Talk:Human penis size/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Measured from where to where?

Surely the article should state where the measurements were taken from. Were they from the torso to the tip or from the front of scrotum to the tip, or some other measurement?--178.167.200.101 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The measuring method should be mentioned. 95.194.105.1 (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard way seems to be to put the ruler snug against the pelvic bone and measure horizontally to the tip.

85.227.192.13 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only is "length" not clearly defined in this article, the various factors affecting length are mostly ignored. How about "belly fat"? Surely being 200 pounds (100 Kg) overweight will affect the measurement. How about blood pressure? How about testosterone level? I know it is true that arousal level also affects size, that is there's hard and hard hard and everything in between (there's also erect but not hard ). My personal experience is that age - of the adult male - affects flaccid length and that clearly there is a natural variation based on time of day, surroundings (especically, I speculate, the presence of prospective sex partners), and mood. And I'm talking about both erect and flaccid measurements. Finally time since last sexual encounter (intercourse?, erection?) may also be a factor (call it the "horniness factor"). Some of my comments are original research, but some of them are just obvious physiology. So, you'd think that a medical (as contrasted with "scientific") source could be found, but the subject is mostly "taboo" in popular press. Oh, I've similar problems with the "stretched" length. What does that mean? The length at the point that the guy starts crying? the length at which tissue tears? "stretched" is an attempt at finding a useful metric, but unless it can be shown to be useful (meaningful) then I'd vote to exclude discussion of it. (To be useful, it would have to be some combination of more reproducible than simply measuring flaccidly, or more highly correlated with something.) I also find it strange that volume (displacement volume) isn't discussed since during intercourse that would seem to be significant to the process mechanics. The FIRST thing that this article needs is a short section on the relevant human anatomy. I've read (don't know whether there's any truth to it) that there is a tendon/ligament (connection) which affects flacid (hanging) length and which varies by ethnicity/race in terms of geometry (length? placement? tension?, IDK). So, this needs to discuss the anatomy of both the penis itself, as well as the relevant surrounding (support) structures AND the relevant vasculature. Which may mix into descriptions of male sexual physiology (arousal, stimulation, orgasm, ejaculation, post-prandial recovery, etc.)216.96.78.43 (talk) 13:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

please add to "Section 2: Studies on penis size", after the phrase "...11.66 cm respectively.[1]", the following sentence: "Erect lengths in the included studies were measured by pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone"

Citation: I am using the same cited article as was used for the immediately preceding sentence. It is cited in citation # [1]. The information can be found in the section - "Methods : Eligibility Criteria - item #5".

The article cited is --> Veale D; Miles, S; Bramley, S; Muir, G; Hodsoll, J (2015) "Am I normal? A systematic review and construction of nomograms for flaccid and erect penis length and circumference in up to 15 521 men" BJU International 115 (6): p 979 doi:10.1111 bju 13010

Reason: To improve the reporting of the published measurements

The pre-pubic fat pad is found at the base of the human penis. It is smaller in lean-bodied males and larger in males with a higher body mass index. There are two different methods of measuring penile length used by various researchers: (1) by measuring from the tip to the base, without pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone and (2) by pushing the measuring instrument to the bone. Studies which are not bone-pressed (NBPEL) will report a shorter length than ones which are bone-pressed (BPEL). Because the fat pad changes according to the human male's body mass index, bone-pressed studies are more considered more reliable.

Related article which measured the depth of the fat pad:

 Savoie, M; Kim, S; Soloway M (2003) "A Prospective Study Measuring Penile Length in Men Treated With Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer" The Journal of Urology 169 (4): pp 1462-64  DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000053720.93303.33

Peewikipedia (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration re-edited and re-saved on February 26, 2016 Peewikipedia (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Penis size & Pleasing a women

Many women report that too many men are hung up on the size of their penises. The vagina is only about five inches long, and even a small penis can touch every square centimeter within the vagina. The secret to pleasing and impressing a woman sexually has nothing to do with penis size. Instead, concentrate on the movements, and rhythms of your thrusts. Most women will agree that penis size is not enough to please them. So men need to stop worrying about penis size and concentrate on technique. [1]

Further to my edit

"Deleted unsuitable reference and substituted citation required. 'Trash' reference was not from medical or other research but rather a 2nd hand quote in a politically-charged book"

Suitable references to penis size and race are required. I'm surprised that there aren't ten proper references, since many actual studies have been done.

The reference I deleted was the most inappropriate that I've ever seen, not only in that it's a highly controversial examination of psychology and politics, but the actual quote was second-hand hearsay from an author named Fanon who, to quote from the deleted reference, "is a revolutionary who applies Freudian, Adlerian and Jungian analysis, Sartrian existentialism, and Marxist ideology to criticize colonialism, imperialism, and racism." Read for yourself: [2] ~~Markus451

Few, IF ANY, scientific surveys have been done specifically looking at penis size and race. That's why you can't cite any.

Human penis size

"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.

Large penis = grotesque and comic, found on animals and barbarians

Grotesque is "distorted and unnatural in shape or size; abnormal and hideous"

From this vast array of XXX-rated artwork we can make a few deductions about Greek aesthetic preferences ... genitaliawise:

1. Long, thick penises were considered ... at least in the highbrow view ... grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians.

2. A circumcised penis was considered particularly gross.

3. The ideal penis was small, thin, and covered with a long, tapered foreskin.

Overthinking?

This talk page is in parts more difficult to read then the article on Quantum electrodynamics. Could it perhaps just perhaps be the case that we as a society are overthinking the issue a little? ... Just saying.

Romans and Greeks laughed at men with large penis

Why is it that ancient Greek and Roman paintings, sculptures, and other works of art depict males with such small genitalia?

My first thought was that the artists wished to draw the viewer’s attention to other, more important, aspects of the work.

I mean c'mon ... men are men back then and now.

Guys are consumed with their penis size and how it compares to other men. Nobody, I mean nobody ... wants to have an average penis size.

Wouldn't the Greeks themselves be consumed with their size and perhaps fudge things a little?

It's Greek to Me ... You remember the Greeks, right?.

They were the guys (and it was mostly guys—women at the time were mainly relegated to childbearing and housekeeping or sex objecthood, and were seldom heard from) who pretty much invented what we now think of as Western civilization.

Their ideas about culture and society, which the Romans copied, influence us to this day. The Greeks also … well, we’ll get into a discussion of Greek sexual preferences some other time. For now let’s just say they were fascinated by male beauty, and in particular by (ahem) the penis.

The First Nudie Awards The Greeks weren’t shy about displaying their manly attributes. Nudity was celebrated in Greece as in no culture before or since. We’re so used to nude classical sculpture and painting that we figure that’s how everybody walked around back in those days. In fact, however, male nudity in art and among athletes and warriors was largely confined to the ancient Greeks, for whom it became a point of pride—they considered embarrassment at having to disrobe for sports a sign of barbarism. Admiration of the manly form at times verged on the cultlike; the more heroic bits of male sculpture, small penis or no, have an erotic charge that can make even a straight male sweat. Naked women were depicted too, but less often, and you sometimes get the feeling the artist’s heart wasn’t in it.

The penis shows up in Greek art a lot—big ones as well as small ones. For example, there’s the temple of Dionysus on the island of Delos, which features giant stone penises carved in the third century BC. Decapitated now, they’re still impressively scaled and in a state of salute. (The academic term describing this condition, incidentally, is ithyphallic.)

Penis Art Sculptural depictions of the erect penis were an everyday sight in the classical world. A common boundary marker and household totem in ancient Greece was the herm, originally a representation of the god Hermes. It consisted of a head on top of a simple squarish pillar—your basic supersized Pez dispenser—unadorned except for, in front, an amply proportioned, usually erect, and sometimes arrestingly protrusive penis and scrotum.

