Talk:Human penis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2011 08 08 PVS Fig5 Clinic Brochure.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Gender-neutral Language

I will be changing the language in this article to a gender-neutral one. This page explains why it is important for sex-specific articles to use gender-neutral language (similar edits will be made on articles of this nature). Malik.albahlani (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia is not bound by guidelines, rules or suggestions found on other websites. Please do not make any major changes in this area without establishing a WP:CONSENSUS first, or the edits will almost certainly be reverted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. As I mentioned at Talk:Breast reduction, sweeping changes of this nature should first be proposed at WP:VPR. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Malik.albahlani (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The link on the Mana.org website above doesn't work, and it may be this one. Calls to ban words like man/woman or he/she altogether could be controversial, and there is an essay at WP:GENDER looking at this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's where I've been asked to post about this. I'm not asking for it to be banned, I'm just asking for inclusivity where it's relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik.albahlani (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

It would be good to have more information about other cultures. "Penis" is also a euphemism (or slang) as it means "tail" in Latin.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

"პენისი" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect პენისი. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Penis Size Section Error: Use of Vaele, D. et al (2015) to report on mean length and circumference

Many issues with this section: Vaele, D., et al (2015) study on which the numbers are based contains many errors which have been thoroughly analysed and reported on websites such as [1]https://calcsd.netlify.app/veale (all credits for this post go to this website). 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 claiming to only use measurements from studies "where the pre‐pubic fat pad was pushed to the bone". Such as 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.

I believe Vaele, D., et al (2015) also misrepresented in the article:

 "As of 2015, a systematic review of 15,521 men (...)"

While true, only 692 measurements were used for erect length, and only 381 measurements for erect circumference(as reported by Vaele, the actual numbers are even lower, because Vaele misreported sample sizes from multiple studies).

 "(...) and the best research to date on the topic, as the subjects were measured by health professionals"

While it would already be a stretch to call it the best formal research, it is definitely not the best research to date on the topic.

See [2]https://calcsd.netlify.app/veale for a more in-depth look, an example of better research. See https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fbju.13010 for the original research.

I feel like https://calcsd.netlify.app/ provides objective, sound research which I would prefer to see on the page, marked as being informal research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyRealEditor (talk • contribs)

That is not how Wikipedia works. See this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)