Talk:Human penis size/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1001/archpedi.1943.02010160019003 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 218.208.232.237, 5 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

218.208.232.237 (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Image - Possible NPOV Violation

By showing only circumcised penises i believe this article constitutes a violation of the NPOV policy by suggesting that circumcised penises are normal. For the vast majority of the world they are't, and in fact statistically for English speaking countries they are not (anymore). Images of both should be shown, maybe even find some statistics that show whether or not there is a difference in average length between "cut" and "uncut" 173.18.214.8 (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a bit stretching it. I'll restore the pic until a consensus is reached. JerseyShore223 (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the penis is uncircumcised until molested by lunatics. 86.44.152.106 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture was there to illustrate the variation in human penis size, and thats what the article is about. If the "owners" of these penises are circumcised or not is negligible. This has nothing to do with NPOV, nothing is claimed here. And last but not least: why would there be a difference in average length between "cut" and "uncut"?? If you count the foreskin, than yes, the uncut will be longer. But isn't that trivial?--Lamilli (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the image does not belong here at all. The article isn't about "variations in penis size". If it was, it would be the perfect image. The article deals with human penis size in general, including subjects such as enlargement, perception, condom use, measuring, development over age etc. I think the article is better without it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This article does have a Variance in penis size section, and a well made image comparing sizes and showing clinical methods of measurement would be useful, but the image in question, a collage with varying perspectives, is not beneficial to the article. -- 110.49.241.13 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Extreme Bias...

I am guessing it is because it would be considered racist but there is a difference in average size amongst races. There has been numerous studies that contradict the statements of article. The authors simply decided to ignore the other research to promote the concept of human equality... Based on my observations of the research of race and size, there is virtually equal range in between each race however the average and median differ significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.182 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, every SCIENTIFIC study on penis size says differences among races are grossly exagerrated and essentially none exists. Your opening sentence is grammatically flawed and you cite no sources. Please don't waste our time any further with old wives tales.

Flaccid or erect?

In regards to Human_penis_size#Studies_on_penis_size, the 'other source' gives stats for soft and erect. The averages given to start off this section only contain one set of statistics though. Is it fair to assume these are erect values or could they possibly be flaccid ones? I'm not sure what to think, I'm just going by how it says 1.54 diameter whereas the pair gave 1.5 while erect, so it would be more similar that way and explain the higher sizes. DB (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jtmoy19607, 30 May 2011

I posted this in the talk section of human penis size also. I am new to editing wikipedia...but I want to get the word out on this article and link.

"Fear of shrinking of the penis in folklore have led to a type of mass hysteria called penis panic, though the penis legitimately can shrink in size due to scar tissue formation in the penis from a medical condition called Peyronie's disease."

first note here is that I can't edit on semi-protected pages so i am commenting here and hoping someone else will post. there are other things that can legitimately shrink penis size, such as anti-hormone therapy. here is the link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162022

I had this happened to me when I stopped cold on steroids, aggain I am not saying that steroids shrink the penis, since they just replace exogenous testosterone with endogenous testosterone. but what I am saying is a massive sudden decrease in LH and testosterone can cause penile shrinkage and yes the prostate cancer patients did undergo radiation, but read the article again. that was 7 months into treatment by then they had already lost 4 cm. of 1 and half inches. sorry to disappoint you, but it is a fact that suppression of LH and no testosterone replacement can shrink the penis and does. I feel this should be posted, but I am not a good enough user yet to post it.

to also make my case for putting this in human penis size. We can't say this about chemical or environmental endocrine disruptors "Both Polychlorinated biphenylPCBs and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size" and then ignore hormonal endocrine disruptors, yes, they interfere during early development, and not during adults, but that is probably because it isn't a high enough dosage of chemical or environmental disruptors, the LH disruptors (leuprolide acetate or goserelin) are potent and crash testosterone levels, very few things do this to adult men, even pituitary tumors will slowly decrease LH and testosterone and not crash them like LH agonists will. My point is you can't say these endocrine disruptors interfere with penis size and then say other endocrine disruption does not.

please contact me with any questions 

Jtmoy19607 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I have done the bit referenced to the University of Ankara, I know little about the subject so have left the rest for someone who is more informed.

