Talk:Peyronie's disease/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spurious information?

While hilarious, references to the 'saggometer' and to 'Hansons Grappler' seem to have been inserted for entertainment purposes. Isn't this article supposed to provide accurate information about a medical condition? there is no citation nor can I find any evidence that such devices exist. I really doubt their value here! As for the 'backhand method' of masturbation, perhaps it warrants a separate Wikipedia entry or at least a cross-reference. I'd like to try it out as it's a method I haven't used yet :) (Tez123 (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)) The Clinton kink — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.137.136 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop allowing removal of facts

The device section is continuously edited wrongly, and a user keeps adding terrible information "The underlying cause of Peyronie's disease is thought to be trauma or injury to the penis usually through sexual activity (i.e. masturbation, penis pumps, jilking exercises)." - that statement couldn't be any more incorrect. Stop allowing junk edits. December 16th update: Anna Frodesiac, stop removing traction device mentions. The editing of this article is absolute bollocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmad (talk • contribs) 18:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Change Allowed

Ohnoitsjamie has allowed the "Traction Treatment" edit. Bill Clinton has this!

A

A resized image exists as Peyronie_penis.jpg.jpg, should someone find a need for it. I used to use it in the actual article, but someone gave some good points to why it should be hidden behind a link. If you disagree, I'm impartial, so do as you will. Is there any policy on nudity? --cprompt

---

I requested permission to use the image, but forgot to post it. The image was posted before permission was received, (and before I was very familiar with how Wikipedia works). Now, we're in the clear. :-)

Subject: Re: Request to use image from your site
From: Rod Phillips
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 08:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: cprompt

no problem, go ahead.
--- cprompt <cprompt@----.org> wrote:

>Dear Sir (presumably!),
>
>I really liked your webpage, The-Penis.com! I found it very
>informative 
>and useful. I would love to use a photo on that webpage for a project
>
>I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.
>
>Wikipedia ( http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) is a free encyclopedia that
>is 
>collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.
>
>I would very much like to incorporate the photo of a curved penis
>listed 
>on your Peyronie Disease page
>(http://www.the-penis.com/peyronies.html) 
>into a section of the project, but I can only do so if you are
>willing 
>to grant us permission to use it under terms of the GNU Free 
>Documentation License. This means that anybody will have the right to
>
>share the section with their friends, and modify it, for example, to 
>keep up with new information or to make it appropriate for a
>different 
>audience. You can read this license in full at:
>http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL
>
>This license also expressly protects authors "from being considered 
>responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that 
>authors get credit for their work.
>
>If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting 
>article's references section by stating that the article was based on
>
>your work and is used with permission. The article "Peyronie disease"
>on 
>the Wikipedia already contains a link to your website. The article is
>
>located at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyronie_disease. The image
>is 
>already wrongfully included with the article. If you do not grant us 
>permission to use the image, it will be removed immediately.
>
>Thank you for your time.
>
>Kindly,
>
>cprompt
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com

---

The references on this article are inadequate, but I leave the information here because I do not know how to add it to the Article. I hope someone will kindly do this. Because of inadequate references in this Article, it took me much longer to research this topic.

Levine, Laurence A., M.D. Peyronie’s Disease: A Guide to Clinical Management (Humana Pr., 2006).

Levine, Laurence A., M.D. Understanding Peyronie’s Disease: A Treatment Guide for Curvature of the Penis. (Addicus. Sept. 2007). http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6477479.html

Association of Peyronie's Disease Advocates http://www.peyroniesassociation.org rumjal 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead

The definition ought to contain a visual or apparent description of the disease. This should precede the statement regarding percentage of sufferers. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Article looks like set-up ad for the product shown in the page

This article reads like junk and then follows up with a website that gives you a '100% cure'.Ykral (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fastsize Penile extender

Why was the reference to this device removed? It's cited to a decent source:

Levine LA, Newell MM (2008). "FastSize Medical Extender for the treatment of Peyronie's disease". Expert review of medical devices. 5 (3): 305–10. doi:10.1586/17434440.5.3.305. PMID 18452379. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Commercial or not, it's a reliable, peer-reviewed academic journal. II | (t - c) 08:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little hasty. Please excuse me. I visited the site and just saw BUY NOW! I didn't realize it was a credible study. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While the study seems credible, and I originally added the reference after finding it on PubMed, it appears that there is an IP editor 64.58.188.68 (talk · contribs) adding it for commercial promotion. II | (t - c) 19:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the source seems credible, the report summary does not. In fact, this somewhat conflicts with the summary from the same person....

conflicting information

Furthermore, the report itself is not accessible - just the summary, which really doesn't say anything. Unlike other summaries, the FastSize summary does not give mention number of participants, and uses the term 'affordable'.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that it uses the word 'affordable' is questionable, but the fact that it doesn't state its sample size is fishy. The report is not inaccessible per se, but I don't have access to that journal. Someone at WP:MED probably does. But you're probably right that it's worth leaving it out until it's better established. II | (t - c) 21:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a reprint of the report (supposedly).

If you all would have WOT installed on your browser you will see clearly that this study resides on a website that has distributed malware and spam's people that use it. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote Dr. Taylor at Frederick_Taylor@rush.edu (from the NCBI article synopsis page, searching Dr. database in Chicago could turn up other possible contact info) to ask about the validity of this reprint and if the study has been misrepresented. 71.86.156.73 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

xternal link to blog not allowed?

