Talk:Human penis size/Archive 3

Rushton not a reliable source?
WARNING WIKIPEDIA is quoting an alleged RACIST, i.e. Mr Rushton of University of Western Ontario, as such this source cannot be considered valid. If a copy of this article were to be sent to news organizations, the editors of this article might not enjoy the scrutiny. See the following references: --24.200.55.19 15:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * http://bethuneinstitute.org/documents/racialscientestrushton.html --> "Racial Scientist Rushton Takes Over Pioneer Fund", an organization associated with eugenics.
 * http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=29 -->"Jean Philippe Rushton ... the father of the modern day scientific and intellectual racists"


 * You won't be able to take a NPOV on the subject if you only quote anti-racists. Rushton is a controversial scientist, but one who has supporters in the scientific community, publishes in mainstream journals, and maintains his professorship at the University of Western Ontario.--Ty580 05:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

jackinworld.com Race and Penis size questionnaire is inaccurate
The questionnaire from http://www.jackinworld.com/library/surveys/survey3.html is not fact. Anybody can play a prank by giving fake answers. The lowest age in the questionnaire was 11. Comparing an 11 year old penis size with a 22 year old is just stupid. This should be remove from wikipedia. It doesn't meet wikipedia's standards.

I think also the fact that it comes from a site called "jackin' world" speaks a lot about its credibility.

Race and Penis Size and Condom Use
These sections appear to be entirely unscientific. The quasi-racial categories demonstrate a significant bias and lack of basis in statistics or medicine. The source cited only offers the citation of another source which is unverified. Users have posted no discussion as to the significance of the section nor their contribution to this article. Their inclusion is blatant racism and is completely inapproriate. The inclusion of race in a section titled penis size and condom use seems particularly unnecessary when sources citI have a very big penis, its probaly bigger than yoursed conclude no statistical significance. This is a ridiculous masking of malice through faulty quotation and poor citation. These sections do not contribute to understanding the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Information about penis size and race should be kept in that section. Information specific to penis size and it's effect on condom use is ambiguous, does penis size correlate with frequency of using condoms or rather their effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and disease transmission. A bigger penis apparently tends have more condom failure resulting from breakage, whereas a smaller one tends to have more from slippage. Read the sources if you're unclear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

