Talk:G-spot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

G-Shot

Probably borders on advertising, but here is the link for the G-Shot plastic surgery procedure. Should go in the article? It would help expand the new section. - RoyBoy 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be bold and use it to expand the section. - RoyBoy 03:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this section. The major reference is a link to the company involved, which is POV for obvious reasons. The minor ref from the Times is insufficient to establish notability (since it's a passing mention), or factual accuracy (since it's only a newspaper). Jefffire (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to establish notability. - RoyBoy 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The existence of a Wiki article does not establish notability, nor does a mention in an ABC news article. Please see WP:N Jefffire (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, seems like a wash as its slightly more than a mention. I'm doubtful it will be deleted ... marginal chance it could be merged. - RoyBoy 04:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The article on the procedure has recently had some good improvements made to it. While I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a whole paragraph here, it might be worth a see-also link. Jefffire (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed until the AfD decides. - RoyBoy 04:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Spurious stat

That statistic about 56% of women reporting they have a g-spot comes from a recent study that only looked at identical twins. Its hardly a representative sample of the population! The citation given is the Times article talking about the paper... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.226.5 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but the study was entirely subjective. They simply asked the women if they THOUGHT they had a G-spot. There was no physical examination or research done. Additionally, the researchers in the study were concerned that women who couldn't find their g-spot felt inaccurate. So, preexisting goal (proving the gspot doesn't exist so women don't feel embarrassed) and a completely subjective standard make me feel like that study is entirely useless. Unquenchablefire (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

---

G-Spot → Female prostate

• As described above: User:71.167.61.79 05:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• I thought that the female equivalent of the male prostate is the Skene's glands, not the G-spot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not a good idea. "Female prostate" is a metaphorical description, not a common name or an established medical term. Since the actual anatomical definition of the Gräfenberg Spot seems uncertain, I don't think this should be merged to an anatomy subject. Since this thing is most commonly known as the G-Spot, and any other specific designations are disputable, G-Spot (or possibly G-spot) would be the best article name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, if you need a policy-based reason. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose on basis of WP:COMMONNAME. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. - RoyBoy 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is about the G-spot, so that's what we title it. Fences&Windows 22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Location" in Sexual stimulation and studies section or not?

RoyBoy cleaned up a great deal of this article. I cleaned up a few sections yesterday. I am just wondering if the word "Location" is better left out of the Sexual stimulation and studies heading or not? I combined those two headings ("Sexual stimulation" and "Studies") because the subsections that were originally only a part of the Studies section also cover sexual stimulation, and the Sexual stimulation section was rather short by itself. Likewise, those two sections, as individual units, dealt with the location of the G-Spot. Given that its location is often the subject of its existence, people trying to find it, shouldn't we have "Location" in the heading to specify clearly for people that they can read about it there? Or is it redundant since "Sexual stimulation" signifies that it will also be covering the G-Spot's location? Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record the latter was my rationale. You can't stimulate what you can't find... alas! - RoyBoy 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL!! Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Faith Kroll

The G-spot made the news due to the demonstration at Northwestern Univ. by Faith Kroll. I believe this should be mentioned somewhere in this article, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia guidelines to know where it should go. Could some of you editors help, or at least address the issue? KHarbaugh (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Male prostate

I have difficulty visualising the location of my prostate based on the information given here. The article states that the prostate is located two inches into the anus on the front side; what does this mean? Front = anterior? When a man is standing, his rectum is aligned front-to-back; that is, the anus is posterior and the beginning of the colon is anterior, while the walls of the rectum (roughly cylinder-shaped) are located on its superior and inferior aspects. Therefore, in anatomical position (standing up), we should be talking about the top and bottom side of the rectum, not front and back. --Nmatavka (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I messed up. The prostate is located where the rectum joins the colon, not on a wall of the rectum proper. The whole section is somewhat unclear, so I've fixed it. --Nmatavka (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Error(s)

There appears to be a grammatical error in the introduction: "There is also hypotheses that the G-Spot is an extension of the clitoris and that this is the cause of vaginal orgasms." Shouldn't it be: "There are also hypotheses..."? --Jeffman1911 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed I've changed it to "It is also hypothesised that..." Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent Study Supporting G-Spot Existence