Scholars tell us that such decorations were apotropaic (you learn a lot of vocabulary in this field)—that is, intended to ward off evil, and that folks back then paid no more attention to them than we would to a lucky horseshoe.

Maybe. Maybe not.

All I’m saying is, stuff that even now we’d consider hard-core porn you saw then just walking down to the Piraeus.

The ancients were also unembarrassed by graphic displays of sex. Greek men—to be precise, male Greek aristocrats—figured if it moved, they could have sex with it, or at least look at pictures about having sex with it. We have countless examples of crockery showing various combinations of humans, deities, and the occasional animal engaged in the amatory act, most of it presumably used as party favors to put the lads in the mood. Even in painterly scenes having nothing to do with sex, the genitalia were often conspicuously displayed.

From this vast array of XXX-rated artwork we can make a few deductions about Greek aesthetic preferences ... genitaliawise:

1. Long, thick penises were considered ... at least in the highbrow view ... grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians. 2. A circumcised penis was considered particularly gross. 3. The ideal penis was small, thin, and covered with a long, tapered foreskin.

Of course, we do have to take into account a contributing factor for those greek statues looking the way they do: Artists’ models were nude, and their studios lacked central heat. [3]

Picture Removal

Why was the main picture removed? Every Wikipedia page should have a main picture of the subject that is under discussion. Possibly a large conglomerate of various penis pictures should be in order to cover different demographics, sizes, and shapes. This would vividly illustrate the topic at hand and allow viewers from many different nations to gain new visual perspectives.

Penis size vs. Length of the Vagina

The vagina is only about 3 (7.5cm) to 4 (10cm) inches long, and even a small penis can touch every square centimeter within the vagina.

Virtually every man forgets that it doesn't matter how long or how short your penis is, because the vagina will accommodate itself to any length. The vagina of a woman who hasn't had a child is only 7.5cm (3 inches) long when she's not sexually excited. The figures for women who have had babies are only slightly different.

Even when aroused, a woman's vagina usually extends only to a length of about 10cm (4 inches).

This means any man's penis will fill her vagina completely, unless you happen to be one of those rare guys with an erect penile length of less than four inches.

You're probably now wondering how the average man with an erection of six inches manages to insert his penis into the vagina at all.

The vagina has the most remarkable capacity for lengthening if something is introduced into it gradually.

So the exceptional man whose erect penis is eight inches (20cm) long can still make love to any woman, providing he excites her properly and introduces his organ very slowly. If he does this, her vagina will lengthen by 150 or 200 per cent to accommodate him.

Longer penises are linked to wives cheating on their spouses

A study into marital infidelity has found that longer penises are linked to wives cheating on their spouses.[4]

"Surprisingly, having a spouse with a longer fully erect penis was associated with increased likelihood of the women having extra-marital partnerships. From these results, every one inch longer penis increased the likelihood of women being involved in extra-marital partnership by almost one-and-half times," the researchers wrote.

This is apparently because a longer penis increases sexual discomfort. The researchers quoted one of the women in the study as saying, “…some penises may be large yet my vagina is small, when he tries to insert it inside, it hurts so much that I will have to look for another man who has a smaller one penis and can do it in a way I can enjoy”.

Penis size

there is no such research on penis size in Saudi Arabia Dr.Habos himself denies that number. The 12.4 associated with average Saudi penis size is a world average number.

I'm dying to know, is this in inches or centimeters? SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

World map and size by country

I would argue that the map used for the countries of the world penis sizes says nothing. It it only colored with no size indication related to color. This map also appears to be a remake of one of the many penis size maps by country based on some self-reported and some measured by professionals.

The comment on Congo being the country with the biggest penises links to this site http://technology.inquirer.net/41116/penis-size-researchers-provide-the-long-and-short-of-it This site has no references, nor does it comment on self-measurement or if it is done by professionals, and can therefore not justify this claim.

This sections could just as well be deleted because of the lack of sources and serious content.

I agree with the above (map & Congo statement), and even going by the most lax Wikipedia guidelines, it does not warrant inclusion as its original data source is an untraceable user-generated reddit post ("somewhere on reddit" as the author states), that was used by a Dutch person (here: http://blog.jemu.name/rstats/2015/08/i-analyzed-some-world-penis-data/) that ended up here: http://www.everyoneweb.com/worldpenissize, which somehow got onto a metro.co.uk article which in the very end made it to the Inquirer.

It has nothing to do with any scientific studies, and has not been published in journals or any other reliable media sources.

This happens often, especially in low-level spam journalism, so it is important to check the sources before including it in articles.

Also, there are literally hundreds of reliable sources from all kinds of legitimate studies that state that penis size does not correlate with ethnicity, race, religion, or nationality.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, you mention "hundreds of reliable sources from all kinds of legitimate studies" above-- can you give cites? I don't think common sense helps us here -- there's no immediately obvious reason why penis size should either be correlated with or not correlated with other attributes such as ethnicity or nationality -- so without scientific evidence we can't take any position on this other than ignorance on this matter. (What I do know is that penis size is strongly correlated to the temperature at the time of measurement, which might well be a confounding factor in studies spanning multiple geographic areas. Come to that, the relative attractiveness and general demeanor of the penis-measurer might also be a factor here: I'm not clear how you'd control for that, other than by using an automated penis-measuring machine.) -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to provide the hundreds of citations I mentioned (that was just an estimate based on personal recollection of many articles claiming the lack of correlation). However, here are some I found after just 5 mins of googling: http://www.techly.com.au/2015/03/18/just-normal-truth-penis-sizes/ ("...the fact that there is no correlation between size and race or ethnicity ..."), http://www(DOT)thehealthsite(DOT)com/sexual-health/world-sexual-health-day-2012-penis-size-should-you-really-worry-about-it/ ("A man’s height/fingers/race does not have any bearing on the penis size. Yes, we have been led to believe that certain ethnicities have bigger penises than others but the thing is there is absolutely no data to back that up. One reason why we are led to believe that Caucasians, African-Americans or Hispanics have bigger penises than Asians is because of porn. Most of our sex myths derive from porn and there is no organised porn industry in Asia so we end up watching Americans or Europeans and get the distinct impression that they are bigger."),

More: http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/harry-fisch-md/does-size-matter ("Does race have any effect on penis size? Nope. Several studies, starting with those reported in Alfred Kinsey’s classic 1948 work Sexual Behavior in the Human Male have found no differences, on average, in penis length between whites, blacks, and Asians.")--Therexbanner (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

https://www.playboy.com/articles/average-penis-size-scientific-study ("The researchers used over 15,000 participants in order to get their results, which led to some other interesting conclusions. One is that their research suggested there isn’t any correlation between race/ethnicity and penis size.")--Therexbanner (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm positive that many more sources can be found (perhaps not hundreds, but definitely 20+) if significant time is dedicated to objectively studying this issue. Hope this helps shed some light on the subject, --Therexbanner (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In regards to the removed map itself, the only source stated for that image is a dead link to a 2011 "bodygeeks.com" blog post/image. Given that it is no longer retrievable (if it ever was) and that it is definitely not a reputable source (it's a minor YouTube channel), there is absolutely no backing for it to be included anywhere on Wiki (and if you look at its Commons page, you'll see its not used anywhere.)--Therexbanner (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. This is ultimately a medical/scientific article, and we should use medical/scientific sources. Given that we now have far superior evidence in the form of several peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, including a systematic review of other studies, as sources for this article, we should not now be citing either WP:OR user-generated data, or non-peer-reviewed non-WP:RS analysis thereof, even if they been reported in WP:RS: scientific systematic reviews >> popular journalism. -- The Anome (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've now added an editnotice to the page, re-stating the above, and that WP:MEDRS should be the standard for our sources here. -- The Anome (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes well said, there is no scientific evidence for difference in penis size and race. I started a section on this, we should add those sources as well. TreeTrailer (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Images, Diagram: systematic review of sizes

Is this article protected from having new images added to it? --TBM10 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not, but the inserted image is on the MediaWiki:Bad_image_list, besides the dimensions aren't average, see doi:10.1111/bju.13010.