This is a silly section to have in such an article - and I think that there are a few users of Wikipedia who have an agenda to indefinitely progress and extend this section every time a study is published in the hope that they racially categorise people of the world on their penis size. I'm quite flustered that these people should be allowed to pursue this racist agenda (though it has been toned down recently with specific region headings having been removed). Even if under non-ideal world conditions, this section was pursued, how can you compare different studies when each has measured a different proportion of a population, and that proportion might be from one section of a vast land? Lets take for example a section of this article that tries to convey the size of penis in India, where according to the article "Over 1,200 volunteers from the length and breadth of the country had their penises measured precisely, down to the last millimetre" - according to the CIA World Factbook, as per a July 2006 estimate, there are 1,095,351,995 or 1 billion and 95 million people in India and so one would have to question a) the validity of the study as a whole, if we're to use this as a benchmark/reference for human penis size in India, and b) its usefulness in comparison to other studies where less or more than 1,000 odd people may have been measured. I hope someone here can do something about this. Volatileacid 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making two types of objections, so let me rephrase them to see if I have them clear.
 * Wikipedia should not report on racial differences as a matter of principle.
 * The current studies we cite are scientifically flawed.
 * The first one, I think you must admit, is censorship. I think this is why you didn't argue it very strongly.  As to the second, the policy of no original research prohibits amateur critiques of studies.  If you can find another reliable source pointing out methodological flaws with the study we can rethink the study's inclusion.  Otherwise, I'm inclined to trust scientists more than you. LW izard  @ 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With regards to your first point, can you think of another article that tries to racially profile people in this way? and secondly the fact of the matter is, if you're going to use studies, scientific or not in a head to head comparison, the studies should ideally be conducted under similar circumstances, using a similar quota of people etc. It doesn't matter if there are five studies, all scientific, but if all were conducted using different parameters, comparison becomes nigh on impossible. Oh and finally, 'Study's' should be Studies ... just thought I'd point that out seeing as your profile says you're a 'Grammar Nazi'?!!? Volatileacid 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Other articles that racially profile people, off the top of my head, are human height and Tay-Sachs disease. I agree that similarly-conducted studies would be better than the disparate studies we have now, but we are stuck with what we have.  Analogously, our article on the Fine-structure constant cites two different studies with different methodologies.  Finally, while I welcome constructive criticism about my grammar, I actually wrote exactly what I intended.  Your suggested emendation makes a nonsense sentence. LW izard  @ 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indians are not a race, and neither are Jordanians. India has Caucasian people (Sindhis) and Mongoloid people also (Mizo,Kuki people). Which "race" are they referring to when they say "Indians"? Jordan is a country of Arabs mainly. So are Jordanians representatives of all Arabs??? Please see anti-Arabism and associated stereotypings. Rumpelstiltskin223 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * These are all Indians.Are they the same "race"? Indians are a nationality, not a race.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! ! !
 * }
 * Image:Javed shabana.jpg Shabana Azmi with husband Javed Akhtar
 * Image:MamtaKulkarni.jpg Mamta Kulkarni
 * Rumpelstiltskin223 04:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't sidetrack the conversation. Anyway, the Kalash is an ethnic group that lives in Pakistan, and I see no difference between Shabana Azmi, Mamta Kulkarni (both of whom are actresses) and the black and white picture of the Brahmins?! (Brahmin is a caste if you didn't know). And I think you might be trying to saying that Indians are an ethnicity? Please try and get your facts right.Volatileacid 01:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there are some Kalash people in Himachal Pradesh also. Shabana Azmi is of Arab descent, Kulkarni is a Maratha woman. Brahmins are a "Caste" and come in many "races" (black, white, even Mongoloid in Assam and West Bengal). I am saying that they are all "Indians" and they are not a "race". NO academic or credible scholar says that there is such a thing as an Indian "race", then why is this section on Indians listed under "race and penis size"? Thanks for formatting the pics btw. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it will arouse less animosity, I would be open to rewordings of that paragraph that change "Indians" to "Mumbaians," though this may be difficult since we (obviously) can't edit direct quotes. LW izard @ 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Mumbaikars are not a race either, anymore than New-Yorkers are a race. Why is this lited under "race and penis size" is what I want to know. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course neither Mumbaikar nor New Yorker is a race. However, Mumbai and New York have different racial make-ups.  So from knowing the average penis size in New York and the average penis size in Mumbai, you can infer something about differences in penis size by race.  You can't come directly to definite conclusions (because one race's large penises may statistically cancel with another's small ones), but the studies still have value with respect to race. LW izard  @ 09:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But the BBC article says nothing about race as a factor in the study involved. It refers to Indians (rather bizarre, even for BBC) so claims for a linkage with race-related studies constitute a WP:NOR violation. In fact, the standard stereotype in India is that Punjabi and Gorkha men have the largest penises "in the world" (with an average of 4-inch erect penises).Rumpelstiltskin223 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia users shouldn't use results of a study to further their own agendas when the studies identify their own results as inconclusive and/or not statistically significant. We don't need to find sources to prove that other sources are unreliable, when there's no reason to support the inclusion to begin with. The existence and publication of an article does not necessitate it's inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * We could certainly remove the FHI study, since it seems to be statistically insignificant. As to the inclusion of other articles, I think that information relevant to the subject of the article should be included. LW izard  @ 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any reason to retain the information about the FHI study? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.5.224 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I would like it removed, the study makes conclusions based on WHO data, which used the Kinsey study and an Australian study, both self-reported, against a Thai study which was measured by researchers. If you compare results of the Thai study with the staff measured studies in western countries cited in the article, and with the cited Korean studies, this actually supports the claim of no difference between races, the opposite conclusion of FHI. 74.116.243.173 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a very big penis, its probaly bigger than yours


 * These studies really make me ponder sometimes. Because we all know that white people must have managed to sample the penis size of every east asian in the world. Therefore, we all know your white scientists have sampled every single man out of the 1.3 billion east asians of the Han ethinicity alone (excluding Koreans, Japanese and the whole of south east asia) which would comprise of at least 775,000,000 Han males. Oh wait, you havent. This is as much bullshit as the asian people are shorter than white people myth. Who is the tallest man in the NBA? Why is it that our Australian school's basketball team toured China and were virtually dwarves to the Chinese teams? Why white people keep perpetrating this nonsence really perplexes me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.226.169.225 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I think it is a tad unfair to attribute any perceived errors in the various studies as being the fault of "white people". If one was to ponder why do black people do x, y or z, you be decried as racist, so generalising about all white people is no better. Please grow up.