The study referenced appeared in Anatomic Existence of the Elusive G-Spot Confirmed, Study Claims ScienceDaily (Apr. 25, 2012) It was drawn from a single cadaver study and the source was: G-Spot Anatomy: A New Discovery Adam Ostrzenski MD, PhD, Dr Hab* The Journal of Sexual Medicine Volume 9, Issue 5, pages 1355–1359, May 2012 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnor (talk • contribs)

Yup, came across as well. Will add it. - RoyBoy 03:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd missed it. Otherwise, there's a chance I would have added it. Not that I think all claims having to do with the G-Spot should be in the article. Anyway, I moved the source to the end of the text and tweaked the text a bit in case someone who doesn't bother to read the source thinks that the line about critics is unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked the paragraph some more and added on Ostrzenski's defense about he provided no evidence that his sample consists of nerve endings, that the structures play a role in arousal, or that they would be in one specific area. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit shocking

To finally read the article, and find the disagreement prominent in the first paragraphs. Rather than a clear definition, and the "controversy" a minor sub section (with appropriate laughter and ridicule) buried further down. While no doubt my common sense edits will be reverted, the ludicrous nature of the article will persevere.

FX ☎ 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit of yours, which I reverted, is not common sense or encyclopedic. And if you aren't going to stick to reliable sources, you shouldn't be changing text. Not only was it unsourced, but damaging. You state, "and almost every woman on the planet has [a G-Spot]" even though this flies in the face of science. If almost "every woman has one," the majority of researchers (yes, the majority and not just male researchers, contrary to your edit) wouldn't be arguing against its existence or against its existence as a distinct structure. To be clearer, the G-Spot has never been scientifically proven. Ever. And therefore there is no "clear definition" of it; otherwise, besides the significant lack of nerve endings that the vagina possesses, the majority of women wouldn't find it so difficult to have "vaginal orgasms." Most scientists believe that if the G-Spot exists at all, it is an extension of the clitoris. That's why we don't treat the G-Sot as something that definitively exists, why disagreement over it (as well as support for it, mind you) is covered in the second paragraph of the lead, why the third paragraph of the lead says "[s]exologists and other researchers are concerned that women may consider themselves to be dysfunctional if they do not experience the G-Spot" and why the majority of the article is about whether or not it exists. To state that "almost every woman has one" is WP:FRINGE. If the G-Spot so obviously exists, as you seem to believe that it does, then there wouldn't be so much debate/dispute over its existence in every medical source about it. Most scientists wouldn't be saying this, this, this and this. And for an article like this, per WP:MEDRS, we defer to what the medical sources, or news sources citing scientists, say about it, not popular culture sources claiming that the G-Spot without a doubt exists. Taking the research on this topic into account, it is your "and almost every woman on the planet has [a G-Spot]" line that is ludicrous, not this article (which is WP:GA for a reason). But your addition isn't shocking since the general public has been brainwashed into believing that this spot definitively exists, even for all women, although, like scholars Kilchevsky, Vardi, Lowenstein and Gruenwald state, "Reports in the public media would lead one to believe the G-Spot is a well-characterized entity capable of providing extreme sexual stimulation, yet this is far from the truth." And the reason I reverted your addition of the Skene's gland to the See also section is because, per WP:See also, it shouldn't be there when it's already covered not far up in the body of the article. If you added it because you feel that the G-Spot is the Skene's gland and that this is why "almost every woman on the planet has [a G-Spot]," that is also contested by researchers, since, as the articles says, "They contend that the Skene's gland does not appear to have receptors for touch stimulation, and that there is no direct evidence for its involvement."

And, finally, when you sign your user name, you should actually have it -- User:Fxmastermind -- linked, so that editors/readers can see who you are without having to check in the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While it may surprise most people, there are unknowns / controversies about the G-spot. My opinion agrees with yours, that very likely most women do have one, as it seems helpful (even if infrequent) part of procreation; and it makes sense most women could leverage it if circumstances, such as arousal, correct technique etc allow. But without reliable sources to update the article, it will indeed largely remain as is. - RoyBoy 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree my edit was not encyclopedic, and will never do such a thing again, on any article. I apologize. FX (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Fxmastermind, especially since it's now known that you don't understand how this site works too well and need some mentoring. If I'd known that earlier, my tone would have been a little calmer. Flyer22 (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So how many?

