Misplaced Pages

Talk:Clitoris: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:17, 26 July 2012 editMalleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs)145,401 edits →Copyediting questions: I'm getting rather tired of every improvement I try to make being challenged.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:10, 8 March 2024 edit undo24.137.93.163 (talk) →Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024: ReplyTag: Reply 
(870 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA nominee|22:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)|nominator=] (])|page=1|subtopic=Biology and medicine|status=onhold|note=}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Article history|action1=GAN
{{Censor}}{{Controversial3}}
|action1date=13:08, 15 August 2012
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
|action1link=Talk:Clitoris/GA1
{{WPAN|class=B|importance=high}}
|action1result=listed
{{WP Sexuality|importance=top|class=B}}
|action1oldid=507506481
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Biology and medicine
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anatomy|importance=high |field=gross}}
{{WikiProject Animal anatomy|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top }}
{{WikiProject Women's Health|importance=high }}
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Controversial-issues}}
{{Censor}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Clitoris/Archive %(counter)d
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|counter = 17
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> Anchor ] links to a specific web page: ]. The anchor (#Hermaphrodite) ]. <!-- {"title":"Hermaphrodite","appear":{"revid":110444646,"parentid":108554000,"timestamp":"2007-02-23T22:53:20Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1016437414,"parentid":1016437321,"timestamp":"2021-04-07T04:56:51Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}} }}
{{findnotice}}

{{Talk:Clitoris/GA1}}

== Stages of Arousal (Pictures?) ==

The article on the human penis has pictures of the penis both aroused and not. Considering the clitoris arouses in much the same way, it certainly would not hurt this article to have a similar before and after. ] (]) 04:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
:All I've come across that shows this, at least with regard to a real-life clitoris, are the before and after pictures in the ] section of the Vulva article -- ]. ] (]) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

== Copyediting questions ==

From ] ]:

'''Embryonic development'''
*"''... directing development of the bipotential gonadal anlage''". Where is "anlage" explained"? Is this term really necessary?
*"''In the absence of testosterone, the genital tubercles allow for formation of the clitoris; the urogenital sinus persists as the vestibule of the vagina, the two genital folds form the labia minora, and the genital swellings enlarge to form the labia majora, thereby completing the female reproductive system.''" As the female reproductive system consists of a great more than that, should this be something more like "external genitalia"?

'''General sructure'''
*''... as albuginea does not envelope the erectile tissue''". What's "albuginea"?
::The term "gonadal anlage" is used in the majority of the sources discussing embryonic development. It simply means a base for future development of the gonads, as ] means "establishing/preparing something for development." See ] or what

::You mean rewording the end as "thereby completing the external genitalia"? If so, I am fine with that.
:::I did, yes, so I'll make that change. ] ] 00:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

::By "albuginea," the sources mean "]," but I didn't link to ] because the sources didn't seem to be describing it in relation to the ovaries. They simply seem to mean "white covering"...as in "white connective-tissue." ] (]) 23:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I like , Malleus. But like I stated, I'm also okay with briefly explaining in parentheses what the not readily and/or easily understood terms mean...as long as we aren't excessive with that or such explanations in general. Explaining the terms your way means that we don't have to worry about that excessiveness, though. ] (]) 00:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::It's a matter of getting the balance right I think, between explaining in the running text and in a footnote, depending on how crucial it is to understand the term to understand what follows. We obviously also don't want to dumb down excessively, which is obviously one of your concerns. ] ] 00:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw Malleus Fatuorum's question ('what about handling at least some of these more obscure technical terms like this?') with the use of the {efn} footnote template. I was reminded of the way mouse-over tooltips can be made to appear like this: "directing development of the bipotential gonadal <abbr title="An anlage is an organ in the earliest stage of development">anlage</abbr>." This markup is mentioned ] under 'HTML elements'. The only problem is that these are technical terms, not abbreviations, so I don't know if this is better or worse. --] (]) 00:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing that up, Nigel.

:Malleus, any thoughts on that? I like , although I'm not sure if it's best to mention the number of nerve endings in the lead or only leave that to the body of the article, especially since, due to a compromise with SilkTork shown in the GA review and that aspect's relevance to both sections, it's mentioned in the body twice; once in the "General structure" section, and once in the "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" section. Also, where it says "the head of which," should a comma be before that? I mean, comma-wise, should it be "The clitoris is a complex structure, the head, or glans, of which is roughly the size and shape of a pea."? Or should only one comma be in that sentence, right after "structure"? We should probably put "glans" or "head" in parentheses since they mean the same thing. ] (]) 00:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