Race and Penis Size
penis section exludes information about hispanic/latino men. The sources cited are a seemingly random assortment of studies, none of which discuss hispanics/latinos to any extent, nor do they provide conclusive, statistically significant findings. The mess in this section is equivalent to googling the words penis, size, and race, and picking the top results and copying and pasting. The wikipedia article on race also identifies many other groups not clearly defined as part of any of the current sources. What are some of them considered? the Indians, Alaskan Natives, American Indians, Jewish People, Arabs, Northern or Eastern Europeans, East Africans, Indigenous Australians? Are any of these groups even represented by the current sources appearing in this section? We don't need to, nor can we discuss every group of people that consider themselves their own race, but this section is dire need of clean-up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.186.205.102 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Everything you mentioned above is a solid observation, however, if the section was concerning "race" it would not make a distinction for hispanic/latino men as categorically they are not a race, but a cultural classification. Hispanic/Latinos can be of any race.

Hispanic is not a race, not that race is a completely sound concept to begin with. An Hispanic person can have ancestors of European, American Indian, black African, etc origin, and is very likely to be all of the above. Why I seem to be the only American who can grasp this concept is beyond me.


 * A survey in October 2004 conducted in Hong Kong, measured the flaccid penis size of 148 ethnic Chinese volunteers aged between 23 and 93. The average length of their flaccid penises was 8.46cm which compared favourably with similar studies on other men overseas. Chan Lung Wai director of the Urology Center at the Union Hospital who headed the study suggested that "Hong Kong people are no smaller than western men, where their penises are concerned". Other studies of average penis lengths conducted on men overseas included Germans 8.6cm, Israelis 8.3cm, Turks 7.8, Filipinos 7.35, Americans 8.8 and Italians at 9cm.

Vulvar stretching [removed]
I've removed this text because it's uncited and seems dubious. WP can't cite original research.
 * Additionally, some claim that if a penis is thick enough compared with the vaginal opening, i.e. vulva, stretching will occur. This stretching can supposedly cause the clitoral hood to pass back and forth across the clitoris, which would provide additional stimulation of this large concentration of nerve endings. This stretching is claimed to pull the clitoris down into the path of the thrusting penis, causing it to make contact with, and rub across, the top, or dorsal, section of the penis. This may facilitate even greater clitoral stimulation.

--Ty580 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the one who wrote this originally. This type of stretching, although not documented in any medical journals, can be seen to occur on occasion in pornographic videos. It is most easily seen during the cowgirl/woman-on-top position, especially if the woman is leaning back slightly. It can also be observed during the missionary position, although that is somewhat less common. This type of stretching is much more likely to occur during a state of high sexual arousal for the woman. It usually preceeds those rare occasions where orgasm is actually reached during a pornographic scene. Again, these facts can only be considered anecdotal at this time, failing the citation of original research. I could even post photographic or videographic evidence of this phenomenom, but that would not be sufficient to prove anything.
 * --Solcis 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Race = 50 warnings --AnYoNe! 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

References to the g-spot
This article writes about the g-spot as if there is no question to its existence. In fact, the vast majority of research into this topic has found that it is likely a myth. I don't think this is the place to expand upon the intricacies of the g-spot mythology, thats done in the article on the g-spot. I think the best way to handle the issue would be to just eliminate references to the g-spot in this article. It doesn't seem to be important. Does anyone have any other suggestions? Tmtoulouse 18:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source for your claim that the "vast majority of research" has found the G-spot is a myth. I used to not believe in the G-spot myself until my very skillful and generous ex-boyfriend showed me the light. :) As it stands the first source given in the article supports the existence of the G-spot but not the overblown claims about the effects of G-spot stimulation, which according to him is enjoyable for some women, unenjoyable for others. The second source does not give an online link so I don't know what it actually says.


 * The current article on the G-spot is bizarre in that it does not even mention the urethral sponge, I'll try to fix it when I have more time. Rosemary Amey 03:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

LifeStyle data
The LifeStyle data shouldn't be put in a summary graph on the side. It looks too authorative, and, for goodness sake, how accurate can a study done on Spring Break in Cancún, Mexico, possibly be? This screams selection bias.--75.73.227.22 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content
Here it is. Some of this is pretty ridiculous. My favorite was "a woman's vagina can tightly accommodate most penises..." (like, ALL of them? that's gonna take a while). This one's pretty good too: "discomfort can sometimes be experienced with unusually large objects, but the vagina can, over time, adapt." (I'm imagining a nature show announcer -- 'The vagina, like the snow leopard, can adapt.')