"Further, 82% of the women who reported the sensitive area (Gräfenberg Spot) also reported ejaculation with their orgasms." The most important fact is missing! What percentage of the women reported having a G-spot? It could be just 41 out of 50 ie 2.1% of respondents claim they have a G-spot. I tried to access the referenced paper but could only get to the abstract. Unfortunately the full article is behind a pay-wall. QuentinUK (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it 82%? And I doubt the study in question asked them directly if they thought they had a "G-Spot". - RoyBoy 14:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Very conveniently leaving Emmanuel Jannini's research out, which says that not all women have the G-spot. He found significant difference between women who reported having orgasm with intercourse and those who reported not having it. However, while women think they all have g-spot, they keep on looking for it, at the clear benefit of men, but it is likely that only 25-35% women have it, as another research from Scandinavia using MRI reported 5-6 years ago - I can't find it now! http://able2know.org/topic/112277-1 JR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.228.240 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IP. No one is conveniently leaving Emmanuel Jannini's research out. A bit of it is in the Orgasm article in the Clitoral and vaginal relationships section; because of that and because that section points to the Debates section of this article, I decided not to duplicate that material here, which repeats the notion (that is already in this article) that "vaginal and clitoral orgasms are separate phenomena." While some of the material in that section of the Orgasm article is repeated in this G-Spot article, it's not all in the Debates section because readers would be immediately re-reading a lot of what they just read in the section they came from. Furthermore, this article already makes it clear that not all women have a G-spot; in fact, as you've likely seen, it documents extensive debate among scientists and doctors with regard to whether or not the G-Spot exists (and that, if it does, it is very likely an extension of the clitoris). Also, Amichai Kilchevsky's research, which is additionally in this article, already makes it clear that most women think that they have G-spot, and keep looking for it...even though most can't find it. But, at some point, I'll add something about Emmanuel Jannini's research to this article that isn't too duplicative of what is already found in the Orgasm article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The article G-spot based on article from porno journal! Have nothing common with medical science! Even totally against medical fundamentals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ежина Ушастая (talk • contribs)

all operations on the vagina are doing without anesthesia, because vagina have no nerves at all! and nobody ever complained! non women have ever notice tampons in vagina! and you are here just collecting rumors from porno journal! not from medical science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ежина Ушастая (talk • contribs)

Ежина Ушастая (talk · contribs), I don't know what you mean by "The article G-spot based on article from porno journal!" And, contrary to your statements, the vagina does have nerve endings; it has relatively few nerve endings, however. Also, stop placing your comments at the top of the sections; they should go at the bottom of the sections. And remember to sign your posts. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I added an "unsigned" tag for your comments. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues concerning medical advice and procedures

There is improper medical advice in this article, see WP:MEDRS, apart from this anatomical features are described in a non-traditional way. US terminology and measurements are used. I will not comment concerning social values and implications of the topic, but the article is not properly sourced and maintained when it comes to medical advice or anatomy, please wait until more editors weigh in and improve the article before removing any tags or project templates. Apart from this see [1] which will most likely be reviewed soon. Although a primary source it is enough to at least warrant the inclusion into relevant Wiki-projects. CFCF (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As seen here, here and here, CFCF tagged this article as being within WP:MED's scope and having "multiple issue. The "multiple issues" include needing to adhere to WP:MEDRS-sourcing, having a WP:POV problem, a possible WP:Original research problem and a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (globalize) problem.

First thing's first: Articles do not get tagged with the WP:MED banner simply because they include medical information. WP:MED has generally restricted its WP:MED banner to articles that are mostly medical or are otherwise substantially medical. See this and this discussion for further detail. There is even this recent discussion about the WP:MED banner, where Jmh649 (Doc James) weighed in. So for CFCF to then and go and add the banner to the Clitoris article, after I pointed out that it was removed (note that it was removed by Doc James), is nothing but to serve a point. And re-adding the G-Spot article to WP:MED's scope twice, as seen here and here, given what I am about to state in the following two paragraphs, is dubious.