But what do you think about the diagram and it's description at #Studies on penis size? I'm not a native speaker… --Gsälzbär (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's excellent, as it appears to present the data from the source (disclaimer: I haven't personally checked it for detailed accuracy), but without plagiarizing its presentation format. But if I could, I'd choose to break it out into two separate histograms, one for length and the other for girth. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've done just this, see File:Human_penis_sizes_length_only.svg and File:Human_penis_sizes_girth_only.svg -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The section about studies of size preference among sexual partners seems to include responses from female partners only. Are there any studies for "receiving" homosexual males? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3A7C:4D80:4425:CB18:8597:CE92 (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

Hi Editor,

I'm requesting that further explanation be added to the first paragraph of the section titled "Studies", following this sentence --> Erect lengths in the included studies were measured by pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone.[1]:

Could this sentence please be added?

--> "Erect circumferences were measured at mid-shaft. [1]" : . . The relevant source is: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bju.13010/epdf on page 981, in "Table 1: Studies included in the nomograms " ( This is the same article which Wikipedia references in the earlier sentence.)

Thanks,

Pwikipedia (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done: The sentence on page 979 reads, "Flaccid or erect circumference (or ‘girth’) was measured at the base or mid-shaft of the penis, (and not from the corona)." So I have altered the sentence in the article to read:

Erect lengths in the included studies were measured by pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone, and flaccid or erect girth (circumference) was measured at the base or mid-shaft of the penis.

 Paine  ^u/c 13:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Womens' preference for large penises

This piece[5] reports that women have an evolved desire for large penises, as they give us more intense orgasms. This study[6] found that we generally want above average for a relationship and even bigger for a one night stand. It seems that the section on preference might be downplaying female predilection just a little bit.

Also, since a picture of a micropenis is included in this article, shouldn't we have an image to represent an unusually large one as well? There are free images of some very substantial erect penises on Wikimedia Commons. 186.227.192.99 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Size and race

The section Size and race currently reads: "The belief that penis size varies according to race is not supported by scientific evidence.[12][22] A 2007 study reported that contrary to the "popular belief that black people generally have longer penile sizes", in reality "there is no convincing scientific background" to support this idea.[23]"

However, digging in the sources, this should not be stated in this manner.

For example, source 12/22 only states: "There are several areas where further work is needed. For instance, except for the Korean study, there is little evidence of racial differences. This runs counter to many widely held suppositions and needs further investigation." Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06806.x/full

Furthermore, source 23 states as its method: measuring "Full-stretch flaccid penile lengths, and flaccid penile lengths, were measured", even though this method (non-erect measuring) is unreliable according to several sources found on this wiki page. Furthermore, the first conclusion in this study is: "The penile length for Nigerian Blacks was longer than those of the other races, but the differences were only statistically different in comparison with the Koreans." And finally concludes with: "There is the possibility of racial differences in penile sizes, but there is no convincing scientific background to support the ascription of bigger penile dimensions to people of the Black race" Source: http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tjmr/article/view/30465

Thus, if at all, this section should affirm rather than deny the validity of a 'race theory', if merely to state that Koreans have a smaller penis size than other races. With this I mean to say that the current content in this section is not quite supported by the sources.

I think it would be most important in this section to state that scientific studies call for more scientific investigation. Maybe someone can more carefully edit this using the sources properly. --Arcorto (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016

I have found dead link in this page ("Pesticides may affect penis size"). Recently I have published an article related to this in my blog. I just want to remove dead link from the page and give useful relevant source about "Pesticides may affect penis size". Sizegeneticsreview (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Proposed source is not a reliable one EvergreenFir (talk) 07:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If we have an image of a smaller than average size penis...

...then why don't we have one of a larger than average size one? It would be good for illustrating what is larger than average. 108.71.122.34 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I proposed this some time ago,[7] but it fell on deaf (or most likely, unwilling) ears. Protecting the egos of males editors/readers should not be a factor in an encyclopedia article. 186.227.192.79 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The main problem seems to be the lack of an appropriate image at commons. But, if you ask me really nicely, I'll take a camera into the bathroom with me and hook you up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

In the size and race section, please change

``` In fact, a study of 253 men from Tanzania, the 6th most populous nation in Africa, found that the average erect penis length of Tanzanian males is 11 cm (4.53 inches) long, slightly smaller then the 13.12 cm (5.17 inch) human erect penis average length. While a study of 115 men from Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, found that the average erect penis length of Nigerian males is 13.37 cm (5.26 inches) long, which is near identical to the 13.12 cm (5.17 inch) human erect penis average length. A 2015 systematic review found that it was not possible to draw any conclusions about size and race from the available literature and that further research needed to be conducted. ```

to

``` In fact, a study of 253 men from Tanzania, the 6th most populous nation in Africa, found that the average stretched penis length of Tanzanian males is 11 cm (4.53 inches) long, slightly smaller then the 13.12 cm (5.17 inch) human erect penis average length. However, more than 30% of adults in this study had not yet attained sexual maturity and they may not yet have achieved adult penile size. A study of 115 men from Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, found that the average stretched penis length of Nigerian males is 13.37 cm (5.26 inches) long, which is near identical to the 13.12 cm (5.17 inch) human erect penis average length. A 2015 systematic review found that it was not possible to draw any conclusions about size and race from the available literature and that further research needed to be conducted. ```

The request 1) corrects quotes from the Tanzanian and Nigerian studies that both measured stretched, not erect penile lenghts, 2) adds a relevant remark that a significant portion of the test subjects in the Tanzanian study had not yet reached sexual maturity, see the left column of p. 549 of http://www.academia.edu/18122151/Penile_Measurements_in_Tanzanian_Males_Guiding_Circumcision_Device_Design_and_Supply_Forecasting Buchtak (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

References

•  Done​ — Newslinger talk 03:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

95% confidence interval- query.

I'd like to query the statement- While results vary slightly across reputable studies, the consensus is that the mean human penis, when erect, is in the range 12.9–15 cm (5.1–5.9 in) in length with a 95% confidence interval of (10.7 cm, 19.1 cm) or, equivalently (4.23 in, 7.53 in) — that is, it is 95% certain that the true mean is at least 10.7 cm but not more than 19.1 cm.

Surely that interval is the 95% quantile (95% of penis' are between 10.7cm and 19.1cm), not the 95% confidence interval of the mean.

The introduction also uses the standard deviation as if it were some sort of unspecified confidence interval when quoting mean erect length. That is not what standard deviation is for.

I re-ran the numbers from 2 of the studies cited (the 3rd didn't have data) and the meta analysis mentioned in the intro. The 95% confidence interval given in the above quote is definitely for one penis, not the mean. I am removing the relevant part of that quote. drt1245 (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

POV edits

DanJazzy repeatedly is trying to remove this material:

A 2007 study reported that "there is no scientific background to support the alleged ‘oversized’ penis in black people". Another study noted that contrary to the "popular belief that black people generally have longer penile sizes", in reality "there is no convincing scientific background" to support this idea.

