Talk:Micropenis

Size of adult micropenis incorrect

More recent medical journals all state that an adult micropenis is 3.66 inches long, or 9.3 cm. I feel this should be changed in the article, people who do have diagnosed micropenises that are closer to 3.5 inches such as myself, while still very rare and only .6% of the population, are assumed to be significantly smaller due to the incorrect size cited in this wikipedia article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890219/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.199.101 (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Please change the following inline with current world research & statistics:

[Sources] 1.1 https://www.google.com/search?q=adult+male+penis+size+standard+deviation 1.2 https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sdut-penis-length-study-2015mar02-story.html

2.1 https://www.google.com/search?q=micropenis+male+adult+3.66+size 2.2 https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/bju.13010 [End Sources]

[Start of Edit: Section: Main - (Description -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropenis )]

[Change From x (current) to y (changes)]

[x] erect penile length of at least 2.5 standard deviations smaller than the mean human penis size,[1] or smaller than about 7 cm (2 3⁄4 in) for an adult when compared with an average erection of 12.5 cm (5 in). [x]

[y] erect penile length of at least 2.5 standard deviations smaller than the mean human penis size, or smaller than about 9.3 cm (3 2⁄3 in) for an adult when compared with an average erection of 13.12 cm (5 1⁄6 in). [y]

[End of Edit] AlexandraHarry (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

This is a duplicate of another edit request at Talk:Human penis size. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please note that only peer-reviewed medical sources are considered reliable sources for the symptoms of a medical condition. While you did cite one peer-reviewed journal article, I failed to find anything that substantiated your claim that men with erect penises less than 9.3 cm long have micropenis. 9.3 cm did appear in the article, but it described flaccid length only. The article does not define micropenis based on erect length. Rather, it offers only the following definition in the "Discussion" section:

A micropenis, however, is defined as <2.5 [standard deviations] below the mean (0.14% of the male population), which was <5.2 cm in flaccid and <8.5 cm in the stretched length.

If you find a reliable source that supports your suggested edit, you may add it below and reopen this edit request by changing the "answered" parameter from "yes" to "no." Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Issue with citation 2. Proposed update. January 2022 Edit Request

Considering there are varying indications to the average erect penis length and circumference across different studies, and none of them indicate 12.5cm as the average the introduction to this article is flawed or out of date. This study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32666897/ for instance says the average is 13.61cm, not 12.5cm. It should be noted that this is a peer reviewed ncbi jounral, where as the cited reference in the opening statement for 12.5cm being the average is not. (it's not even a scientific journal but is an article whose sole citation goes to the home page of the kings college london site, perhaps because the article is so old that the source page was removed. It is from 2004)

This study: https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bju.13010 indicates that 2.5 standard deviations below the average is slightly over 9cm. (specifying an exact figure between 9 and 10 would be conjecture as the studies rounded measurements to the nearest whole number) Considering the sole source material for the cited reference (citation 2) is missing, the fact that more modern studies indicate different results, and the fact that conclusions were made in the opening wikipedia statement that rely on this citation, the citation should be removed.

I notice that also above there was an attempt at an edit request, citing modern sources. Which was denied. perhaps the sources I have provided here will be adequate to make that change. It is true that the modern research shows that 2 standard deviations below average is slightly above 9cm. So what is going on? why does the wikipedia page have outdated information relying on a citation that itself relies on a source that is seemingly no longer on the internet. Please could someone make a change promptly.

I recommend the exact changes to be made be:

-Change 12.5cm in the introduction to 13.61cm, or 'around 13-14cm'

-Change 7cm in the introduction to 'slightly over 9cm', or 'approximately 9cm', or '~9cm'

With the sources I provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:3a87:9a00:ce9:b1a:1856:83bb (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Both the quotes - for the std dev method and the specific numbers - have live sources. Newer numbers you propose have hints of synthesis so unless you give a source which has those numbers, it can't be added. --Hemantha (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood.

Issue with citation 2. Proposed update. January 2022 Edit Request (2)

The average penis size varies from study to study. However the majority of extensive and modern studies find the answer to be in the range 13-14cm (erect). This https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32666897/ is the most prominent study I can find which indicates this. The study which indicates a micro-penis is in the range of 9-10cm by the medical definition is not directly related to the former ncbi study, as it quotes multiple studies including the former but also others and details the average penis size as 13-14cm.