The G-Spot's existence has never been proven and it is a highly debated topic, with the vast majority of gynecologists, doctors and researchers doubting its existence, as shown here, here, here and here, except for when acknowledging that it is likely an extension of the clitoris. In fact, most material on this topic concerns whether or not it exists. So any POV in that regard is a reflection of the scholarly material on this matter with WP:Due weight, as already addressed in a past discussion by me and RoyBoy. This topic is far more of a social topic than it is a medical or anatomy topic. Furthermore, with regard to the WP:MEDRS sourcing, note where it states the following at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The "need to be relaxed" part of that text is exactly the case with the G-Spot topic. That is why the source that CFCF cited above is a WP:Primary source -- most journal sources on this topic are WP:Primary sources.

And as for WP:Original research? What WP:Original research is there? As for globalizing, see Template:Globalize; I fail to see how this article has a globalize issue. Also, with regard to the WP:Good article reassessment that CFCF started without waiting for any perceived issues with the article to be resolved first, I can only see it as a bad-faith nomination. And lastly, this article does not give medical advice; Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As with all subjects within medicine; there are more journal primary sources than secondary ones, due to the very nature of what a secondary source is. Apart from this there are a large number of secondary sources covering the G-spot and alleged existance/or not. Apart from this the article on numerous occasions uses tertiary sources (BBC, CNN, etc.) to make medical claims, and also ties several claims into common conclusions, which is where original research may be present.

I don't see what you mean by bad faith nomination. As I see it the article does not live up to good article requirments, and will need substantial expansion and work if it is to achieve this regardless of whether or not the article was writting with good or bad intentions. If these issues were small then the nomination will fail early when they are recifies, but they are not.

The article has globalization issues in that it states anatomical features in inches, despite the fact that this is only ever done in American literature, and even then it isn't the norm.

In the same sense as you write that articles should not be tagged with WP:MED when they do not include consist of mainly medical information that is a question of what you deem as medical information. I for one see this entire article as some form of information that is relevant to medicine.CFCF (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

We do not typically include anatomy topics in WPMED. WPMED is more disease oriented. Thus removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what I was trying to tell CFCF, Doc.

CFCF, like I just stated here at WP:MED: With regard to primary sources... Let me rephrase that: It is the proportion of journal primary sources compared to the proportion of journal non-primary sources that is one issue, which, like I stated above, "Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence" addresses can be an issue for certain topics. There are not an abundance of non-primary review articles on this topic. Go ahead and see how many systematic reviews you find on it. You are treating this topic as though it should adhere to strict aspects of WP:MEDRS, when it generally should not. The most it can generally adhere to with regard WP:MEDRS sourcing are book sources such as this one (cited above). And being an anatomy editor, you know very well that we do not go by the standards of "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" for anatomy articles, including for recent WP:GA anatomy articles such as Stapes, mostly because information on anatomy is generally consistently the same.