This article still needs a lot of work. -- Joie de Vivre 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Content
There have been several studies regarding the average size of the human penis. The majority of such studies could be unreliable due to self-selection bias: men with a smaller than average penis might be less likely to allow themselves to be measured, while men with a larger than average penis might be more likely to allow themselves to be measured. It is unknown if this conjectured self-selection bias has been confirmed by any studies, or if any studies have attempted to account for potential self-selection bias regarding penis size.

The vagina is elastic. It expands on average to ~10 centimetres (4 in) in diameter during childbirth, yet the muscles can retain something as small as a tampon. The vagina itself is a very elastic environment which can expand on average to ~10 centimetres (4 in) in diameter during childbirth, and it also easily retains a tampon. Thus a woman's vagina can tightly accommodate most penises from relatively small to large. It will generally accommodate and adjust to the object it surrounds. Discomfort can sometimes be experienced with unusually large objects, but the vagina can, over time, adapt.

In stark contrast, minor surgery without anesthetic can be conducted on the inner portion of a woman's vagina without discomfort. Most women attest to a feeling of being "filled up" by larger than average penises, yet few can claim to feel erotic sensations in the deeper regions of the vagina. The cervix, fornix, and cul-de-sac are within close proximity of each other, so there may be indirect and/or simultaneous stimulation between them.PRessure of the vagina can also cause discomfort, and this may be mistaken for cervix pain. Thus very long penises sometimes cannot be fully inserted. The exact depth depends on both anatomical dimensions and arousal of the woman, as well as the sexual technique used.

Enough foreplay to produce full arousal is generally needed to ready a woman for penetration by a large penis — although this same amount of foreplay is often recommended regardless of the man's penis size. While a long penis normally isn't a hindrance, there's little to suggest it's advantageous either

Penis-enlargement self-treatments are not effective for this condition

The cultural issues involved with the question of race and penis size are complex, with both larger and smaller penises used as justification for regarding other races as inferior; as evidence of an oversexed and brutish animal nature in the former case, or of sexual inadequacy in the latter case. In general, there is a tendency to see the penis size of one's own group as the "right" size, compared with those of others.

There is considerable debate as to whether specific racial variations in penis size exist, and if they do, whether observed variations can be explained in terms of other factors such as correlations of penis size to body size. In any case, within-group variation in penis size (±30%, see above) seems to be considerably larger than claimed between-group variation of average penis size (±4%, see below).


 * The info for the second paragraph you removed was cited under [22] and [30]. The wording can sound humorous if you construe it that way, but it's still factual nonetheless.


 * "ALL of them?" It said a women "could" accommodate most penises. Not that you should expect a women's vagina to actually be penetrated by most of the penises in the world. That's just your humorous construal.


 * A lot of people with a dirty sense of humor it seems. Hehe. That's ok. Me too. Trying to keep it serious here though (in articles at least). I believe that part should be reinstated (2nd paragraph), but with a re-wording.


 * Yeah the article does still need a lot of work. I didn't thoroughly examine all that you removed, but it does appear unsubstantiated. So good job overall.
 * Wits 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I redid the previously mentioned info. Worded now to stick to the basic scientific point and does not overelaborate.


 * Added this "The walls of the vagina are composed of soft elastic folds of mucous membrane skin which stretch or contract to the size of the penis [32]. This means (with proper arousal) the vagina stretchs/contracts to snugly envelop virtually any size penis, from small to large."
 * Wits 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

length
I went to the Sex museum in Amsterdam and there was a picture of a man who had a 47cm penis, I remember this was the exact length. I am almost certain it was real. I can't get a reference because my webpage blocker won't let me search for it, but it should be a useful addition if a reference is found. Bobbacon 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's just a picture, I would suspect Photoshop was involved. (47cm is 18.5 in, for those who prefer Imperial units.) What could you do with a penis that big anyway? Rosemary Amey 03:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my experience, coming from a black man, lots of women do not want a very large penis thrusting inside of them. I remember when stationed in Germany, most protitutes wouldn't mess with a brother. Stating "Too Big" "No" No", before even seeing what I had. So to answer your question, the guy with 18.5 inches won't be sexing it up with any human female !!!  That is for sure......

is my size normal
i am 14 and my peins size whean erict is 5.5 inches is this a normal size whean it is not erict it is 3.5 inches