Both articles are peer reviewed. There is no reason why they should not be mentioned. DanJazzy's edit summary claims the papers mention race. Well that is obvious and they have been placed in the race section. I understand this a sensitive topic for some people, but there is no reason to blank legit content from medical journals. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not encourage racist points of view. The sub-section is "Penis size and race" "Race" does not equal black people. Why they were singled out is not clear. Besides the obvious racist connotations, this is a violation of WP:UNDUE

What 'racist connotations'? One of those papers was written by two black men. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

ORAKWE Jideofor Chukwuma, the co-author of the second paper is a surgeon at Nnamdi Azikiwe University. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep At its core, this is a common uninformed misconception, almost a Meme. Spiking it as untrue with a peer-reviewed article is proper, not racist. WP:Not censored. We should not take political correctness to the point where we ignore common questions or controversies. This material belongs here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia been reduced to be a tool for rationalisation of memes? If so, how come there is no inclusion of the reverse meme-misconceptions about human races with perceived deficiencies in length of sexual organs i.e Caucasians and Asians for instance? This is clearly WP:UNDUE. is racist and a violation of Wikipedia rules.DanJazzy (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted. That seems to be a rhetorical question.

We will have to agree to disagree. We are not "rationalizing" memes; we are debunking them. Meanwhile, you should stop WP:Edit warring, and see if consensus supports your version. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't consensus be determined by an RFC? This is clearly a matter that touches on societal prejudices and racial discrimination as well as a breach of Wikipedia rules. This should not be decided by one or two editors.DanJazzy (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you put a link wherever. As I did at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It concerns this article, and it belongs here, IMO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is an extremely common misconception in the west that Black men have larger penises than other races. It's a major component of the cuckolding fetish, especially in the US, but also in Western Europe. This is the precise reason why studies have been done to test it. Yes, we should absolutely include this in the article. And while debunking this myth may help contribute to spreading it, and us writing about it in any sense may help to "legitimize" it in the eyes of some readers, that is not our problem. We are not a social advocacy website, but an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the problem. We're turning Wikipedia into an Euro-Centric tool. This is precisely the problem here. This racist myth does not exist in Africa, Asia or Latin America. This "urban legends" or "memes" as an editor put it, do not belong in an encyclopedia. DanJazzy (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not even to disprove them? I disagree. Omitting them will not make them disappear. Deflating them (no pun intended) might. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's ignore for the moment that your "this is precisely the problem" is pretty firmly contradicted by what you claimed the problem was a few comments back. An African-American former teammate of mine has been directly asked to prove this myth true or false in both Asia and Latin America on multiple occasions, with me present and observing the exchange. So don't think I'll take you at your word about that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The interaction you've described with your black friend is your own subjective experience. It does not belong to Wikipedia. It is, in fact, WP:OR. What some editors are attempting to do here is a an extremely dangerous slippery slope into unacceptable bigotry, racism and exclusion. What next? Articles on popular memes of Jewish world domination? How about Holocaust denial memes? We cannot accept such vile bigotry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, there's nothing subjective about what I described, and I have not suggested making changes on the basis of it. Instead, I presented it by way of an explanation as to why I would not believe you when you made a rather spurious claim of fact with no evidence whatsoever, in an attempt to use that as a basis for making changes to the article.

Let me rephrase that, in case you'd prefer a direct comparison instead of a depiction of the path of logic here: You're proposing we change the article based on your OR. I've responded with my own OR to help you understand just how unconvincing your OR is.

As for whether we will have articles on "popular memes of Jewish world domination": see Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory and New antisemitism#Anti-globalization movement. We have quite the library on such memes. We are an encyclopedia, and documenting the world is what we do. If you can't appreciate that, then you should find another hobby.

As a final note: Please start indenting your comments properly (you can see an example here), and please don't forget to sign them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the grammatical correction. Back to the substance;where are the articles disproving the equally popular meme and misconception (in the West) that Asians & Caucasians have tiny sexual organs? Why is the sub-section disproportionately focusing on people of African descent? You're wrong. I'm not proposing any WP:OR of my own. ''It is an extremely common misconception in the west that Black men have larger penises than other races."'''' These are your own words, not mine. In fact, what I did was to delete objectionable and racist text that has no place in this encyclopedia. DanJazzy (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

where are the articles disproving the equally popular meme and misconception (in the West) that Asians & Caucasians have tiny sexual organs? Ok, your refusal to listen is getting tiresome, so I'm going to be blunt. You want to see such articles? Get off your ass, get on google and find them yourself. We are not your errand-boys. Reliable sources supporting the current content already exist, so if you want to add to it, the onus is on you, not us, to find sources through which to add to it. All you're accomplishing here is annoying a number of more experienced editors with your intransigence, and annoying people is strongly discouraged here.

For the record: I've never heard a misconception that Caucasians have "tiny" penises, though I've heard the one about Asians. Somehow, I find it doubtful that a common misconception would appear in the white male dominated Western world that white men have tiny penises. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

Your tone is uncivil and your choice of language is extremely unprofessional. This is a clear violation of WP:CIVILITY. With regards to the article, I have done the research and added information on other races of human beings to balance the article. FYI, I think it is important to get rid of this "Eurocentric" view of the world that you appear to hold. It is certainly not a helpful attitude as a Wikipedia editor.DanJazzy (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

DanJazzy, it has come to my attention that you have a history of doing this sort of thing. You go about on Wikipedia articles claiming specific images or references are racist [8], [9] and you have gotten into trouble for this on other articles. I already told you, the papers in question are not racist. The second paper was written by two African surgeons, definitely not racist white men like you have alleged. How can you accuse these sources of being 'Eurocentric' or racist? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Skeptic from Britain can you please read the bolded text that Tell me all about it. has written above? What does that sentence say? Do you agree with it? Also, it would be helpful on your part to stop unwarranted and unsubstanciated personal attacks as per WP:PA. Concentrate instead on the substance of the article.DanJazzy (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, you need to be more careful of your copying and pasting, as my username isn't "Tell me all about it." Second, are you ignoring the various people who have pointed out to you THAT ONE OF THE PAPERS WAS WRITTEN BY AFRICAN SCIENTISTS, or are you simply not reading their comments?

Finally, your complaints about civility might have some purchase if you weren't engaged in tendentious wasting of other editors's time trying to explain the most basic concepts to you, while using incredibly offensive and intemperate language yourself to imply that the rest of us are racists for opposing you. As for whatever you think of me personally: keep it to yourself. Nobody cares but you, and you will be blocked from editing if you persist in sharing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll be blocked from editing? Is this a threat? Blocked for what? For discussing an issue in the talk page? This is not your personal property, sir. It's an open platform for exchange of ideas so that the article can be improved. You do not discuss using uncivil, unprofessional language. This is completely inappropriate and violation of the rules in Wikipedia. Back to the substance; the race of scientists cited does not hold water here. Racism is not the province of a particular group of people, and it is inaccurate to suggest that African scientists cannot be racist simply because of their origin. Secondly, the contentious subsection of this article is "size and race" not "Blacks and size" I was merely pointing out that this disproportionate focus on a particular race and lack of balance is the textbook definition of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs) 19:40, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, and read WP:FOC.

the race of scientists cited does not hold water here.You quite literally brought up the race of the scientists as a salient point in your last comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References

A view from the outside

An uninvolved perspective: I saw this topic raised at a noticeboard, and thought I'd comment. I think it is unquestionable that there are myths about penis size being associated with race / ethnicity / whatever. I think it likely that many of them originate in prejudice and that some who believe them are out-and-out racists. However, the source of the myths and their connections to racism and bigotry are not topics for this page (WP:UNDUE). There are two issues here and I think that DanJazzy and MjolnirPants are addressing different aspects of them. In my view, there are two questions:

1. What, if anything, should be included in this article? This question comes down to whether there are reliable sources, whether the myths are sufficiently widespread to be worth addressing at all, what facts we can verify, etc.
2. How should any information be presented? This is a stylistic question but also goes to maintaining neutrality and an encyclopaedic tone, etc.

