likely to be sued in the first place. Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2013
Small penis extensions are available for use by means of straps that attach prosthesis to short penis. Many men who experience natural redaction of penis length enjoy substantial reach for raging libedo in all contexts of happy masculine interaction and hubris during court proceedings and other planets of pitch and toss opportunism. Nor is it libelous to describe a small penis as "small" when compared with another penis such as that of a Blue Whale for comparison. It is not libelous to cite evidence "as is". One may even hold up a pinky finger as point for comparison and remark that the small penis in question is shorter than this upheld pinky finger... (be sure to display finger and offer to place it beside the organ of reference (turgid or not)to clearly establish comparative size. The truth will express in the flesh.

98.91.90.51 (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. gwickwire  talk editing 06:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

LBJ
He should be mentioned in the "See also" vis-à-vis his infamous "pig fucker" comment. I'd add it, but I'm a lowly IP editor and the article is semi-protected.184.145.42.19 (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017
To show the idea generalized to other circumstances, I'd like to add the following paragraph to the end:


 * The "small penis" is metaphorical and may be anything the subject does not wish to be associated with. A memorable example is found in the 2011 film The Help, which chronicles the writing of a book about the experiences of black maids in the Jim Crow American South.  Although the stories are anonymized, there is concern that the contributors will be recognized and retaliated against.  To protect them, one of the main contributors (Minny Jackson) volunteers the story of the "terrible awful thing" she did to privately humiliate her well-connected socialite ex-employer (Hilly Holbrook) so the latter will use her considerable influence to deny any connection between the book and her, anyone she knows, or the entire town of Jackson, Mississippi.

Feel free to tweak the wording; I'm more attached to the example than the phrasing. I think including the whole chocolate pie story would make it too long, but if you like it could be:


 * The "small penis" is metaphorical and may be anything the subject does not wish to be associated with. A memorable example is found in the 2011 film The Help, which chronicles the writing of a book about the experiences of black maids in the Jim Crow American South.  Although the stories are anonymized, there is concern that the contributors will be recognized and retaliated against.  To protect them, one of the main contributors (Minny Jackson) volunteers the story of the "terrible awful thing" she did to her ex-employer (Hilly Holbrook).  After firing Minny, the well-connected socialite Hilly vindictively claimed that it was for stealing, preventing Minny from finding another job.  Minny returned to ask for her job back, bringing a peace offering in the form of a chocolate pie which was a favorite of Hilly's.  After the latter had arrogantly offered a lower wage and eaten two slices, Minny revealed that her visit was a ruse: she had baked her own feces into the pie so that Hilly would literally "eat my shit".  Including this profoundly humiliating story ensures that Hilly will use her considerable influence to deny any connection between the book and her, anyone she knows, or the entire town of Jackson, Mississippi.

(Hopefully the tenses keep the various levels of storytelling straight.) 68.235.53.187 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is a request for an excessive level of plot detail from one fictional medium that does not significantly demonstrate the topic any better than the current example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I just thought it was a good example of the non-literal form.  I can also come up with a shorter version, if that matters:
 * The "small penis" is metaphorical and may be anything the subject does not wish to be associated with. In the 2011 film The Help, the authors of a book of stories by domestic servants protect their contributors from vengeful employers who recognize themselves by including a profoundly humiliating story about a well-connected socialite.  She instantly recognizes herself, but uses her influence to deny that the stories come from her social circle.
 * 68.235.53.187 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is a much better text addition. It clearly relates to the topic and extends the term in a meaningful way.  All it needs now is a reliable source to back it up.  The movie itself is not acceptable because, while your interpretation of the events shown on screen is very reasonable, it does take the viewer's recognition of what is happening to get its message across.  A review of the original novel or other such source would work, if you can find such.  Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Searching for reviews, I found that the scene is from the book (initially I couldn't find mention of it in the book, as I don't have a copy and the movie version was made famous by Saturday Night Live), but the description of the intended purpose at http://www.gradesaver.com/the-help/study-guide/summary-chapters-32-34 is not exactly a WP:RS.
 * https://unconcentratedjuice.blogspot.com/2011/03/terrible-awful-thing.html mentions the original "terrible awful", but not that it's used as insurance. https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Book-Reviews/2009/0304/the-help says even less.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103552.html doesn't mention it.  Bleah.  Stil looking... 68.235.53.187 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're certainly correct that the "gradesaver" site wouldn't be acceptable as a RS. If all else fails, a trip to the library might be in order to actually cite the book.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "trip to the library might be in order to actually cite the book": Er... how would that help? If the movie isn't a RS (because it's WP:PRIMARY), isn't the book unsuitable for exactly the same reason?  Don't I need to find a secondary source which makes the inference?  (Even though it's glaringly clear, and even stated explicitly in the original.) 68.235.53.187 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not forbidden but are usable with caution. If a thing is explicitly stated within a text, then that text can be used to support a statement in an article that the text says that thing. So, in this case, the novel can be cited to support a statement such as "Character A denied that Character B's book was based on Character A's family because of specific characteristic C." Such a citation is not analyzing or interpreting the original text.  What you may have trouble with is the original idea of tying the incident in the novel text to the small penis rule.  That would require a secondary source. I hope this helps.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018
Include the fact that Anne LaMott described the small penis rule in her 1994 book, Bird by Bird, BEFORE the Crowley/Crichton anecdote took place. 97.105.29.82 (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Discuss 22:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Propose deletion
This seems like a throwaway joke made by one person in a single paragraph of a single interview. Surely the most irrelevant article I have ever seen on here. This doesn't even pass the "two sources" rule because apparently nobody else has ever alleged the small penis "rule" exists.

The Crichton case is not even an example of the supposed rule and the writer there simply refers back to the initial article. The rule doesn't even really make sense as a concept. And there isn't a single example of it.

I don't know why the existence of this article annoys me so much, but there we go.

How is this article actually been up for 15 years. Why is it semi-protected. Why is it rated as a mid-importance law article. Why is the talk page longer than the entry. Why is the wikipedia entry longer than the actual sources. It is not even a thing.

81.111.45.250 (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I might be late but yeah, this page should definetly be deleted. I'm guessing the only reason it isn't is because it was just forgotten about. CheeseyHead (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I also thought of requesting a deletion, but it was mentioned in some academic studies. Seems to have potential. Skyshifter  talk  01:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)