Talk:Baculum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Baculum has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Does anyone known what the correct usage is? Penis bone or penile bone? Baculum or os penis? Or does it vary by species?-- The Anome 17:56, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The link "Adam's rib as an argument against evolution" does not actually contain any arguments against evolution. Link should be renamed.
Do we really need a picture that links to a sexual act in here when it's not even a real x-ray(conceptual art)-Bio2590 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. I removed it. Powers 18:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adam's "Rib"
I think the reference to Eve being created from Adam's penis should be removed. It is blatant conjecture, totally unsupported by Biblical evidence. The Hebrew word tsela (Strong's number 06763) appears 41 times in the Old Testament. Not even one of this word's occurances imply this salacious insinuation.
Symbolically, this word demonstrates God created Eve from Adam's side, where, as his "helper," she belongs (not from Adam's backside, so she must walk behind him; nor from his front -- below the belt or otherwise -- so she must walk before him; nor from the soles of his feet, so she must be tread upon).
Instead, it is important to consider that tsela appears in such passages as Genesis 25:12 and 14, referring to the Ark of the Covenant's sides. Therefore, in order for a person to believe Eve was manufactured from Adam's penis, you must also believe the Ark had a generative organ. If I am not mistaken, the Bible usually refers to male and female generative organs by using the words, "between the feet," in essence, between the legs. This conjecture is highly misleading and should be removed. Just my two cents. --207.239.111.117 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Suzanne
The notion that there was no Biblical Hebrew word for "penis" is simply phallacious. It may be true that there is "no known" word in Biblical Hebrew for "penis" but the assertion that there is none is ludicrous. Since stating this correctly takes all the weight out of the argument, I'm removing this statement entirely. ajax 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that the idea that men have 1 fewer ribs than women is silly and illogical and not a part of any doctrine I know. If you gave me a kidney, wouldn't all your children have both their kidneys still? Of course. The same goes for ribs. This should be removed from the article completely as irrelevant and false. 72.158.67.50 17:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not the goal of wikipedia to push our beliefs- but to make available in encyclopedic format what valid ideas others others have come up with. The explanatory myth proposed and published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics is just as well documented as the Explanatory "myth" proposed by Dawkins. Yes, the method of erection in humans is blood pressure, and it may have been a form of sexual selection, but the discussion is not closed. I believe that this reference was removed because it is offensive to conservative Christians who do not want to have their creation story analyzed in this manner and it is offensive to atheists who do not feel that any reference to religion in non-religious articles is appropriate. So... I returned it, because it is a reference that is documented and the only reason it was removed is because a minority found it offensive (see comments about woman coming from man's side above- full of theology) Wcbpolish (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not offensive, it's silly.--Praseprase (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge of Raccoon penis bone & Oosik
My primary concern is that the two articles above don't have enough merit to grow beyond stub status & could be better used to enrich this article (two new pictures, two new sections is basically my proposal. --mordicai. 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- No dissenters, so it is done. --mordicai. 20:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Luck?
Why this page categorised under luck? 72.211.139.189 (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