Can you provide some reliable sources for the other claims? — Bility (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jtmoy19607, 31 May 2011

Fear of shrinking of the penis in folklore have led to a type of mass hysteria called penis panic, though the penis legitimately can shrink in size due to scar tissue formation in the penis from a medical condition called Peyronie's disease. The penis has also been shown to shrink due to the decreasing levels of Luteinizing hormone and testosterone as a result of treatment for prostate cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162022 The androgen suppression was done by the use of the anti-androgen Bicalutamide for 10 days followed by a luteinizing hormone releasing agonist and after 6 months of this the average patient's stretched penile's length lost 3.5 cm, well over an inch. A month later, while testosterone was still suppressed, radiation was added to the treatment possibly increasing the shrinkage more. After 18 months of the combination of anti-androgen treatment and radiation, stretched penile length changed from 14.2 cm to 8.6 cm. So, it appears that a quick suppression of endogenous testosterone without replacing it with external testosterone will lead to shrinkage. It is important to note the quick drop in androgen and not the slow drop that occurs over a lifetime. Jtmoy19607 (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) personal note, this will help me with my medical treatment.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--wintonian ^talk 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by reliable sources as NIH is reliable...but it was also published in the journal of urology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmoy19607 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/MensHlth/Penis/Penile_Length_Changes_in_Men_Treated_with_Androgen_Suppression_Plus_Radiation_Therapy_for_Local_or_Locally_Advanced_Prostate_Cancer.pdf

Edit request from 190.159.187.70, 7 June 2011

Colombia is mispelt as "Columbia" in the Eduardo Gomez's chart, the source clearly makes this mistake but both sources seem to refer to the country. --190.159.187.70 (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.Can't see this in the article - Happysailor ^(Talk) 21:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The chart seemed to be spam, and it was subsequently removed by another user. [1] Thanks anyway. --190.157.238.103 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

In the section 'Historical Perceptions' the word "barbarian" should be changed to "foreigner." In Ancient Greece the word barbarian simply meant non-Greek & did not carry the same connotations as it does today. The word "foreigner" is therefore more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.186.30 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done You cannot change words used in a direct quote. Furthermore it's a modern source anyway. However I have linked to the article so people can get a better idea of what the word means in that context if they aren't aware. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Typo

I don't know how to correct a typo on a semi-protected article, so I'll just post it here and hope that someone with administrative rights can correct it.

Under Variance in penis size > Environmental influence on penis size, the sentence

Both Polychlorinated biphenylPCBs and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size.

should be

Both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the plasticizer DEHP have been associated with smaller penis size. --128.59.46.218 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Or this:

Both polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the plasticizer di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) have been associated with smaller penis size.

Fixed. I replaced the typo with just "PCBs", and made it a link to the page that expands it. Joule36e5 (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit

A 2007 study by University of Ankara, Faculty of Medicine has found that penile size my decrease as a result of some hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiation therapy.

It should read: A 2007 study by University of Ankara, Faculty of Medicine has found that penile size may decrease as a result of some hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiation therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htennyson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In some studies i read about bone-pressed length - which seems logical as it is the only method to messure guys with some fat on the pubic bone. It is simply measuring on top of the penis (not the side or under the penis) - pressed to the pubic bone. For example i read that Lifestyle did it like that.

Penis size and size of other body parts

The current section on this is weak, and would be strengthened by including the information contained in the following reputable secondary source, or going back to the research referenced there: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-finger-ratio-penis-length-20110704,0,7466505.story 24.205.76.240 (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

"A 2007 study by University of Ankara, Faculty of Medicine has found that penile size my decrease as a result of some hormonal therapy combined with external beam radiation therapy." It should be "may", I think. Sam113101 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for catching this. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

List of penis size between countries

I found on few websites the list of penis size (length) by countries. Can I put it here? Those websites are reliable source. --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are notable and reliable, try it. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 10:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts from published sources

A number of excerpts from the scientific literature that may be of general interest, addressing comparative genitalia sizes, may be found in a discussion of Sexual Organs and Heterochronic Theory [2]. (However, this website itself is not suitable for WP:CITE; authoritative references would need to be found in the original publications.) Milkunderwood (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How is measurement taken?