It looks to me like MjolnirPants is discussing question 1, and arguing the myths are notable and widespread, covered in reliable sources including scientific studies, and so inclusion is somewhere between appropriate and necessary. DanJazzy's view appears to go to question 2, and suggests that inclusion will perpetuate racial stereotypes and give credence to perceived validity of racist origins. (Both of you, feel free to correct me if my perception is inaccurate.)

DanJazzy, while I also do not want to endorse racism, your approach is backwards in terms of how WP works. Because information may be or is offensive to some is not a reason to exclude it, it is a reason to take particular care in how it is included. MjolnirPants attests to personal experience of the prevalence of these myths, and I have also encountered them (about both Black men and Asian men) on numerous occasions. The fact that studies have been carried out attests to the myths being in general circulation and supports that something should be included. I do agree, however, that only addressing the myths for some groups is inappropriate. I also agree that some formulations could risk the myths appearing to have some legitimacy. For example, the following would be terrible, implying there is doubt about the research and giving much greater prominence to the myth:

It has long been believed that African American and other black men have much larger penises than caucasian Americans[refs] but some recent studies have found that this appears to be untrue.[refs]

Something like this would be inconsistent with policy and, I suspect, widely opposed. However, I believe that a formulation that does not give credence to such myths is possible. Perhaps, something like:

Myths associating racial and ethnic groups with differences in penis size are false, with scientific investigations finding no statistically significant differences between these groups.

or

Scientific research has established that myths associating penis size with ethnic or racial background are unfounded as there is no statistically significant difference in average size between these groups.

These formulations avoid stating the myths of bigger black men or smaller Asian men (both of which are offensive and untrue myths) and instead focus on the fact that we are all the same. Some men have large penises, most are average, some are small and some even have micropenises, and skin colour and race and ethnicity provide precisely zero information about penis size of an individual or group. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The only correction I can offer to your characterization of my comments here is that I had actually addressed the second point, already. See the latter half of my first comment in this thread. I've not stressed it more because several other editors have made the same point, so I don't see the need. Other than that, you're fairly on point with regards to my argument.

However with regards to Dan's, see these three edits of his. While Dan seems to have some concern about racism, that didn't stop them from adding information to the article outlining a link between penis size and ethnicity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, I accept your point about the second point I raised... I was more noting the differences in the two approaches, but you have correctly noted that you did consider both issues. As for the edits you note, this is my view. EdChem (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed EdChem. You have put the issue very succinctly and I want to sincerely thank for your constructive observations. Should we take this as consensus and change the text as per your very helpful suggestions? DanJazzy (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The article already stated things in much the same way that EdChem described in his proposals. Your edit which removed a number of reliable sources and specific claims was not an improvement to the section. If you want to remove the second sentence as a duplicated claim (with the third), then you may do so. But shortening the section to a single sentence supported by a single source is not helpful, and even if EdChem decided to endorse whatever you wanted to do without question, you would still be a minority in this discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We have agreed to remove all references to race. Please stop making this difficult and go for the sensible solution as proposed. Thank you.DanJazzy (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, EdChem was going to restore several of those references when you reverted DanJazzy's edit. EdChem is also confused why DanJazzy added the parts I removed as they seem entirely inconsistent with his most recent edits. EdChem is also in favour of discussion rather than edit warring. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Were you responding to Dan or me, here? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You, primarily. I indented under you but when I saved, Dan's edit had appeared between your comment and mine. However, my comments were meant for you and Dan in parts. Certainly I am puzzled by Dan's addition of one study then removal of others. EdChem (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I share your puzzlement, but a possible explanation has been running around my head all morning (truly since yesterday, but I'm normally quite hesitant to discuss other's motivations): Dan's only concern about racism is racism against African people. Racism against Caucasians or East Asians is immaterial to his complaints, here.

of course, I cannot speak for Dan. But I can note that such a motivation would be perfectly consistent with all of his edits, thus far. Dan, would you care to explain your addition of the material claiming a smaller penis size for East Asians in light of this? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The text was added because it's from a peer reviewed journal. That appears to be the main thrust of your argument to support inclusion of your own material, isn't it? In addition, I find it disappointing that EdChem removed a peer reviewed study from the Asian Journal of Andrology, yet, un-reviewed material from the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital in Nigeria was left to stand. I let that one slide because in EdChem a saw a helpful editor who was willing to compromise for the sake of improving the article.DanJazzy (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

yet, un-reviewed material from the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital in Nigeria was left to stand. Where do you get this shit from? It was published in the Tropical Journal of Medical Research for christ's sake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

MPants, I appreciate the sentiment but I have chosen a lower key subheading.

Dan, leaving other parts unchanged does not mean I endorse them or that they don't warrant review / reconsideration. Removing what you added, however, reflects review of that source, which is (a) not MEDRS-compliant, (b) did not support the text you added, and (c) was incapable of supporting any conclusion on the topic. That journal article doesn't belong on WP for any article, it's junk. The sample size is small, the sample group clearly unrepresentative, and the result was trivial. I am all for collaboration and trying to reach a consensus, but within the boundaries of WP policy and suitable encyclopaedic content, and the value of that study in demonstrating a scientific basis for a claim that penis size is connected with race is precisely zero. EdChem (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your sensible sentiments EdChem but the Nigerian study is guilty of the same alleged offences you've highlighted for the Asian study. Why was it not removed? In any case, I don't think Wikipedia is the ideal place to try and disprove peer reviewed journals. If you have an issue with the findings of the study, you may disprove them in the appropriate Asian Journal of Andrology. The main reason I agreed with your compromise was because your proposal envisioned deleting disproportionate references to a particular race in a supposedly NPOV article. DanJazzy (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not disproving anything. I am stating that the article does not support the statements you added. I am stating that it does not meet MEDRS criteria. I am stating that the main finding, a correlation with R² = 0.04, is trivial, and that result was linking a ratio of finger lengths to penis size and said nothing about race. I suggest that you do not attempt to defend the text you added, DanJazzy, because the reference does not support it. A study on solely Korean men cannot prove a result about different races, and the race-related assertions made in the article are all attributed to other work. EdChem (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, EdChem I have no stakes in the veracity of that article. I'm not an urologist and it would be futile for me to attempt debate on the accuracy of a scientific article. I suggest that your points could be debated at the Asian Journal of Andrology. You will be interested to know that reference no. 17 in this very article supports the Asian study.

Back to the matter at hand,I think it would be helpful and appropriate that this sub-section does not have references to black people. As you said;only addressing the myths for some groups is inappropriate.....some formulations could risk the myths appearing to have some legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJazzy (talk • contribs) 16:22, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, your assertion that it supports the "Asian" claim relies upon you interpreting one of the data tables in that study, and ignoring the explicitly stated conclusion. The reason for the apparent disconnect is differences in 'body mass. Smaller men will tend to have smaller penises. East Asians are smaller than other ethnicities. Also, the amount of recorded difference is small.

Second, you have yet to find a single source which explicates a myth that Asian people have smaller penises.