I thought the blog link would also be helpfull, it is a serious blog from someone who suffers from the disease. Are blogs not allowed!? P.S. permission was also granted from the blog owner --Evilericc (talk) 10:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

See point 11 of links normally to be avoided at WP:EL. - MrOllie (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Leriche technique was neglected

Added a sentence and the NIH republication and archive copy. Done anonymously for it's an embarrassing condition. 71.86.156.73 (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bent Cock For Children

Does anyone think perhaps having a picture of a bent penis might be a little inappropriate without disclaimer - on the top of a wiki page...?

I went here because of the Colbert Report (and I'm not a child....) but it seems like this could be a little inappropriate more generally... Michael Sheflin (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for children or anyone else. Material which is objectionable but nonetheless encyclopedic, such as the specimens in this article, cannot be removed merely to satisfy moral edicts. There is no question that the images in question enhance the quality of the article and the reader's ability to understand the topic, so they stay. Cheers, Vectro (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I follow. I wasn't really arguing on grounds of censorship or morality, I was merely suggesting that headlining the page with a bent cock might not be appropriate, nor would having that picture displayed on the article be necessary. The article Penis, for instance, has plenty of pictures of Penises. Obviously, that is necessary and appropriate; but Peyronie's Disease is obscure enough that not everyone going to the article would be inherently aware of the connection. I'm not so much making a point as reacting to my supposed moralism... Michael Sheflin (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In that vein (pun definitely intended) also, does Wikipedia censor information like child pornography, information regarding the construction of illegal weapons and such like that? If so, I would imagine the criterion is appropriateness, necessity, and legality. Obviously that information is available on the internet, and no doubt Wiki is required (by its very mission) to summarize it with objectivity. However, there are standards by which some related information (schematics of dirty bombs for instance) would get it into severe trouble. So... there clearly is censorship beyond the criterion for which you are arguing. My point was simply whether having a cock at the top of the page is necessary - not that cocks should be censored... God forbid. Michael Sheflin (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically the objective is to use text and media to describe the topic in the best possible way without falling afoul of the law. With respect to weapons, I could be wrong (not a lawyer), but I believe that descriptions of weapons are covered under the First Amendments. Descriptions of weapons are not weapons, after all. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing article contains a detailed description of the bomb's construction. With respect to sexual images, anything not prohibited in Florida is fair game, meaning that the rule generally is that images of genitalia need to be of models over 18, but even there there could be exceptions; I would imagine (again, not a lawyer) that Phimosis for example could legitimately have a picture of a child's penis. Also, there are ways for users to block images that they find offensive. Vectro (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Sheflin. Also, Vectro didn't understood him and didn't got the main objection. 200.203.185.154 (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I read something about Wikipedia testing a system for "personal image comfort censorship" or something or other to prevent people from inadvertently seeing things they would rather not see "just browsing"? Whatever happened to that? Anyway, isn't a general with images such as this to put the graphic image further down in the article ("below the fold"), and put a medical schematic image (or whatever it's called) next to the lead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.142.231 (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be honest, but the picture itself kind of seems inappropriate, don't they have other example to use rather than child erected penis... Just the very fact of someone having to make a prepubescent children horny just to take a picture of his penis is way to close to child pornographia, and I think anyone with any common sense would agree that using a picture of an adult would be more decent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk • contribs)

Confusing picture

The picture, next to "causes", with the text saying "Mild peyronies" next to it is somewhat confusing. From what I can see, the penis is straight as an arrow, but *points* to the left. I think there's a big difference between a *bent* penis, and a *pointing* penis. Is the penis in the picture really Peyronie's disease? And why does it say "mild"? I think it points quite a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.85.105 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 May 2010

According to an article I read in Men's Health, a severe case of Peyronies would be a 90-degree angle. I agree it makes sense to put up the most severe example. Vectro (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed that ridiculous image. That is a perfectly straight, healthy penis with neither any curve in the shaft nor any narrowing - both which are necessary parts of the PD diagnosis. There is no source by that image (it did not come from any medical journal) nor any reason to believe that "contributor" actually has peyronie's disease. For people who actually have this extremely depressing disorder - it is offensive to see that some guy who wants to show his perfectly healthy dick off to the world would be posting in an article like this. A penis w/ peyronie's disease would show a section of clear narrowing somewhere in the shaft (called an hourglass effect). That penis had no such narrowing - and in fact, is larger & thicker than average penises (when most men with peyronie's loose size due to the scar tissue contracting & not allowing the erection to fully extend). There is no evidence of where any scar tissue might be in that picture. Also, he is holding the head of the penis & probably just angling the whole shaft to the left with his hand. Peyronie's does not affect the junction of the penis to the body. It just affects the shaft. Maybe this person didn't have a malicious intent (i.e. let me just show my dick off to the world) & just self diagnosed himself & put a picture of his penis on here - but either way - it's a poor representation of peyronies and anyone doing a google search to learn more about it (or thinking they have it) & landing on this article would be seriously misled by that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancillary0101 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 May 2010

I have to agree, and I had added a link to some external images that showed different degrees of the disease, but the editor removed it... not sure why. As this is supposed to be a resource of information, more images would only help. If your looking for more images then http://www.peyronies-information.com/peyronies-pictures is a resource with multiple images of different stages. Too bad the editors are so biased as to not allow all to have access to these. Davidandkimbenton (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The current image is inapropriate and should be replaced by the following used on Wiki in other languages: file: Peyronie disease.jpg|thumb| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.185.253 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the image inappropriate? This is the picture I showed my urologist. It is somewhat low quality, but it is a penis with substantial curvature. Nevertheless, because it is lower quality, I've changed the image back.