Nowhere is it mentioned how a measuremet is taken. I suspect that many come here to see how their own measurment compares to the average. Is there a medical "standard procedure"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.163.44.102 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/02/on_the_matter_of_size.html

Milkunderwood (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaty penis vs blood filled penis

Is this just a myth? Found this: A so-called „meaty penis“ does not grow significantly during an erection and its size remains almost the same. During an erection, a so-called „blood filled penis“ is much larger than in its non-erect state. A penis is classified as a „meaty penis“ when it only grows up to 1.9 times during an erection, i.e. barely doubles in length. If the penis more than doubles (original length times 2) during an erection, it is classified as a „blood filled penis“. --188.108.112.210 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Upon initial inspection, those appear to be just terms that classify the growth in size of the penis during erection. As for whether what is suggested by the terms' titles - i.e. that such penises are necessarily 'meaty' or 'blood-filled' relative to other penises - is true, that's a good question. Is there a reliable study? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

In the second paragraph of the introduction it says "Circumcised men are on average 8 millimeters shorter in terms of erect length compared to their intact counterparts," and it gives a source which is an exert from a book. But when researched, there are sources that beg the differ on that subject, that there is no adverse effect on size. Here's one of many sources. http://www.circinfo.net/Circumcision_and_penis_length.html

Do you have a link to any of these sources that differ? The reasoning behind the claim is valid, and I've personally checked the source listed in the book. Rip-Saw (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perceptions

In the section "Among gay men", the science is incorrect. It is said, "One potential explanation given is a difference in the exposure to androgen hormones in the developing embryo." It has been suggested in scientific literature that deprivation of androgen may lead to homosexual behavior, while exposure to androgen leads to the development of male features. Thus, the article cited is not referring specifically to androgen when it says "'It might have something to do with prenatal hormones that affect the structure and size of genitalia and certain structures of the brain that ultimately affect sexual orientation...'". Second, the article cited does not address whether the difference is statistically significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y26Z3 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Here is one article that addresses the role of androgen on reproductive development, The effect of dihydrotestosterone exposure during or prior to the masculinization programming window on reproductive development in male and female rats.(Y26Z3 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

I think the following should be removed.

I think this statement-For women, width rather than length is a more important factor of sexual stimulation- should be removed. I know it has a source, but the way the statement is worded makes it sound like that it is absolute gospel truth that all females prefer width over length. Also the problem I see with the source is that in the study they only used 50 women. I know there is no way to ask every woman on the planet if they prefer width over length, so maybe the statement should be removed altogether, or maybe it should be worded to say something along the lines of- In 2001, a study at the University of Texas-Pan American asked 50 sexually active female students if they prefered width over length, with the results being 45 of the 50 reported width was more important. Actually I think the whole statement that women prefer width over length should be removed since there will never be a definite answer on this. Can you imagine if the same thing was said on a page about the female vagina? For example- For men, a wider vagina is a more important factor of sexual stimulation. Can you see how ridiculous that sounds? Please someone just remove the entire statement about women preferring width. I cannot remove it because the article is locked.--BeckiGreen (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

:-) Becki, the entire article - and this being just one of many such - reads as though it is written by obsessed adolescent boys. As far as I can determine, qualified sexologists and urologists scrupulously stay away from articles like this. It probably isn't worth bothering with trying to improve it. Frankly, this is undoubtedly a more useful article - which also addresses your hypothetical. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think wikipedia policy on sources states that if a source is reliable, whatever content is found in it can be used in the article even if not true, per the "verifiability, not truth" rule. Much of the article is rampant editorializing, it would be better if the history of anthropologists in the eighteenth century and their studies on penis size be inlcuded in the article, just other discredited theories about human skull measurements are available at the articles on human races etc. There were serious anthropologists who studied the topic of race and penis size 100 years ago and their theories are disproven today like the theories on race and skull size.Uweido (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be copyright free material available from nineteenth century anthropologist's studies on penis size, They can be quoted in the article. I will return to this subject later.Uweido (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While talking about the perceptions "among gay men", I reviewed the complaint that Becki made. The method used in the experiment was as follows, ask two males on a college campus to ask 50 girls, "In having sex, which feels better, length of penis or width of penis?" Reading this question, I'm not sure if this means with any penis which feels better or with an increase of one or both which feels better, among other interpretations. The researchers then suggest that since 45 of them said width and 5 said length, the former could be important, suggesting further research to add on to the extensive research done by Masters, Johnson, and Kolodny, which said both might be of minor importance. Therefore, Becki is correct, the wording of the statement is ambiguous as is the experiment itself. Later in this section, a quote from Psychology Today is not even quoted correctly. Then, the term size queen is not defined correctly by the citation provided. (Y26Z3 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC))