 * It sounds normal enough, but even if it wasn't, there is nothing you can do to change your penis size so there is no point worrying about it. (And why do so many people want to be "normal" when it comes to sex? In other areas of life, we don't worry about being normal. Is it "normal" for me to be a vegan? No, and I wouldn't have it any other way! Is it normal to have blue eyes? You could argue it isn't, because statistically most people have brown eyes--yet no one is criticizing us blue-eyed freaks of nature. Is it normal for me to listen to classical music most of the time, instead of top 40? Who cares! Normal is boring and over-rated; it is people's differences that make them interesting.) Rosemary Amey 03:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Unclear on "Asian"
Don't really use this much so I dunno if I'm following the protocols or not, but I just wanted to point out that in Britain "Asian" usually refers to south Asian (from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh), whilst East Asians are usually referred to as whatever their country of origin is or as "other Asian". This may lead to some confusion and discrepancies between the reports of the different studies (in the race section). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.167.228.127 (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Choice of picture
The picture titled "erect penis" is actually only half-erect. My penis is more erect--it's pointing straight up. Hold on, and I will take a picture, and contribute it to the community.


 * Not my picture, but your mistaken about it being half erect. The full erection of men can vary widely in angle depending on the amount of tension on the suspensatory ligament. Wits 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And whether they were circumcised: the missing skin can pull the angle of the penis down (or to the side...) Joie de Vivre 22:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But it can stick strait up depending on the person. I saw on a website that someones got 7.5 in. long, too. But where is the picture you were talking about?

I've just redirected size queen here, and will merge a small amount of content
That article could easily be nailed at AfD for original research/trivia/dicdef, but I just did the WP:BOLD thing and am merging and redirecting.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

online surveys

 * Read your link. It was only a survey. No one was actually measured (not verifiable). And it goes on to say that any size difference is due to cultural differences in diet, and not actual genetic differences between Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid (White, Black, and Asian).
 * Wits 18:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian=European ancestry Negroid=African ancestry Mongoloid=oriental

it was all there.

it was 600 men and how is the survey from sizesurvey.com more credible then this????

we are trying to point out the differences that is the point regardless of weather it is diet or god gave it to them!

And what about the one that is already on from "sizesurvey.com" it said it is only a survey and a trial that should not be used. it was a self measure just like the one you say and should not go on.

This is an actual quote:

"However, due to the small sample size and large variation in lengths, this "difference" is not statistically significant."

how is it credible???

it is totally not credible and should be removed.

if not that one this is more accurate from the above post.

This is the sample

(a) African (black) 1.7% (average age: 17.8) (b) Asian/Pacific Islander 5.4% (average age: 19.0) (c) European (white) 85.0% (average age: 18.2) (d) Latin-American/Hispanic 3.3% (average age: 16.3) (e) Middle Eastern/Semitic 0.6% (average age: 15.7) (f) Native American 1.7% (average age: 20.3) (g) Other 2.3% (average age: 22.0)

Penis size By ethnicity (age 15 and over only):

• Blacks 6.35" • Asians 6.33" • Whites 6.22" • Hispanics 6.05" • Native Americans 6.66"

Penis circumference by ethnicity (age 15 and over only):

• Blacks 4.55" • Asians 4.60" • Whites 4.48" • Hispanics 3.42" • Native Americans 4.74"

reply back and don't be shy.

--86.20.6.103 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As it's said in the wiki article, nothing has been conclusively proven. Yes, you can say that survey found "black people are bigger on average". But It is less credible than the sizesurvey.com survey because of a lack of any information on the Methodology used and other details. It only has the results. So no credibility at all, and of no use in the wikipedia article. I mean they can't even spell. Looks like a page someone quickly made up to attract viewers (searching on "penis size) to see their sex personal ads plastered all over the place.

If you find a better source which details that survey feel free to add it to the others in wiki article. Even then (with methodology details), it probably won't prove anything (being a self-measured study), and will only be useful noting as anecdotal evidence.

Same as the sizesurvey.com survey. You used a good quote which shows it's lack of credibility for showing racial size differences (this is already noted in wiki article). But the same is true of the Jakinworld survey. The sample size of Africans was too low to be of use (1.7%). So I would say both the sizesurvey.com survey and the Jakinworld survey are lacking in credibility for comparing racial sizes. I'd say we should either have both in the article (for fairness and neutrality) as weak anecdotal evidence or not have either. It is questionable.