See the following:

Kings college London find the average penis size to be 13.24cm https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/researchers-reveal-average-penis-size-to-reassure-men-10081613.html

Therefore this is not synthesis although thank-you for being astute in the matter of preventing this. Unless I have overlooked something in citation 2, the link goes to a 2004 article with cites as it's source: "Materials provided by A Surgical Procedure Being Pioneered By University College London. Note: Content may be edited for style and length." however the link to this material has expired as it redirects to the University College London homepage, and I cannot find the content anywhere. Therefore it seems evident that both the sources of citation 2 are no longer live (a source that makes a baseless or no longer credible statement does not meet the requirement for a Wikipedia source), or up to date.

Regardless of whether the length of a micropenis is specified to be 9-10cm on this page, the assertion that the average penis length is 12.5cm and that a micropenis is 7cm must be removed. It would make sense to simply say "a micro penis is 2.5 standard deviation below the average" without specifying exact lengths, however I do think that the source material is here to make a credible statement that the average penis si between 13 and 14 centimeters and that a micropenis si between 9 and 10 centimeters.

Again requesting a change, thankyou for taking the time to read.

Edit: My 2nd request for an edit was removed, without explanation and for some reason I am now being accused of having a conflict of interest. This is very confusing and alarming to me, what possible conflict of interest could I have?! Let me repeat:

The statement relying on CITATION 2, is either out of date of false. Citation 2 goes to a 2004 article whose sole online source material is no longer avaliable, and the supposed findings of this study that the average penis length is 12.5cm is contradicted by multiple modern studies. A valid counter argument to this would be to provide an up to date source which asserts the average penis length as being 12.5cm, NOT accusing me of conflict of interest for no reason! Citation 2 MUST BE REMOVED.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Source you provided is not reliable enough to be included Chip3004 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the text with specific numbers as it conflicts with latest at linked pages. So maybe  Partly done: Hemantha (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Male micro.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Percentage of micro penis incorrect

I feel the percentage of micropenises is incorrect due to the fact that most men with the condition are more than likely embarrassed and would not come forward. I have come across 4 micropenises, which is an extremely high number for one person to encounter that is not in the medical field, in comparison to the .6 percentage rate quoted on this article. 166.196.93.40 (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2022

Want to update photo with more accurate mircopenis condition 23.244.109.176 (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC) My

 Not done for now: Please provide an image with an acceptable license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: typo in the introduction

The sentence reads “the conditioner is usually noticed shortly after birth”; it should be “condition.” 2601:180:C280:8640:0:0:0:EA20 (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Statistical Inconsistency

The introduction says that 1.5 out of 10,000 men have a micropenis. This number does not appear anywhere in the given reference. Furthermore it's inconsistent with the statistical nature of the definition employed here. 2.5 standard deviations mean that only ~0.6% of results would be more extreme than that. And this is reflected in the prevalence number in the sidebar. 0.6% is 1 in 166.67, nowhere near 1.5 in 10,000. By its very definition based on standard deviation, the prevalence of the condition in the population is defined. Perhaps the 1.5 in 10,000 refers to men who seek treatment or some other statistic, but this is not stated, and is misleading as is. Furthermore the provided reference does not discuss this. 2001:569:BDD9:FC00:EDCB:429E:81C9:9E75 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

*missing* correct picture of fully-erect micropenis

thumb|A fully-erect adult micropenis Imsam01 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Misleading introductory statement, without citation

Why is the below included after it is stated that it is 2.5 standard deviations; what a standard deviation is varies on sample group, what is the sample group of these lengths? Also there is no source.

A micropenis is stretched penile length less than 2.5 cm (0.98 in) in term infants, 2.6 cm (1.02 in) in one-year-old, 3.5 cm (1.38 in) in five year old, 3.8 cm (1.5 in) in ten year old, and 9.3 cm (3.66 in) in adults.

Please could this be addressed as the lack of citation is concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:6433:4301:ea5e:360e:56e6:eb70 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Further to the above, I see that the leading paragraph still remains unchanged I wanted to summarise my point:

These two sentences in the leading paragraph "A common criterion is a dorsal (measured on top) penile length of at least 2.5 standard deviations smaller than the mean human penis size.[1] A micropenis is stretched penile length less than 2.5 cm (0.98 in)..." contradict oneanother, as the average penis size varies. For instance in Japan it is 8cm +-2cm.

Can this be addressed and the second sentence be removed or given context.

Frequency c. 0.6% of men is there a reliable source to support this claim???

underneath the picture of micropenis it says

Frequency	c. 0.6% of men

This information needs a reliable source and a citation to support this claim I cannot find any information/reliable source supporting this claim. If there is a reliable source supporting this claim please let me know. Also this claim seems to be in conflict with the claim "Micropenis incidence is about 1.5 in 10,000 male newborns in North America. " that is supported by a reliable source. Please advise me thanks Sassmouth (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)