Third: You need to start formatting your comments correctly and signing them every time. I've already linked you to a page where you can see proper indentation in practice and play around with it. Your insistence upon placing your comments back at zero indents is making this thread very difficult to follow, and your frequent forgetting to sign your comments is even worse; making it unclear who said what until sinebot comes along to sign for you and generate an edit conflict with people responding. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Please take your rebuttal to the Asian Journal of Andrology, I didn't author the reference. Secondly, you're an extremely rude individual and I wish you would be more civil in your tone and language. Thank you DanJazzy (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Haven't I already linked you to WP:FOC? It is not rude to expect you to adhere to community standards for talk pages. Also, the article in question wasn't published in that journal, but in the British Journal of Urology. Your mistakes of fact in this discussion seem to be more frequent than your accurate claims. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@DanJazzy: I don't think you are appreciating the point that I am trying to make, so allow me to put it in a different way. I am not asking that you prove the veracity of the journal article or defend its conclusions. I am asking for you to explain your own actions. In these edits, you added text to the WP article stating that: "a 2011 study by the Asian Journal of Andrology concluded that there was considerable evidence to prove that normal stretched penile length varied between ethnic groups. East Asians have slightly shorter stretched penile length when compared with other groups (Caucasian and Africans)." I am stating that this addition is not supported by the journal article. You are responsible for your additions to WP and I am asking you to explain why you made these edits and why you think the journal article is an adequate reference to support the text you added. I understand your point that coverage only of the myths about black men and not those about Asian men is biased / selective coverage and I stand by the comment of mine that you quoted above, but I remain disturbed by your edits. If you agree that the reference does not support the statement that your actions were WP:POINTy and disruptive. If you don't agree then I am concerned about your competence. I am asking you to explain these edits as I am assuming good faith but am also struggling to see a non-problematic explanation. Will you please explain? PS: I agree that we need to get back to how that section of the article could be modified, but that is a separate issue from the point I have been asking you about. EdChem (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Right. Thanks EdChem, for your assumption of good faith. I really do appreciate that you appear to be someone who is objective and willing to assist in improving this article. To answer your question, I added the text from the peer reviewed journal because I wanted to add balance to the article. I felt that it was unduly focused and biased against people of African descent due to a "meme" that is only found in the Western society WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. I have travelled extensively in Africa and Asia for instance, and I've never heard of this supposed myth that needs to be debunked so thoroughly. Picking up on Western stereotypes, I digged around and discovered that there's an equally pervasive (and ridiculous) meme of the "small" Asian and Caucasian male. I did some research and discovered the study from the journal from the Asian Journal of Andrology, which I copied word-for-word and included it here. Wikipedia may be an American publication, but I think it's important for us to remember that it seeks to be inclusive of the views of everyone in this world and not just the Western point of view. Thanks. DanJazzy (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

DanJazzy, I see now where you copied the text. The way you copied it, word-for-word but without quotation marks, is an example of a WP:COPYVIO and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Please, review what you have added to the encyclopaedia and add quotation marks and the source in the edit summary for any content that is a direct quotation. For example, looking at the PS I added above, in article space:

EdChem says that "we need to get back to how that section of the article could be modified, but that is a separate issue from the point I have been asking [DanJazzy] about."[reference]

is an acceptable way to add material, but

EdChem says that we need to get back to how that section of the article could be modified, but that is a separate issue from the point I have been asking DanJazzy about.[reference]

is unacceptable and a WP:COPYVIO even if the reference is included (or it would be if that content were from a journal article). As for the text adding balance, I am still confused. I understand that you think that material on only the myths about black men is unbalanced (and I agree) but what you added is a second myth (that Asian men have smaller penises) which is just as racist / biased. In case you are unaware, the combination of the two myths is used by racists to support beliefs in white superiority by those who adopt the work of Rushton and it is that aspect of these myths that is missing from here and needed, in my opinion. I just haven't had time to sit and write a suitable section to propose here for discussion. EdChem (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the article you cite, PMC 3739592, offers no empirical data to support the quote you used, merely citing other references. The full quote is

Unlike digit ratio, studies have not found a relationship between penis size and race.57 However, there is considerable evidence that normal stretched penile length varied between ethnic groups.35, 58, 59, 60 Among various ethnic groups, East Asians have slightly shorter stretched penile length when compared with other ethnic groups (Caucasian and African-American).35, 58, 59, 60

— Choi, Ho; Kim, Khae Hawn; Jung, Han; Yoon, Sang Jin; Kim, Soo Woong; Kim, Tae Beom (2011). "Second to fourth digit ratio: a predictor of adult penile length". Asian Journal of Andrology. 13 (5): 710–714. doi:10.1038/aja.2011.75. PMC 3739592.

Reference 57, supporting the declaration that there is no relationship between penis size and race, refers to the quote on page 164 of this book by M. V. Adams that "According to Fanon, the truth is that the average penis length of Africans is the same as that of Europeans, but, he adds, 'these are facts that persuade no one' (1967: 170)." Fanon refers to Frantz Fanon and his work Black Skin, White Masks which was published in 1952 and in English in 1967. Adams' comments on how the myth around black men and penis size is dehumanising are well made, and his reference to a "crackpot professor" is likely a reference to Rushton, who has indeed argued that the alleged larger penises of black men is reflective of lesser intelligence.

The references supporting a link between penis size and ethnicity are of questionable quality. Reference 60 is to the "Definitive Penis Size Survey", which is self-selected and self-reported (ie. unreliable). It also reports that "Surprisingly, it would appear from Figure 5, that contrary to popular myth, Black males have shorter erect lengths than their Caucasian counterparts. However, due to the small sample size and large variation in lengths, this "difference" is not statistically significant." Whatever problems there might be in sample sizes, the only reasonable summary here is that there is no statistically significant difference. Though it does report differences between Caucasians and Asians, it is unclear whether the analysis is statistically valid. Properly, an ANOVA test across the four groups should be done to establish that there are any differences before any pair-wise comparisons, but there is no evidence that this procedure was followed. In short, reference 60 is not worth much and I am surprised that an academic paper would cite it, and that peer review would have accepted it.

Reference 35 is: Son, Hwancheol; Lee, Hanjoo; Huh, Jung-Sik; Kim, Soo Woong; Paick, Jae-Seung (2003). "Studies on self-esteem of penile size in young Korean military men". Asian Journal of Andrology. 5 (3): 185–189. PMID 12937799. In this study, 123 "123 Korean men in their early 20's visiting the Jinhae Military General Hospital" had their penis sizes measured, were asked to rate their size (very small to very large), and to complete a personality inventory. They report that "Subjects who underestimated their penile size showed significantly higher scores on the hypochondriasis (Hs), depression (D) and psychasthenia (Pt) subscales of the MMPI than those in the Unbiased Group (P<0.05)" and conclude that "with a patient requesting penile augmentation, the urologist should consider the psychologic attitude of the patient to his penile size." Men seeking penile augmentation are not a representative sample for information on average size. This paper makes a valid point about practice for urologists and likely that men seeking penile augmentation are under-sized on average, but it does not support any meaningful comment on relative sizes of Asian and non-Asian men.

Reference 59 is: Wang, Chung-Hsing; Lin, Wei-De; Bau, Da-Tian; Tsai, Chang-Hai; Liu, Da-cheng; Tsai, Fuu-Jen (2006). "Penile length of normal boys in Taiwan". Acta paediatrica Taiwanica. 47 (6): 293–296. PMID 17407980. This study of "2126 boys (156 male newborns, 1198 male infants under 2 years old, and 772 boys older than 2 years old)" does conclude "Normal stretched penile length varied between different ethic groups, and maybe body size contribute more or less to smaller penile size in Taiwanese boys compared to Caucasian boys in light of general knowledge that Caucasian is taller than Chinese (including Taiwanese) in average." However, it looks at boys up to age 5 and appears to suggest the reported difference is associated with body size though evidence linking height and penis size is weak.

