` I'm not clear on your point here. The etymology of the word phallos doesn't determine or limit what the word phallus means in contemporary English. The vast majority of scientific terms are built from Greek and Latin roots. The question is article scope. If you do just a general Google books search on ``phallus``, you get a number of works from the humanities and the psychoanalytical tradition that treat the phallus as a form of symbology (these disciplines are connected through the Freudian and Lacanian recourse to classical mythology), as well as books that have the physiological meaning, including my favorite about ostrich phalluses. But how does it serve readers to conflate the two topics of physiology and symbology? The sources and methodology of these two uses are utterly different. They don't belong in the same article. For instance, in the section on ``phallic sexuality`` in the article ``Sexuality in ancient Rome``, it would be off-topic to provide a physiological diagram of the erectile functions of the penis, or a photograph of a penis. This has nothing to do with ``censorship,`` as other images in the article make plain, but with article scope. The physiological terminology with its attendant diagrams or photos belongs in one article, and the treatment of symbology and cultural constructions of the phallus in the other. Why is this a problem? That said, there is a massive amount of scholarship available on the symbology of the phallus, including feminist interpretations, and the article makes next to no use of it.   `