This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human penis size article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Human penis size was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 16, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy. Sexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Pozytyv ( talk · contribs) has been paid by hiringking99 on their behalf. Affiliation: freelancer.com

https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.220203 Lameringuewrangler ( talk) 02:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nice. 2601:601:1:4170:EC52:B579:A0ED:7404 ( talk) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello. I examined this study and it has many flaws. Majority of the studies selected in the review include subjects with ED, subjects seeking surgery for ED, self-reported measurements (This is very important, it was stated that these studies were supposedly excluded), elderly patients with prostate cancer, elderly urology patients, and patients complaining about a short penis. Numerous studies selected have a sample size of around or LOWER than 50 subjects. Thus, many of the studies selected cannot properly represent the population's penile length. This was brought to my attention through interaction with other individuals online, which agree that this study is incredibly unsound. I would suggest to remove this study from the Wikipedia article. Way6t ( talk) 18:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The article contains the sentence "At present there is no consensus in the scientific community of any non-surgical technique that permanently increases either the thickness or length of the erect penis that already falls into the normal range (4.5" to 7")." This probably needs to be revised; there now seems to be some some fairly good evidence that penile traction therapy has some effect, particularly in the treatment of Peyronie's disease, although consensus on this is still evolving. (eg [1], [2], [3]) All the other non-surgical treatments still seem to be worthless, though, and I don't know of any surgical treatments that are effective in increasing erect penis length in normal penises.

I'd greatly appreciate it if any editors with the relevant expertise could review this. — The Anome ( talk) 16:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

All of those studies are pretty nonconclusive. LegalSmeagolian ( talk) 21:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article relies significantly on that 2015 study to talk about the size of erect penises (the crux of the matter), but most of the measurements reviewed are of flaccid and stretched penises. 20 studies (n = 15 521) are included, of which only four (n = 692) measured erect penises. The two studies that measured both stretched and erect length showed a 2 and 4 inches difference between the measurements, showing that stretched length isn't a reliable proxy for erect length. The authors admit this :

"Limitations: relatively few erect measurements were conducted in a clinical setting and the greatest variability between studies was seen with flaccid stretched length." "This was found by Chen et al. [30] who reported that a minimal tension force of ≈450 g during stretching of the penis was required to reach a full potential erection length and that the stretching forces exerted by a urologist in their clinical setting were experimentally shown to be significantly less than the pressure required. " 2001:861:4B40:C8F0:2811:6845:A0B3:77E9 ( talk) 21:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Human penis size. (  · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Removal of a flawed and unscientific systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023)

The following is included in the Wikipedia article in "Human penis size": "The meta-analysis and systematic review by Belladelli et al. (2023) of 55,761 men from 75 studies, done between 1942 and 2021, and based on estimations of pooled mean length, indicated that the "current report identified a significant difference in penile measurements across different geographical regions."[4] The average flaccid penile length was 8.09 centimetres (3.19 in) in Africa, 7.23 centimetres (2.85 in) in Asia, 9.44 centimetres (3.72 in) in Europe, 9.82 centimetres (3.87 in) in North America, and 11.00 centimetres (4.33 in) in South America.[39] The average stretched penile length was 12.53 centimetres (4.93 in) in Africa, 11.60 centimetres (4.57 in) in Asia, 13.40 centimetres (5.28 in) in Europe, 13.75 centimetres (5.41 in) in North America, 15.60 centimetres (6.14 in) in South America, and 12.13 centimetres (4.78 in) in multiple regions.[39] The average erect penile length was 14.88 centimetres (5.86 in) in Africa, 11.74 centimetres (4.62 in) in Asia, 14.12 centimetres (5.56 in) in Europe, 14.58 centimetres (5.74 in) in North America, 15.71 centimetres (6.19 in) in Oceania, 14.50 centimetres (5.71 in) in South America, and 15.33 centimetres (6.04 in) in multiple regions.[39] Though Belladelli also found that erect length increased significantly over time in certain regions of the world, "24% over the past 29 years." Belladelli (2023) also indicated that "importantly, when the current analyses were adjusted for the technique to achieve erection, the point estimates remained similar."[4]"

This meta-analysis has an incredible amount of flaws, and needs to be removed from the article as it is extremely unscientific and literally misinformation.

• While writing this, I found an article on exactly what I am talking about, which is easy to read and explains everything in detail: I cannot link the article here, because its domain is xyz. Search up "No, Penises Haven't Gotten Longer" from Cremieux Recueil

I examined a study on the article "Human penis size", and the review study by Belladelli on temporal trends about penile length is very flawed. Majority of the studies selected in the review are unreliable and exhibit extreme flaws. These studies include subjects with ED ( Men with ED have significantly lower penile length), subjects seeking surgery for ED, self-reported measurements (This is very important, it was stated that these studies were supposedly excluded), very elderly patients with prostate cancer (These specific patients cannot represent the population average), and patients complaining about a short penis (Obvious bias). Numerous studies selected have a sample size of around or LOWER than 50 subjects. Thus, many of the studies used in the review cannot properly represent the normal population's penile length, which makes the results of the review are inaccurate. This was brought to my attention through interaction with other individuals online, which agree that this study is incredibly unsound. I would suggest to remove this study from the Wikipedia article. You can read the details and check for yourself.

In Table 1, there are 75 studies included in the review study by Belladelli: Studies specifically on men with ED/men with ED seeking or getting surgery: 7/75 (9.3%) Studies specifically on men with prostate cancer (Mean age in these studies are around 60): 14/75 (18.7%) Studies with patients complaining about a short penis: 2/75 (2.7%, only 2 studies, but it helps show how poor the study inclusion process is) Studies with less than 50 subjects as the sample size: 18/75 (24%, 9 studies have less than 30 subjects, a study with only 17 subjects was somehow included) Studies on cadavers (Degradation of penile tissue has a significant impact on penile length): 2/75 (2.7%)

• I was going to add more proof and details about how unscientific this study is, but another person has already written a full article on it. Way6t ( talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC) reply