Questionable Consensus

This source provides a different consensus on human penis size, Sexuality Article. Who disagrees with that? There may need to be stated a different consensus. (Y26Z3 (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 11 June 2012

the human penis size consider by the doctor is only "1"inc .i personally discussed with several doctor about he same thing

Zasssy (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done I don't understand your request; are you trying to say the average length is 1 inch? This is not the case. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not know how to submit an edit request however I thought the statement that penis size does not decrease with age incorrect. http://men.webmd.com/guide/life-cycle-of-a-penis AND http://www.sexualtips.net/penis_size_questions_and_answers.htm.

Penis Size Shrinking??

This link provides a news article (the Moscow news in English) that cites a study that states penis size is progressively shrinking in certain ethnic populations. If someone can find the original journal article, perhaps it can fit in here.Tropic of Capricorn (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Link needs fixing

In the section "Comparison to other primates" the link to Implications of differences in penis length and morphology need to be changed to Sexual anatomy.--109.152.242.28 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seek Consensus: Add a Specific Paragraph about Size Measure

This article keeps mentioning "measured by staff" but never clarifies exactly how the staff measurement method works. It will be helpful if a reliable method can be introduced so readers can judge their own size in a more scientific way. So here I suggest to add below new Paragraph to the article:

Measurement

The way of penis size measurement varies. In scientific studies, a commonly used method is: Stand up straight. For length, press the ruler or measuring tape firmly into the pubic bone, measure along the top of the penis from base to tip (not along the side or bottom). For circumference, measure around the thickest part of the shaft (below the glans penis) using a measuring tape.

Maybe above text doesn't match the WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR, but I believe there can be a way to convert it into good format. Anyone supports this please suggest. Thanks. Moscowsky^-talk- 03:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of detailing the measurement, maybe you can simply describe the usual defination of penis length and girth, with some reference. --PontMarcheur (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add a "how to measure your penis" section. Do not lead readers to assume that any particular method has been used for all studies. It should be obvious that any particular study is worthless unless the method of measuring size is given. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Any particular study is worthless unless the method of measuring size is given"? Then where are the given method? Without mentioning the measure method, all the figures is pointless. All the texts about different studies should briefly mention its measurement method, else how readers compare with their own size? BTW, the 4 big graphs in the article seem made up without reference, it will be removed soon if there is no clarifications, a new section has been created for that. Someone seems having a really strong standard for WP:OR, then please do not forget going there and support the removal. Moscowsky^-talk- 00:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Each study will have its own method, which must be detailed in the study itself, not here. This article is about "human penis size" in general. It is not intended to enable readers to determine where any given penis lies in the range of all possible penis sizes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I start to agree Pontmarcheur's comment above. Disregarding the methods, the definition of "penis length" and "penis circumference" is never clarified in this article, which is the key problem. Please always remember that penis is an irregular shaped human organ, not a brick or a metal bar, the "size" parameters of it must be well described in an objective way, else all the other words are without basis. Penis size article without telling readers how the penis size is defined is unacceptable. Moscowsky^-talk- 05:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then you should start looking for reliable sources which expressly state that there is a generally accepted method, rather than making up your own. You should also be prepared to note how that general method differs from the method used in any particular study if you intend to use the numbers found in that study in this article. Please post your proposed changes here for discussion to save me the trouble of reverting you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Moscowsky to drop this topic and start a new section just about the general concepts about lenghth/circumference. Words like "do not...do not..." and "save trouble of reverting" really disturbs me here. I can see why this talk page is not welcomed. Nobody has the right to revert other people's edit freely. As long as the edit has good format and reference, you'll get all the support for realization. --PontMarcheur (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pontmarcheur. I'm disregarding this section. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ansell graphs

I would argue for taking off the Ansell graphs. As the sole graphic on the page, it really places a lot of emphasis on the Ansell data. The problem is that the Ansell survey is very far from being scientific, especially compared to the peer reviewed journal articles otherwise cited in the wikipedia article. Looking closely at the Ansell study, the sample size is very far from random -- guys coming out of a bar in Cancun. What's more, only 75% of the men who *volunteered* to have their penises measured actually ended up getting an erection for the study. I just don't think that we need to have 3 graphs of this unpublished and unpeer-reviewed data.

