Talk:Penis enlargement

Amputation??

From the article: "...blood trapped in the penis can make removal of the ring impossible without emergency intervention such as amputation or sawing the ring off." -- Amputating what? the penis?!? It sounds sort of like the old vietnam war line -- "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Can the person who wrote this please clarify what the hell gets amputated?

Clamping Is Not Jelqing

Anybody who knows anything about penile exercises knows that clamping and jelqing should be in two different sections. Clamping involves a device and is for advanced users. Jelqing requires nothing but your hands and is for beginners and beyond. It's like putting the push-up in the same section as mountain climbing.

Also, I second the fact that people need to stop removing legitimate information. There have been surveys, studies, and even books written about the subject - but they all get removed by extra-paranoid wiki editors. If honest information can't surface on wikipedia, the world's leading open information source, then where can it surface?

STOP REMOVING LEGITIMATE INFORMATION

Dr. Laurence A. Levine is a top Urologist and is at Rush University Medical Center. He has written a case study (link here) on how traction can treat Peyronie's Disease and in the course of that, increase the size of the penis. Editors should read the case study before assuming it is spam or something of that nature. There are no commercial links on Blackwell Synergy which is a publisher of medical case studies. Allow users to provide information that validates things and provides useful data. Again, editors should read before removing this reference. Immediate removal just shows editors don't care about the content.

This page and the information within it makes it seem as if major pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer own Wikipedia. There are a ton of non-factual details and plain hearsay, based on a number of myths in terms of penis enlargement itself. I have personally used a device and am incredibly satisfied with the results I have seen, yet the editors of this page refuse to allow anyone to provide any real facts and figures to support that.

Are all products in this industry full of "fecal matter"? Absolutely not.

Once again the editors of this page have shown through immediate removal that they could care less about the actual truth, and care more about keeping the page just how they like. It is a downright shame at this point. Other companies have provided full blown clinical studies with undeniable proof about the safety and quality of their products, however no one can ever link to those details. Even though they are far more variable than half of the content on this page.

It is an utter shame that Wikipedia has come to this, all in the name of protecting from "spam" which is a meaningless theory considering wikipedia has "no-follow" status for its links.

It is an utter shame that people still think that Wikipedia is a vehicle to promote their website. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That is not my website. I simply found a relating article that was not promotional, and related to the topic at hand. The portion of the content that discusses "fecal matter" does not even have an appropriate citation or any clinical/research data to back it up.

---

This article currently states: "At present, there is no proof of any non-surgical technique that permanently increases either the thickness or length of a normal penis." I think there is some confusion about how to handle information that is not totally proven. Penile traction therapy has been shown to produce a small, but long-lasting, improvement in penis size in men with Peyronie's disease. This has been shown by multiple academic, peer-reviewed sources. Editors might question the honesty of the study authors, but they cannot just dismiss mounting data. It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to do that.

The way to handle uncertain but meaningful data is to write to the uncertainty. For example, instead of saying "there is no proof" the article could say "there is limited evidence for men with Peyronie's" or "there is only debatable evidence" and then explain both the evidence and the reason why that evidence is uncertain. To say "there is no proof" gives the implication that all such claims are just pure hogwash, and this is not accurate. I understand Wikipedia's desire to be conservative in its approach, but when that descends to the point of misleading readers, it is being taken too far.

If there is enough evidence to suspect that one non-surgical treatment method works in a subset of men (with a small effect size) then the article should relate both the information and the reason why the information is not at the level of absolute proof.

Why is this important, you ask? Simple - men concerned about penis size (especially those who have lost size to Peyronie's disease) are reading both the wikipedia article and many other articles from legitimate sources, and concluding that since PTT works somewhat for increasing penis size in men with Peyronie's, it might also work for them. Men without Peyronie's might reach the same conclusion. When they see that wikipedia ignores a key piece of information that widely available from other sources, they conclude that Wikipedia is simply unreliable and is providing outdated information.

Again, it is not the job of the editors to exclude important information and thus cause the article to be misleading. If there is legitimate scientific evidence that is very suggestive, but not proof, then include that information and write to its uncertainty. This is a basic principle in scientific writing, academic writing, emergency communication, and many other fields.

How editings this article?

I'm have unique information that will be useful, how edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNickNameSorry (talk • contribs) 10:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

If you have "unique information" then Wikipedia is not really the place to publish it. Wikipedia only allows published, and verifiable information. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

Please add below photo in this page .

File:Incubustraction.jpg

Painless rubber airbag type traction device device.

Shigeo Ami (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 14:25, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

We are a medical clinic who recommend the traction device pictured. A clinical study has been documented in regards to Peyronies disease and men with short penises and would be a useful citation for the "Traction" section - https://www.phallosan.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Phallosan-Clinical-Study.pdf Bondimedical3 (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)