As for a bad-faith nomination... Yes, I believe it is. You were clearly frustrated by me reverting you. You usually WP:Edit war, from what I have seen (including at the Human penis article). So, to me, you have a tendency to be combative, when you don't get your way or when you are trying to get your way. You didn't even give me a chance to respond on this talk page before continuing to revert me, even though I noted that I would be commenting on this talk page soon about this matter, or before taking this matter to WP:MED, or before starting a WP:Good article reassessment. For example, I told you via WP:Edit summary that WP:MED generally does not want articles like this. But did you stop to listen to that? No. And you are now using the WP:Good article reassessment process for article cleanup, exactly what it should not be used for. And it is indeed article cleanup, since only some sources should be replaced with better ones and the G-Spot topic is not a serious medical or anatomy topic. I see no WP:Original in the article and your other tags, WP:POV and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias (globalize), are irrelevant to this article as well. There is no globalize issue. You went on a tagging frenzy in this case and made getting attention for this article into a dire matter...when it is not a dire matter in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why didn't you post those concerns before reverting the template? Nothing you mentioned was relevant in removed the templates? It seems there are more editors out there who agree that this article does not live up to good article criteria. Its not about a bad faith nomination, its about the fact that this article has multiple issues and thus not a good article. As for personal attacks, see WP:Discussion, you make it sound as if I've only touched those two articles. CFCF (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Bold, revert, discuss (WP:BRD). Before asking me "why didn't I" type of questions, ask yourself that. WP:Edit warring is a bad habit to have on Wikipedia. Everything I mentioned above is relevant to the templates; it is specifically addressing them. And as for "there are more editors out there who agree that this article does not live up to good article criteria," so far, the editors have focused on the sourcing. And once again, WP:Good article reassessment is not for article cleanup. I am extensively researched on female anatomy (human female anatomy especially), and just about everything in this article is accurate with regard to the way that WP:Reliable sources discussing this topic present it, with most of the emphasis being on the debate as to whether or not the G-Spot exists. Discussion of whether or not it exists is as much, likely more so, a social (media and/or political) matter as it is a medical matter. And you are acting like high-quality sourcing is needed throughout this article, as though news sources cannot be used for it at all. Well, high-quality sourcing is not needed throughout. And "high-quality sourcing" for this topic is lacking anyway, at least with regard to strict WP:MEDRS sourcing. Needing (emphasis on "needing" rather than "wanting") a handful of better sources is no valid reason whatsoever to make this article into an "immediate attention" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

And as for personal attacks, I suggest you read WP:Personal attacks. What I have stated above does not qualify as such whatsoever; WP:ANI would validate that. Further, your "multiple issues" claim has not been demonstrated. Flyer22 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This ref "In Search of the Perfect G". Time. September 13, 1982." Is not a reliable source for the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither is "Finding the G-spot: Is it real?". CNN.com. January 5, 2010. Retrieved November 7, 2011. or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18221286 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the news articles, James. But with regard to that journal article, consider the level of WP:MEDRS sourcing on this topic; I mean as a whole, not solely what is currently in this article. The literature on this topic largely lacks in review articles, especially systematic review articles. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the Time reference is now only used for information about gynecologists having criticized the reported existence of the G-Spot and for information that there is "general skepticism among gynecologists, doctors and researchers that the G-Spot exists"; these are aspects that do not require WP:MEDRS sourcing. And as for that journal source, it is now supported by a WP:Secondary/WP:MEDRS-compliant source. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is my strong suggestion: Better sourcing has been identified. Let's allow for some time to start making the needed updates to the article. If significant improvement isn't being made with the new sourcing over the next while, we can revisit the review and tagging. But the approach should be to identify improved sourcing and then give the interested editors a chance to work with it. Zad68 14:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As seen here (with a note here), I traded out sources for better sources and added scholarly sources in conjunction with primary sources and/or in conjunction with news sources, which is permitted by WP:MEDRS. I removed the tags that were added to the primary sources since being a primary source does not necessarily make the source unreliable and since those sources are now supported by WP:Secondary sources/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, except for one in the History section. But the History section, per WP:MEDRS, generally does not require WP:MEDRS sourcing. WP:MEDRS sourcing also is not needed to relay that there is disagreement among researchers with regard to the G-Spot or to relay a researcher's opinion on the G-Spot, unless a medical claim is being made that should be sourced to a WP:Secondary/WP:MEDRS-compliant source. If someone wants to remove the primary sources or news sources that are supported by a scholarly source in the article, I'm not strongly opposed to that. But having layman sources so that readers get more detail on a matter or can understand the material better because it lacks all the medical jargon (see Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable) is a good thing. Not to mention...it's standard that journal sources are not readily accessible (meaning free). Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, impressive fast turnaround on resolving potential issues. Seeing the "worldwide view" in the history made little sense to me, but I'll give it credit for getting me thinking of creating a notable positions section. While rare, have you come across positions by religious / political groups on the G-spot? I'd find it interesting to get a feel for that from around the world. I'll do some preliminary research. - RoyBoy 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, RoyBoy, including for this fix. I haven't come across the information you ponder with regard to religious groups, but I agree that it's an interesting thought and inclusion of such material would make this article more well-rounded if such views are out there and covered in WP:Reliable sources. As for political groups, there are of course feminists who protest claims of the G-Spot's existence; some of them hate even the mention of the term G-Spot. But, as of now, I can't think of a particular feminist group that has spoken out against the topic. Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article G-spot based on article from porno journal! Have nothing common with medical science! Even totally against medical fundamentals! all operations on the vagina are doing without anesthesia, because vagina have no nerves at all! and nobody ever complained! non women have ever notice tampons in vagina! and you are here just collecting rumors from porno journal! not from medical science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ежина Ушастая (talk • contribs)