Moreover, where are these graphs coming from anyway? I can't find them anywhere on the Ansell site, and there's not enough information in the numeric statistics to generate complete frequency histograms and cumulative distributions. Without a reference, it kind of seems like they've been made up in MS Excel.

It's nice to have graphs, but we shouldn't non-referenced data which may not represent fact. That is we shouldn't have graphs just because we want graphs. Unless there are any strong objections, I will consider editing this part of the page.

Lifeliver4 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

There're actually 4 graphs about length and circumference in this article, and yes, they seems all "self-made" without any reference or reliable source. Maybe they're all made up. If there is no clarifications, all those graphs should be removed according to WP:OR. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. All those charts look ridiculous to me from the very beginning, vote to remove-116.246.26.29 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I support the deletion. Serious-looking material without reliable reference must be cleared. --PontMarcheur (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The graphs should be removed.209.202.115.133 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The graphs are removed per consensus above. --PontMarcheur (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Seek Consensus: Add a New Leading Image

File:Erect penis measurement.png

Size of human penis

I suggest to add the image on the right as leading picture. It is a clear picture and illustrate the size parameters of human penis well. This article is popular and should not lack a leading picture with helpful information. Moscowsky^-talk- 02:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

AGREE. It's constructive to add this picture, well match the topic. --PontMarcheur (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that readers will understand what length and circumference mean in relation to penis size. The illustration is wholly unnecessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there must be some people don't know how to assume their size especially length in the correct way. Adding this picture won't hurt anyone but will help somebody. Personal feelings like "I have no doubt" cannot be a good reason to reject it. Moscowsky^-talk- 00:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You think readers will have difficulty understanding how the terms "length" and "circumference" apply to a penis? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, especially for ones that don't learn much about penis. Do you think readers will have misunderstanding of the term "penis"? Exactly yes, someone even believes scrotum is part of the penis and should be counted in length. The wikipedia human page has leading photo of humans, why? because that's what the topic all about, most readers already know what human being looks like, but a leading picture will still be helpful, to reduce exceptional misunderstandings and enrich the article. Moscowsky^-talk- 05:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your image introduces misunderstandings if the underlying studies have not measured in the way you illustrate. I think it is best to assume that a reader will be able to apply figure out that there is only one possible circumference of a cylindrical object. Let them read the actual study if they want to know how measurements were done. Again, this is not an article about how readers can measure penises, nor should it be. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote to add the picture. All the studies in this article measured in the same way as the picture illustrates. -116.246.26.29 (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced we actually need a picture, the argument could be made that this particular picture is not ideal anyway. There could be different ways of measuring human penis size. The picture represents one way of quantifying penis size which may not represent how everyone conceptualises or measures penis size. Lifeliver4 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole article keeps providing numbers of nothing else but length and circumference, and the picture matches the theme well. The pic implies the concept of length and circumference in a general way, nothing like a measurement method. ALL the studies mentioned in this article don't have any conflicts with the picture too. There're different lookings of human being, but why human page still has a leading picture of a specified race? does it mean the photo is "ideal"? No, just because it's well related to the topic. Moscowsky^-talk- 06:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could measure the flaccid penis as well as the erect one. Another issue I have is that penis size is just as much a psychologically perceived thing as it is a measurement. Size as we perceive it depends on what's around it (for example, body weight probably affects perception of size). However, I'll admit that the article is all about the type of length and circumference measures that your image shows, so I guess you could say the image is at least consistent with that. Lifeliver4 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This image is a good improvement.209.202.115.133 (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is renewed per consensus above. --PontMarcheur (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image again. I suggest that if you wish to include it, you start a request for comment. Single purpose accounts and IP editors liking the image does not constitute a consensus. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The change is well discussed and don't receive any proper reason for rejection. Not necessary to Request for Comment just for the personal preference of a single editor. request for comment is not a weapon to block the article from development just because yourself dislike it without good reason. Moscowsky^-talk- 14:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Delicious carbuncle to learn better about WP:DR. This change already received overwhelming supports, only one real objection received. The talk section is abundant enough. In such case, RFC is not necessary. Conversely, if you really don't like the change, it's yourself who can go to the offical WP:DR channel and try to gets more support, instead keeps reverting edits just for your own opnion. --PontMarcheur (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, I could start an RfC to get opinions of uninvolved editors, as I have done below. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The picture looks fine. I support inclusion in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Is an image illustrating "length" and "circumference" necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has proposed adding File:Erect penis measurement.png (an image they created themselves) to illustrate how the terms "length" and "circumference" apply to an erect penis. Is such an image necessary? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To see the existent opinions for this topic, please refer to Talk:Human_penis_size#Seek_Consensus:_Add_a_New_Leading_Image. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, in my opinion this is a bit of a yawn. I really don't think that Wikipedia will stand or fall by our decision. It seems not unreasonable to include the picture, which does after all match the topic. Some people really are very visual and might understand the enormously challenging mathematics more easily if they have a picture to go by instead of having to wade through descriptive verbiage. At the same time, anyone who cannot easily understand that without the picture, probably is ill-equipped to make sense of the numbers anyway. The only part of the diagram that seems justified to me is the clear indication that the length is measured along the upper aspect of the penis. Once penis measurement is recognised as an Olympic sport, judges will discover that there are all sorts of complications entailed by demands for precise measurement, and I cannot wait to see the illustration that demonstrates how to measure the volume as well. JonRichfield (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