Reference 58 is currently in our article as reference 8, and is about "small penis syndrome" and so is also based around a sample that is unrepresentative of the "average."

I don't think these references provide good support to the claim of "considerable evidence." EdChem (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I once knew a Mexican guy that... Well, let's just say he'd make a white supremacist cry... We called him Tripod. He could do pushups with both hands clasped behind his back. He could flip a table over just by standing up. He said he never worried about being deported, or any walls that got built, because he'd just pole vault right back over. Poor guy was a virgin at age 40, though. Not through any fault of his; he could charm the pants off of any woman he met. It's just that once they got his off, they all ran screaming. I hope to god you two are at least chuckling by this point, because we need a little more levity in this discussion and I'm running out of jokes. (not really... I could go for days, but they get worse.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you EdChem for the detailed explanation of the peer reviewed article. I stand corrected on the WP:COPYVIO issue. You may note however, that the inadequacies you have pointed out in the Asian study are also present in the Nigerian study that has been cited in this article. I think the main issue is undue and disproportionate focus on people of African descent in the article.This will perpetuate negative stereotypes and racism, and in any case these stereotypes are inaccurate. How do we correct this?--DanJazzy (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Let's agreee that 1) we should stick to meta studies given the topic size and 2) this will be contentious so let people read the evidence on either side rather than hand quoting studies. I usually don't edit wikipedia but this stood out to me as an AWFULLY written section that I just had to check the talk. I propose: 'Although there has been observed some racial and ethnic differences in perceived penis size that were consistent with stereotypes(TEAM RACE PENIS REFERENCES HERE), the magnitudes of the differences were insufficient to justify the stereotype (TEAM EVERYONE IS EQUAL REFERENCES HERE).' NO QUOTE WARS. Just everyone add their references OK? I actually adapted this quote from Challenging Race-Based Stereotypes about Gay and Bisexual Men’s Sexual Behavior and Perceived Penis Size and Size Satisfaction. I think this is the truest statement that can be made that we can all agree on, and given how old this discussion is I'm going to make the change. As for the more contentious topic of african american penises, we should have a section on stereotypes and how that impacts people. You can literally find hundreds of studies on the effects of stereotypes, COMPLETELY SEPARATELY from the studies on penis size. This is a serious issue, perhaps the most serious issue on ALL of wikipedia, because 50% of the world worried about this LOL, so I demand a stereotypes section that links to studies on the impact of this, such as the one above Navira (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Nigerian study misrepresented

The section on the Nigerian study is incorrect. It states that erect length is 5.17 and cites this study: . However, if you look at the study, the authors explicitly state that "... we are aware that true physiological length of the penis can only be obtained with the penis is fully erect. Nevertheless, we opted for the indirect method of measuring the penile length by the full-stretch method..." Yet cite 25 in the article explicitly states that this source used erect penis length to measure the Nigerian men. This is false, not true, and reading the article for 4-5 minutes (and/or using the find and search function) would easily prove this. And, this, ladies and gentlemen, is why lay people like myself get infuriated with Wikipedia. You're out here parroting out wrong information, attributing that information to a primary source that didn't claim it, then have the nerve to prevent people from correcting the mistake. IMO, you all need to set up a system where only college graduates (preferably in the life science or, even better, medicine) are allowed to edit these articles. Be better. Do better. Write better. Source better. Peer-review better.

Please change "A study of 115 men from Nigeria found that the average flaccid stretched penis length of Nigerian males is 13.37 cm (5.26 inches) long, which is near identical to the worldwide average, stretched flaccid penis length of 13.24 cm (5.21 inches) and average erect penis length of 13.12 cm (5.17 inches)." to "A study of 115 men from Nigeria found that the average flaccid stretched penis length of Nigerian males is 13.37 cm (5.26 inches) long, which is near identical to the worldwide average (5.21 inches)".

Thanks.

172.220.87.184 (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't see where the sentence is misrepresenting the study. The "average erect penis length of 13.12 cm" does not refer to the Nigerian study, but to the worldwide average. "Near identical to the worldwide average, stretched flaccid penis length of 13.24 cm and average erect penis length of 13.12 cm". – Þjarkur (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Agrotoxicant that causes decrease in penis

Hello guys! I do not know how to build this article at the moment, so I leave this information here in the discussion that I added in the pt pt wiki in the agrotoxic section. From a global point of view I believe this information is important since Brazil is the third largest exported food in the world. "Agrotoxicant that causes decrease in penis is produced in large scale in Brazil". Tks!Theys York (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources/single studies

Skllagyook, regarding this, please avoid primary sources per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Yes, I know that primary sources/single study material was already in the article, but that doesn't mean that more should be added. The primary sources in the article should be removed and replaced with secondary and tertiary sources. If the single studies are not covered in secondary and tertiary sources, then including them is very dubious.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Third leg" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Third leg. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Megalophallically" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Megalophallically. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Irritating graph lines and bars

I'm getting confused with the graph's lines and bars. Is the 1% for 18cm and 3% for 17cm? Or is 18% end of the line, means out-of-scale and 1% is 17cm and 3% is 16cm? --88.74.162.127 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

IP, regarding this, we do not keep sections on this talk page indefinitely. Let the bot archive. Also, when reverting the bot, you must also revert the bot at the archive, like I just did. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Size Decrease after Prostate Surgery

Maybe under "Variation" maybe under "Aging" it might be good to add a little text about loss of both girth and length after prostate cancer surgery. Before surgery, the penis has three to five erections each night during sleep. If the surgery stops that, atrophy sets in and it gets smaller. The source I have for that is a commercial web site for an implant specialist:

edit: That bounced because of Wikipedia's blacklist. The site is for Perito Urology, but it used "youtu.be"

Perhaps someone can provide an academic source instead....

Thanks --

-- J.S.

2600:1700:F540:5560:54A9:E351:929F:3211 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Veale et al. 2015 is peer reviewed, but it is also heavily flawed

https://calcsd.netlify.app/veale Shows the abundant data collection errors made in Veale's paper, in which he misrepresents the length measures by saying "Flaccid or erect length was measured from the root (pubo-penile junction) of the penis to the tip of the glans (meatus) on the dorsal surface, where the pre-pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone. Flaccid stretched length was measured as above while maximally extending the penis."

Yet he cites any study whether the researchers compress the fatpad or not, and even chooses to use the non-pressed erect length data from Wessell's study while ignoring the same study's pressed erect length data which massively drives down the erect length mean. Similarly from Sengezer et al. 2002 Veale uses impossibly tiny ~0.1cm SDs due to the study misreporting SD (they are likely reporting standard error or SD as percentage of mean), this one study is given almost 30% of the total weight in the erect length category pulling the erect length SD down.

calcSD presents corrections to all of those errors and also goes through much more effort to find and reliably collect many more studies just like Veale did, but with much more attention to detail in their own meta-analysis: https://calcsd.netlify.app/study4 The entire site openly displays all it's data and links every study it uses along with strong inclusion criteria and examples of other studies. They also visually display the normal distribution approximations of each of the studies that go into each meta-analysis: https://calcsd.netlify.app/chart— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.194.149 (talk • contribs)

See WP:RS. It's all about reliable sources. A peer-reviewed meta-analysis carries vastly more weight than some guy's website about "dick sizes" and WP:OR as expressed on this talk page. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The link's criticism of the paper is correct though, how should that be handled? 80.111.116.243 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTRUTH. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTTRUTH:

Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing reliable sources, for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well

So shouldn't the following verifiably incorrect statement be amended, or at least shouldn't a note be appended about the inaccuracy/criticisms of this study's claim? Anyone can pull up Wessells' paper and see for themselves that Veale used the erect length that did not compress the fatpad.