Article-wide tags

I've removed the following article-wide tags as unsupported:

• POV
• OR
• Global
• Update

Article-wide tags really should be used as a last resort, and only after significant Talk-page discussion providing time for a good-faith effort to address the issues. Let's detail the issues and give working through them a shot first. Zad68 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Zad. You pretty much echoed my feelings on the state of this article, but in less words. You stated at WP:MED: "Yes the sourcing on G-Spot could be improved but it's not an emergency. Tagging up the article and jumping right to a review without first trying to work through a round of updates seems premature, I really wish those concerns were brought to the article Talk page first." Exactly. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Good... that being said, I do think the article could use the update, and hope you have a chance to start making the updates. Zad68 14:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for this topic, I'll find time to trade out the poor or poorer sources for the better or best sources. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I think just doing that will allay concerns. Zad68 16:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I further addressed sourcing in the #Issues concerning medical advice and procedures section above. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

G-spot amplification

This article has some comments which should be relevant and can be used to phase out the ABC source. [2] CFCF (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As pointed to in the #Issues concerning medical advice and procedures section above, I've added scholarly book sources to further support the G-Spot amplification material. And like I stated at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G-Spot/1, Vincenzo Puppo is not a reliable source with regard to female anatomy. In the aforementioned reassessment discussion, you wanted me to name how he is WP:Fringe. Well, how he is WP:Fringe is clearly demonstrated by the Debates section of this article. Believing that there is no anatomical relationship between the clitoris and vagina is most assuredly WP:Fringe. And so is believing that the "inner clitoris" does not exist, considering that the most up-to-date research on the clitoris shows that the clitoris is very much internal and that this internal structure is much bigger than its external structure. Flyer22 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well true but there has been some research on th hat to prove its true Tmclelland (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Article title case

Should this article title and the references to the article topic be renamed from "G-Spot" with capital S to "G-spot" with lower-case s? I know this is a minor matter, but a quick review of the reliable academic sources generally show a lower-case s. Zad68 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking that for weeks now, Zad. I used to think that capitalizing the s was correct, but I started thinking that even though capitalizing it may be valid, it's not as valid as the lowercase form; I started thinking this due to the fact that most of the sources, by a fairly decent margin, don't capitalize the s (not just scholarly sources either). I could have sworn that I was the one to capitalize the title, but, as can be seen here, I was not. The associated titles were capitalized following that, seen here and here, and I did capitalize G-spot vibrator. Also, the retitling is perhaps what led the new good article (GA) reassessment to exclude the number 2 in its title; after all, there was a previous reassessment for this article: Talk:G-spot/GA1. Flyer22 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK would you mind if I just went ahead and made this case fix? It's no trouble. Zad68 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Go for it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean we should tweak it across Wikipedia? - RoyBoy 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so. That's what I did for various articles after the title was capitalized. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad, without leaving a redirect? That leaves a lot of articles red-linked in this regard. And, after all, enough sources do capitalize the s. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Wiki software will automatically point to G-spot if G-Spot is used? Zad68 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, nope, that's only the search bar! OK will put the redir in. Zad68 03:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the link is still blue for me when I visit articles that have the link, but it leads to the page showing the move history. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed now that you've redirected. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Zad68 03:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes to look at

Having a look through, here's some notes from me to look at...