_{Volume would be determined by submerging the penis in a water bath and displaced volume measured. Of course the water temperature must be carefully controlled.... Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)}

Yup. My view exactly, though it is fun to think up alternative protocols and instrumentation. No doubt you have some ideas for suitable illustrations? Not my line, I am sorry to say. ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

JonRichfield, after viewing the image you have made the assumption that "the length is measured along the upper aspect of the penis". That may or may not be the case in any given survey (one would have to read the sources to know what method they used). This is one of the reasons why I do not support inclusion. It is both unnecessary and misleading to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm... You have a point. I had not bothered to check on the details applied, and I should have checked to see whether the picture did in fact reflect the operative methodology. If not, then I do not see how it could be included without some other material justification. I have no intention of checking on such justification myself, but if it is absent the picture should be excluded, not for reasons of prurience or prudery, but irrelevance. As long as it does not illustrate anything of constructive relevance to the current text, it no more earns a place in the article than than a portrait of Pope Joan. JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Randomly check a study you'll find something connected to the picture. For example, if you read the essay of "A study published in the December 2000...", you'll find words "Penile length was measured dorsally from the pubo-penile angle to the meatus...". I'm not arguing that the picture seamlessly reflects all the studies, but it should be connected with all the referenced researches more or less. Isn't this enough? And as JonRichfield said, it may help people who has problem to comprehend things without picture. Moscowsky^-talk- 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The very study you quote actually says "Penile length was measured dorsally from the pubo-penile angle to the meatus, and ventrally from the penoscrotal junction to the meatus side". I'm not sure why you are so keen to reduce the complexity of this down to a simple and misleading diagram, but it does a disservice to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, the picture is nothing like a serious measurement instruction graph (nor should it be per WP:NOHOWTO). It's only a comic image providing some general ideas about size. What's more, ALL the referenced studies (with detail method) in this article take the "dorsal length" as key data of their research, so guess what? I can even say the pic actually implies a widely accepted concept of length too. Such picture can never be judged as a disservice. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I came here from the RfC listing (couldn't resist!), and this page is not on my watchlist. I've looked at the image, and read the earlier discussion, above. I would lean towards the opinion of not including the image. In my opinion, the terms "length" and "circumference", in and of themselves, do not require an image to define them. The question, then, comes down to whether or not the image is useful in showing readers how to measure those two parameters in this particular case. It isn't. A generic circular arrow does not indicate whether to measure circumference at the base, the middle, or the tip. A generic linear arrow does not indicate whether to measure length from above or the side, or whether to measure it linearly or to allow for curvature. I could imagine a useful image, based on a compilation of sources, that shows very specifically how to position a measuring device, etc., but this image isn't it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I already made my point in the prevous section, but I would like to state a clear truth here: ALL referenced studies in this article have no conflicts with this picture. Regarding to the comments above "whether or not the image is useful in showing readers how to measure those two parameters in this particular case. It isn't. " I think it's exactly the advantage of this picture: providing only general information without breaking the rule of WP:NOTHOWTO. Above comments is also a deny of Delicious carbuncle's concern about "method". See? people thinks it doesn't provide any clear method. --PontMarcheur (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think NOTHOWTO is an issue here. It's not medical advice (and it certainly isn't a recipe!). Done correctly, it would be more like this is how reliable sources do it. If you have to argue, on the one hand, that it's not specific enough to be "how-to", but on the other hand, that it's providing the reader with useful information, you've argued yourself into a tight corner. Readers don't need this illustration to understand the meanings of the words "length" and "circumference". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to one of the references used in this article. Are they using the measurement methodology your diagram shows? How do you know? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your discovery. First of all, such so-called study without even detailing the measurement should be removed from the article; Secondly, do you see any study (that well detailing the measurement) has conflicts with the picture? I double-checked the page and didn't find any (modified my previous comment a little to prevent misunderstanding). Thirdly, Is the leading picture obliged to represent all varieties? No, as long as the pic well related the topic and provides a general idea, then it can be used. In the end, I would suggest to wait more uninvolved editors' comments instead of arguing further between us like the previous section, it's not what RFC for. --PontMarcheur (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If the single purpose accounts who have created this situation make provably false statements, I will refute them so that uninvolved editors are not mislead. I find your claim that you have checked all studies referenced here to be simply not credible. There is no evidence that this image represents the methodology used in any given study, let alone all of them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's really not worth fighting about. Right? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC comment – It's a fine drawing, but I don't need a diagram to tell me what "length" and "circumference" mean. Moreover, it implies that the proper way to measure a penis is dorsally, with the circumference taken to be at the center of the shaft. Is that the case? There's nothing about the methodology of measurement in the article, or did I miss it? At any rate, I would hardly call such a description a how-to guide – you would just be clarifying how "length" is defined in the context of these studies, which is critical to interpreting their conclusions. If one of the cited studies describes measurement procedures, then I would add a section about it and include a caption with the image. Otherwise, the picture doesn't add much and may even be misleading. You could avoid the problem altogether by creating a picture which illustrates a different aspect of the article. Have you considered a photo-montage? Braincricket (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on picture

• It is unnecessary to have a picture demonstrating what "length" and "circumference" are. If the person reading the article doesn't understand that the size of a penis is determined by how long it is and how thick it is, then they wouldn't be reading the article.
• The picture is not a "representative" penis. Why on earth has the person who created it decided to a) colour it b) circumcise it, thereby making the penis a racially, culturally specific penis. Showing a circumcised penis is the equivalent of showing a face modifed to take a lip plate and using it to demonstrate what a woman's face looks like. It is a cultural modification.

The diagram, if included at all, needs to be a) uncoloured, to be racially unspecific, b) uncircumcised, because that is the way that penises come naturally.

Amandajm (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This topic now looks funny to me. A comic picture like this can be "racially specific" and "circumcised". Isn't it? Waiting for more brain storm ;) Moscowsky^-talk- 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that the article, and this drawing discussion in particular, holds a high degree of humor for me, I guess as much as "Kate Middleton's dress" holds for some of you. So, I can't help but think that an Aubrey Beardsley drawing could provide an fresh look at this penile measurement/illustration subject for you. You could pick a drawing, put colorful arrows on it, and be both classic and rip-roaringly funny at once. These drawings can also be utilized to illustrate "human size variation". You probably all know men that these variations fit nicely.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aubrey-beardsley-lysistrata-04.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aubrey-beardsley-lysistrata-03.JPG

(I couldn't find the drawing with the man who must cart his ample equipage around in wheelbarrow, but I'm sure it's on the 'Net somewhere.)

Alternatively, you could create a scissor cut-out of a projected shadow silhouette for your illustration, or trace a volunteer penis on paper and scan it in. The possibilities are endless!