From the wiki article:

"Erect lengths in the included studies were measured by pushing the pre-pubic fat pad to the bone, and flaccid or erect girth (circumference) was measured at the base or mid-shaft of the penis.″

24.228.194.149 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 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]

Edit #1: Section: Variance - (Sub Heading: Conditions -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_penis_size#Variance )

[x] An adult penis with an erect length of less than 7 cm or 2.76 inches

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

[y] An adult penis with an erect length of less than 9.3 cm or 3.661 inches

Edit #2: Section: Main (last paragraph, just above Studies -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_penis_size#Studies )

[w] An adult penis with an erect length of less than 7 cm (2.8 in), but otherwise formed normally

[Change From w (current) to z (changes)]

[z] An adult penis with an erect length of less than 9.3 cm (3.66 in), but otherwise formed normally AlexandraHarry (talk) 08:32, 20 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) 23:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

"Generally, the women polled cared more about width than men thought, and less about length than men thought, although the strength of caring for either among women showed a similar pattern."

Similar pattern to what? Can someone clarify please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.5.136 (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

please change ' However, studies have also shown drastic differences between stretched and erect length. ' to ' However, studies have also shown drastic differences between stretched and erect length. One study found that a minimal tension force of approximately 450 g during stretching of the penis was required to reach a full potential erection length. this study also found that tension forces exerted in this study by the urologist were shown to be significantly (P<0.01) lower than 450g. This may account for differences between stretched and erect length. ' Ruru44 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:MEDRS. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

please change ' However, studies have also shown drastic differences between stretched and erect length. ' to ' However, studies have also shown drastic differences between stretched and erect length. One study found that a minimal tension force of approximately 450 g during stretching of the penis was required to reach a full potential erection length. this study also found that tension forces exerted in this study by the urologist were shown to be significantly (P<0.01) lower than 450g. This may account for differences between stretched and erect length. ' Ruru44 (talk) 10:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Use of the Vaele, D., et al (2015) study

Vaele, D., et al.(2015) study on which many numbers on the page are based contains many errors which have been thoroughly analysed and reported on websites such as https://calcsd.netlify.app/veale (credits for this post go to this website, I am not affiliated with them). The most important of these errors are:

• Inclusion of numbers from studies where measurements were not made by pressing the ruler (or tape measure) to the pubic bone while stating explicitely to only use measurements from studies "where the pre‐pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone". (Promodu et al.(2007), Sengezer et al.(2002))
• Mistakenly using 'non-bone-pressed' data from Wessells et al.(1996), while 'bone-pressed' data was available (leaving only one study,Schneider et al.(2001), which actually used 'bone-pressed' data.
• Misreporting an (impossibly small) standard deviation of ~0.1cm from Sengezer et al. 2002 (which gets almost 30% of the weight of the erect length category).
• Using wrong standard deviation numbers for erect length and circumference from Ajmani et al. 1985.
• Misreporting sample size from, and thus incorrectly weighting Promodu et al. 2007.
• Misreporting sample size from, and thus incorrectly weighting Savoie et al. 2003.

Reportedly many more errors are present, but these alone demonstrate the untrustworthiness of Vaele's study.

If no better formal research can be found (which I would find quite pathetic), at least it should be mentioned that this study contains many errors.

Personally, I'm convinced https://calcsd.netlify.app/ provides sound, objective research which is based on many formal studies and is a better alternative. It remains, however, informal research and should be marked as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyRealEditor (talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. See this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why the sample size of the erected length and circumference (even if the incorrect Vaele numbers are used) could not replace "a systematic review of 15,521 men". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyRealEditor (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

There's a passage near the top part of the page detailing staffed measurements of erect penises. At the very end of the passage is the following sentence: "It is important to note that people who volunteer for these studies where data is collected may have a smaller penis size than the average population as people with smaller penises are more likely to volunteer for the studies."

This sounded pretty insane, so I checked the associated source. The associated source makes the suggestion that men with larger tools may be more likely to volunteer, which may skew results. Therefore, the sentence should actually say: "It is important to note that people who volunteer for these studies where data is collected may have a larger penis size than the average population as people with larger penises are more likely to volunteer for the studies."

Thanks for your time! 2600:1700:1682:7D20:990E:DB59:AE2A:FE3D (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have made this change to copyedit the recent addition and to alter the comment on who is more likely to volunteer. I checked the source and agree that it does not support the text as written. Thank you to 2600:1700:1682:7D20:990E:DB59:AE2A:FE3D for requesting a correction. EdChem (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

First diagram is not in English

The first diagram in this article is not in English. The file on Commons was originally English but someone translated it and I can't seem to revert (I'm not familiar with Commons). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.228.227 (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears that the file was just fixed on Commons. [10] Crossroads ^-talk- 03:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Correlation with vaginal size and depth

I read somewhere that the kama sutra says that penis size varies randomly to correspond to the random variations in vaginal size or depth. Also, perhaps any relative smaller size of white male sex organs might have evolved as a feature of living in colder climes where the body needs to preserve heat by keeping genital body parts closer to the torso to cut down on heat loss radiating from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:ed01:fc00:d49d:293a:884c:6ec0 (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Any changes need WP:Reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ul 203.192.192.10 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Simple unit conversion mistake

Change this "A U.S. study published in 2015 of the stated preferences of a panel of 75 women using 3D-printed models as scale references showed a preferred penis length of 16 cm (6.4 inches) and a preferred circumference of 12.2 cm for long-term sexual partners, with slightly larger preferred sizes of a length of 16.3 cm (6.3 inches) and circumference of 12.7 cm for one-time sexual encounters". To this "A U.S. study published in 2015 of the stated preferences of a panel of 75 women using 3D-printed models as scale references showed a preferred penis length of 16 cm (6.3 inches) and a preferred circumference of 12.2 cm for long-term sexual partners, with slightly larger preferred sizes of a length of 16.3 cm (6.4 inches) and circumference of 12.7 cm for one-time sexual encounters". Eduiopp7 (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for catching that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Corona virus

It is very infections and full of jeopardy TIYANI Joas (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean that the Corona virus affects human penis size? do you have any sources to back this up? --Donald Trung (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2021

A pinot 5.71.155.177 (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Talk 23:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was suggesting that a paragraph referencing the study should be appended to the section 1.9.

I have taken the liberty to write what what may be added below:

---

In a preliminary study by Kings College London, the affect of penis length on sexual pleasure was discerned through the use of placing silicon rings onto the penis which would reduce the limit of penetration possible during sex, effectively simulating a shorter penis length. Sexual intercourse was rated out of 100 by the female partners at home in the self report study. The study did not measure any differences in penis girth. It was noted that on average, reducing the depth of penetration led to a 18% reduction of overall sexual pleasure with an average 15% reduction in length of the given males penis.

---

Additionally, and this is unrelated to the prior issue so forgive me for not creating a new topic however I do not have an account but it should be clear that it is the same person also writing this. I have an image of a table from a study which recorded women's perception of the importance of penis size, and also whether they had ended a relationship due to penis size. It might be a good addition to the same section of the article. If you agree let me know and I'll make an account in the wiki commons and upload it.

Here is the link to the image:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0133079.t001

and here is the link to the article:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133079#pone-0133079-g006

It would be noted below the image that the study was of 75 women, 15 of whom had no sexual experience.

It could be inserted along with other information summarised from the article.

Just to be clear, this article and image is completely unrelated to the Kings College London study. Thanks

References

60 cm is the avarage size😎

Xd 2A0A:F640:1102:4447:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)