• Lead says It is typically reported to be located 1–3 inches (2.5–7.6 cm) up the front (anterior) vaginal wall; General stimulation says The location of the G-Spot is typically reported as being about 50 to 80 mm (2 to 3 in) inside the vagina; image caption The G-Spot (4) is reportedly located one to three inches into the vagina -- needs to be harmonized
• History: referred to an erogenous zone in the vagina that he linked with the male prostate -- "linked to" doesn't feel like the best term, how about "correlated with"
• Reference 3 (PMID 23169570) is used only in the lead, per WP:LEAD the lead should only summarize what's in the body, so there shouldn't be a reference in the lead that isn't used in the body; should either find a use for that ref in the body or replace the one in the lead with something else from the body that support it
• History: Makes significant use of PMID 2327894, which is a primary study, but there's no secondary souce to show the relevance or importance/influence of the study. Google Scholar shows that study cited by 63, which is a non-trivial number for this area of study, but still there really needs to be a secondary source along side this study to show that it's shown enough influence to include here, especially as this study is being cited in History, so there has to be a secondary source to show that this study has been historically important.
• General stimulation: The G-Spot area has been described as needing direct stimulation, especially with regard to two fingers pressing deeply into the area to reach it. - this is asking for a {{who}} tag... who is doing the describing? If the underlying source Crooks and Baur are stating something that is in line with the general consensus of thinking, there's no need to say "has been described as", the article can just say, "The G-spot needs direct stimulation...". If Crooks and Baur are influential voices but are saying something largely unique to their point of view, it needs to be attributed: "Crooks and Bauer state that the G-spot needs direct stimulation..." - needs to go one way or the other
• Similar {{who}} situation with Attempting to stimulate the area through sexual penetration, especially in the missionary position, is difficult because of the special angle at which penetration is reported as needing to occur. -- "is reported as" - either unnecessary and restate as "because of the special angle at which penetration needs to occur", or name the voice (Desmond Morris).

...will be adding more as I go through it. Zad68 17:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree about harmonizing the inches. But I also think that we should perhaps report the different inches given for the location, the most common ones. We have at least one source in the article that supports "(2 to 3 in) inside the vagina, on the front wall." Well, that source actually only supports 2 inches in this case. That Desmond Morris source, however, needs to be checked, because it is currently used in the lead in a way that makes it seem as though it supports the "1–3 inches (2.5–7.6 cm) up the front (anterior) vaginal wall" location, and it is also used lower to support the "(2 to 3 in) inside the vagina, on the front wall" location.

I agree about using "correlated with" in place of "linked with" or "linked to."

The Puppo reference in the lead? Well, as shown the #G-spot amplification section above, I believe Puppo is WP:Fringe (generally anyway), though he is cited lower in the article to relay his own views. However, I don't think that WP:LEAD applies to a source being used in the lead but not lower in the article. The bit about the G-Spot not having been proven as existing is a summary of the article, but the female ejaculation bit is contradicted by the Female prostate section lower in the article. Female ejaculation has been proven; it's the source of the fluid that is dubious (such as claims that the fluid is not urine).

I agree about the History section source.

With regard to the "who?" aspects, I worded it that way because the existence of the G-Spot, especially as a distinct structure, is dubious. It seems just as dubious to word a sentence as though the G-Spot exists. This is why such "who?" wording was recently made to this article by different editors, such as in this case.

Let's keep in mind what Template:Who states, which is the following: Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably, the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable. ... Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague.

And Template:Whom states (among other things): Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah OK so those qualifiers are all pointing back to the fact that there's no consensus that the G-spot even exists in the first place, so that's why we have to play the "allegedly/reportedly" card. OK. Zad68 03:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some of the sources do the same. See this, this and this source for the words "so-called" and "thought to be" used to describe it; some sources state "supposedly." I'd rather that we stay away from words such as so-called, supposedly and allegedly when it comes to describing the G-Spot, however; they sound too POV-ish, and too much like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Historic / cultural / religious views

So this section, if I'm lucky, will be used to pool sources on views on the G-spot. Quickly realized, because the term was coined in 1981; anyone discussing it historically wouldn't have used the term. Perhaps I'll start looking at female ejaculation, and see if there is speculation on a mechanism. As to feminism, overall they are supportive as it has a freeing / equality dynamic if a woman can have a flowing orgasm. Shouldn't be too hard to find positions there... as to everyone else, hmmmm. - RoyBoy 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Meanwhile I will continue to be the voice for women who do not respond to G-spot stimulation and do not ejaculate- for a multitude of reasons and have no desire to learn. I support any woman who wants to have her G-spot orgasms and squirt. We are all free to do anything that turns us on as long as it's consensual and doesn't harm anyone. Each of us can find our own hot spots and enjoy the orgasms they give us alone and with our partners." - The G-spot Revisited by Betty Dodson