Coolnurse.com doesn't even know where the survey information came from. Interesting read, but not credible.

If better studies and surveys are done that conclusively show "black" people are larger on average as a whole (race), then yes, that should be published whether "diet or god gave it to them". As of now, studies show too many discrepancies to make any conclusion.

Ok. That was a bit of a mind-bender to all contemplate. I think I need to take a break from this article. Penis Penis Penis... Blah Blah.. Heh. Good debate though. Kudos.

Wits 16:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am actually quite surprised that you acted fair in this argument but this problem still remains. I suggest as you said that either the one from jackin world.com gets added as well or the one form size survey gets removed.

To be honest i believe the one from sizesurvey.com is fabricated, it shows that black people even though they had 6.1 inches on average, every single one of them rated them selfs "well endowed" which is impossible unless they were retarded... then there is the flaccid penis size theory....

anyway, this is very misleading and the article is biased. This article should be fixed in all fairness.

As it said from size survey "However, due to the small sample size and large variation in lengths, this "difference" is not statistically significant." why is it here if it is completely useless to even be used???

you replaced it to say "The creator of the survey, however, stresses that the results regarding Black and Hispanic participants are tentative until a larger number of responses from these groups are received." should a tentative(unfinished) research be even on here!!! this is actually very stuipid(make that retarded).

The fact that you said you have decided to leave this argument shows you have actually lost the argument, you don't want to be fair or fix the problem and you acted childish and a sore loser. You decided you are not going to fix the problem and refused to do so.

This shows that not all wikipedia administrators are competent.

it should be removed and you know it "Witts".

i can now leave this argument knowing i am actually better than you and have said the right thing.

kudos to you for trying...

--86.20.6.103 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To clear up the apparent misunderstanding. I never said I was leaving. I said "I think I need to take a break from this article". With a little nonsense joking thrown in after that (to lessen the serious tension). Quote unQuote: "Heh". I've done some major editing of this article the past few weeks. Please consider that I have a life besides editing wiki articles.

I do enjoy writing, so I can understand that some people could mistake my enthusiasm and elaboration as an indication this is my job or assignment. But in no way am I an "administrator" or someone with special editing privileges. I have the same editing rights given to anyone who registers on wikipedia. I'm a regular wiki user like anyone else.

Clearly I wasn't decided yet on whether to add the other survey or remove both. So I decided I would leave it for the time being (take a "break") so either you or someone else could edit it, or if no one else edited it, then I would later edit it myself after some feedback from others. It's not a matter of me trying to "win" an argument here, but a discussion to find what is appropriate for the article. I'm open to suggestion. This is a collaboration here. Not me writing an encyclopedia myself.

FYI, I didn't "replace it" to say anything. I simply pointed out what was already said in the wiki article. If you feel strongly that the survey should be removed, login with a registered account and do it. I wouldn't have a problem with that (as I previously alluded).

Reading the discussion history, I see that you previously said (then removed): "I have an account i used to edit many pages but i never got any decent privileges." With a registered account in good standing (not blocked for abuse) you can edit this article (and join our collaboration). When your account was first created, it is possible that a few locked articles wouldn't let you edit right away (for a few days). This is to discourage people from registering accounts for the sole purpose of vandalizing articles. You don't seem to have that intent (of vandalizing), so I would encourage you to login and contribute to the article.

Lastly, to really clear the air. I do not think I'm better than you "--86.20.6.103" or anyone else here. Just because I may disagree with you, try to remedy a presumed misunderstanding, or teach something doesn't mean I'm insulting you or saying you're beneath me. This must be said because your outright insults show defensiveness. Yes, much of what I say is seemingly blunt. But as I say a lot, it must be this way because otherwise I would be endlessly over explaining things and wishy washy. I think many people would agree that I write too much already. Hehe (that was a joke, albeit a crappy one). I will attempt to fix the survey issue (whether both surveys should be included as weak anecdotal evidence with no supported conclusion, or both removed entirely because of the lack of supported conclusion) in time if no one else does. You seem to be more decisive on this issue, so don't be hesitant to make your own edit.

Wits 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You are a very respectable user and i would like to send you my sincerest apology. Some times i just have certain mood swings and i did not mean what i said. i just didn't want to use my account editing this certain article but i can make another one.

Thank you for your help i really appreciate it.

--86.20.6.103 00:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's understandable. You're candidness is refreshing. Sure thing.

Wits 18:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)