Anyway, I suggest you all lighten up. Perhaps take a deep breath and start anew. The drawing above, which appears rather cartoony to me and not like a medical illustration at all, strongly implies that the shaft diameter is measured at a certain point proximal to the meatus, but doesn't specify how far. The drawing definitely shows that the length measurement is taken dorsally as opposed to ventrally or laterally. And it has also been pointed out already that the drawing indicates circumcision is the natural state of the human penis when actually, it is a minority fashion statement in the world. As stated above, if these points aren't truly the case, the drawing misleads.

There's really no nice medical illustration or photograph anywhere that can be used? Have you checked Grey's Anatomy for starters? I think the photo montage suggestion of actual humans was a good one to show variations. It would also add a clinical note to the article (especially if it's in black and white) to calm the prurient nature of the drawing.

Now that I know this article, and specifically this discussion, exist, I hope I won't hear another word about excluding articles from WP that feature significant wedding dresses. Carry on, Wordreader (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What a huge mess. Non-referenced graphs again added to the article. I removed those graphs and all the non-consensused leading photos including the controversial one discussed here. Without consensus, no leading pics should be added per anyone's personal preference. This should be a more reasonable solution at this moment. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is wikipedia "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" after all. Generally 99.5% of articles I edit I most certainly don't need permission to edit or try to get a consensus or even look on the talk page, I simply edit. I wasn't aware there was a discussion on the talk page here but to me the graphs and actual images would seem to be of encyclopedic use to a reader. You can't have an article on the size of something and discuss variation without providing any visual imagery to support it. I agree with Wordreader. The cartoon image was awful. The graphs are not accurate I gather?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the graphs you added don't have any reliable source for its figures, see Talk:Human_penis_size#Ansell_graphs. The new leading photo you added also looks much more awful to me than the comic pic. I don't think we need any real penis photos as leading pic telling nothing useful but display a circumcised organ (or with a pointless ruler), it's not what this article for (Previously the page has such a pic during early 2010, but removed later per consensus). Regarding to the comic photo, it should match the Lifestyles (ANSELL) study 2001 mentioned in the article referring to mraverage.com. In Lifestyles official webpage the original report is already removed, leaving only a simplified version without mentioning the method/graphs; but there're traces like the mraverage.com indicates that that study is using the method as the comic pic implies. The comic pic is not ideal, but at least it sticks to this article well. Moscowsky^-talk- 23:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any good reason to remove the picture. Let's end this discussion now. Wikipedia is WP:notcensored. The image is an improvement to the article. Arguing that it's not necessary is not a good enough reason to remove it. If you're bothered or offended by it, too bad. I repeat: Wikipedia is WP:notcensored.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to read the discussion rather than having a knee-jerk reaction. The issue is not that anyone is offended by a cartoonish illustration of a penis, but that the illustration is misleading to readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dorsal length and shaft girth (of the thickest part) of human penis (erect).

The argument of "misleading" is really endless and tiring. Not sure if i'm still a fun of spending time here. The adapted pic and caption on the right should be a compromised solution, will be added to the article soon if there is no good rejections received. Too much discussion and comments for such a small change. This topic should be given a closure ASAP. Moscowsky^-talk- 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Endless and tiring perhaps, but also true, unlike your unsupported and dubious claims that the diagram represents the method used in all studies used in this article. This RfC is about the image, please do not muddy the waters by changing it for an even worse one without consensus to do so. the RfC will be closed after 30 days. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The one who really muddy the waters and make dubious claims is still wasting everyone's time in such a dramatic way here. Blocking other editor's own work from developing the article never with a good reason. As the author of the picture, I don't need to take any actions by myself; All my supporters will do it on represent of me. I've already lost patience to go on arguing here. Good luck. RFC is not the only tool, you can use higher level escalation tool if you really knee for it, help yourself. ;) Moscowsky^-talk- 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored the picture per original consensus at Talk:Human_penis_size#Seek_Consensus:_Add_a_New_Leading_Image. No further changes should be done unless a new consensus is reached in this section. --PontMarcheur (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• RFC Comment In general humans have no misunderstanding of what the circumference and length of a penis means generally, so the image is unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the article. Further, the cartoon style image seems contrary to the usual picture norms. I note the measuring method shown in the image is also not necessarily universal, leading the image to be misleading. Just because wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean we should insert lower quality pictures that are misleading for no real educational benefit. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.