"Despite the modern proliferation of G-spot media, the G-spot is not some new idea hatched by “irresponsible” ladies “pressurising” their hapless troubadours into searching for a “mythical” Holy Grail of female pleasure. Since the day of Aristotle, at least, many men and women have described the G-spot personally and scientifically. In the first century, Galen, considered the Father of Modern Medicine, referred to it as the “the female prostate.” Many Renaissance scientists, including Realdo Colombo and Regnier DeGraaf, wrote about the area we now call the G-spot and the fluids that might be emitted when a woman had a particularly powerful orgasm through stimulation of that area." [3]

History of V is a treasure trove of references. Terms for the female prostate include:

• Chinese: the little stream
• Chinese: the black pearl
• Chinese: palace of yin
• Japanese: palace of the earthworm
• Indian text - Ananga Ranga: saspanda nadi

Wow, then just after an amazing historic overview of expelling seed. Will add to history section shortly. - RoyBoy 21:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to feminists, RoyBoy is responding to what I stated at the end of the #Issues concerning medical advice and procedures section above about there being feminists who protest the existence of the G-Spot. RoyBoy stated above "overall they are supportive." I, however, have not seen overall support from feminists on this subject. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if most feminists object to the idea of a vaginal orgasm; this objection is why those same feminists object to the G-Spot. They view it as reinforcing the notion of vaginal orgasm (what they sometimes refer to as a Freudian invention), which makes a lot of women, as well as men, feel inadequate because the vast majority of women do not experience orgasms via the vagina (not solely via the vagina anyway). A bit of this is currently touched on in this section of the article, by Andrea Burri and Petra Boynton...though it's not clear if they are feminists or not.

As for the aforementioned book listed above, I commented briefly on it here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: RoyBoy, I altered your latest additions to the History section, as seen here, here, here and here. I did this because, as stated in that first diff-link, the text was almost presented as fact with regard to terms for the G-spot, when, in actuality, this information is coming from Catherine Blackledge and is not something that should forgo proper WP:In-text attribution. And as pointed to with the final sentence in my "22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)" post above, I'm not 100% on board with using Catherine Blackledge as a source for female anatomy. Further, you had the text referring to names for the G-spot, when above, you stated that the terms refer to the female prostate; "female prostate" does not automatically mean "G-spot." I removed the Dr. Shashank Samak material because I don't think that qualifies as a WP:Reliable source. And although history material usually does not need strict WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, that text, with the WP:Credentials violation, was given a little too much weight anatomy-wise. It would also be good if you named the specific page numbers in the Catherine Blackledge references you included; the page field is generally for specific page numbers, not the number of pages in the book as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work as usual, yeah was initially going to put Samak in another article; then came back here and was hesitant re: off-topic; while I disagree on RS big picture wise, small picture it is his own site so I hear ya. As to the pages, it does refer to specific page; total pages is 322. This article continues to get better, want to nominate for FA this year??? :D - RoyBoy 00:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we split "Additional research" into its own sub-section @ "One study, published in 2011". Would look and work better methinks. - RoyBoy 00:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

By "specific page numbers," I mean the page number that supports the specific material. In one case currently in the article, you cited the total number of pages.

I'm not sure what setup you had in mind for splitting the "additional research" aspect into its own subsection (meaning what content to label "additional research"), but I had that material combined with the general skepticism aspect because the additional research, which Spector's work is a part of, helps explain that. I did find that section too big, however. Either way, I changed the format to this, putting the general skepticism aspect first, the nerve endings content second, and then going into further research; since the additional research aspect concerns the clitoris, I don't see the need to split that content.

The G-spot article is far from WP:Featured article status. And, currently, the article is not listed as a WP:Good article for WP:Anatomy, as explained here. There are improvements that I will be making to sourcing and structure in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see now, I used the pages field instead of page... and even duplicated History of V ref; fixed both. - RoyBoy 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)