::Only one, which is that I don't like it. As for the estimated number of nerve endings, we can easily drop that, as it doesn't really matter for the lead. I'm slightly bothered about the "It or the clitoris as a whole" though; which is it? As for your question about the need for a comma after "structure", would I be correct in assuming that you're American? American's just seem to ''love'' commas. I like the sentence the way it is, but if you don't, then feel free to change it. ] ] 00:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::As you've seen, I to where it uses only one comma and has "head" in parentheses. Yes, without specifying the number is better for the lead in this case. Thank you. As for "the glans or the clitoris as a whole"... Well, not knowing "which is it" is why I haven't specified. It bugs me as well, but sources say differently and I'm therefore being careful with that information, just as I am with other information in the article where the sources have a different take on something (such as, though fewer, sources that say the clitoris and penis have the same number of nerve endings, or Yang et al. challenging the conclusion that the glans is not formed of erectile tissue). And, yes, I'm American, LOL. Caught red-handed. And by the way that you spell summarizing as "summarising," I take it that you're British? ] (]) 01:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Also, maybe both the glans and the clitoris as a whole have more nerve endings than any other body part. If I knew if that were the case, we wouldn't need to mention both in the lead, since "glans or the clitoris as a whole" is in reference to 8,000 nerve endings. ] (]) 01:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I am, yes, so you'll have to watch my spelling. :-) Couldn't we just say in the lead that the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other part of the body? Doesn't seem to matter too much in the summary where they actually are. ] ] 01:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::I suppose saying that is fine. That's what I've meant when I've used "clitoris as a whole," though. Some sources say "the glans" and others just say "the clitoris." However, it's highly likely that by "the clitoris," they mean "the glans" since that's the way most people think of the clitoris. But since there is doubt, I suppose that just saying "the clitoris" is fine for the lead. ] (]) 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::, did you remove "as well as their possible biological function" due to what we discussed about my feeling that it covered ]? Either way, in my opinion, due to that removal, the vestigiality line you added now fits better in the lead. ] (]) 02:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I removed it because the sentence as written just didn't make sense to me, but if it's also resolved your concern about my addition of vestigiality then that's a bonus. ] ] 03:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::To answer , the issue I have with bundling is that I'm not used to citing that way, and, if going by that style, it means that I would have to cite that way when adding new material that I'm backing to multiple sources. Filling in the page numbers is also a pain because multiple or several pages of the same source may be used, and therefore it's not just one page that's being cited from the source. And right now, there are question marks for the pages in the bundle you created. ] (]) 03:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::You really ''should'' be providing page numbers, as without them it's very difficult to check on the accuracy of your sourcing, and you certainly wouldn't get through FAC without them. It's actually easier than the old way, as you don't have to remember any randomly chosen names, the citations are automatically gathered together; single or multiple pages aren't a problem. I put the question marks there because you had failed to provide page numbers. ] ] 03:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::::::I've been detecting a certain amount of resistance to any change from you right from the start, so it would probably be better if you found yourself another copyeditor; I'm simply not interested in working on anything but the very best. ] ] 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Malleus, when I cite Google Books sources, it's often one page that I'm citing and there is usually a url link provided with it for people to see. And when it's more than one page, it's usually pages in a successive row...also shown by the url link. But if it isn't, and I'm citing from more separated parts of the book, the reason that I don't like providing page numbers for each piece of a reference is that I don't like having the same reference as a different reference -- ] -- like what is done in the ] article. It makes more sense to me that the same reference is cited multiple or many times without citing it as a new reference, which is what ] is for. But as for "the new way" -- citing as bundles -- I see that multiple or several pages are not the problem I made them out to be (having a reference cited as one page number, or as a specific range of page numbers, when it's referencing text from other parts of the book as well), although it is citing a new reference each time. And when it comes to journal sources, citing the page numbers is never usually an issue, and of course never one for news sources. I'm hardly ever interested in getting an article to ] status, but I am open to your bundle formatting for this article. I was only expressing concern.

::::::::::Speaking of concern, you stated that you've "been detecting a certain amount of resistance to any change from right from the start." I ask: Why...because I mentioned that SilkTork stated that the copyediting of this article "will need to be subtle and careful" and I agree with that? Because I haven't agreed with all of your changes? It's not as though I have disagreed with every change you've made; in fact, I have been okay with the majority of your changes thus far. Am I going to question some changes, especially big ones, just like I would in a GA or FA review? Yes. And it's not as though drastic changes are typically expected during a copyediting process, especially for an article that has already been described as well-written by SilkTork and a great contributor from ], not that any of your changes so far have been drastic. SilkTork stated that it's basically about copyediting now. And I stated, "I am hoping to not have to debate any matters during the copyediting, since copyediting is more about wording and formatting than reformatting and content disputes." ] (]) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}}Hey, Malleus. I just want you to know that I very much appreciate your copyediting skills. For example, I somehow overlooked adding a summary of the clitoris's structure to the lead...but you spotted that quickly and remedied the situation. I'm certainly not trying to be difficult, and, like I stated, I have been okay with most of your edits thus far. Although more likely to occur when dealing with a contentious topic such as this, there will be times when I will object to changes made by a copyeditor. But it's only because we are different individuals and will therefore sometimes have different views on matters. So don't let my occasional objection discourage you from working on this article. I'm collegial and am usually open to compromising. I just won't agree with everything a GA or FA reviewer or copyeditor says, just like I won't for any other editor on Misplaced Pages. I do now see that bundling is probably for the best, and am okay with you going ahead and doing that for this article. I will fill in the page numbers as best I can. ] (]) 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

:OK, then we can move forwards again. Unfortunately though I'm not going to be around much until Friday as my brother is getting married tomorrow. ] ] 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Editor ] recently removed {{para|accessdate}} from {{tlx|cite book}} templates with {{para|url}} fields pointing to Google books. My question is: is that in compliance with a guideline someplace (there are so many of those that finding the right guideline sometime is a monumental pain—yeah, yeah, getting of my soapbox) or personal preference?


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024 ==
—] (]) 18:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Clitoris|answered=yes}}
:It's in compliance with common sense and custom. The point of accessdates is to allow the possibility of retrieving an archived version of a web page, so are you really asking whether Google Books pages such as are archived? How could they be, as it's the result of a search? But try finding an archived version for yourself if you don't believe me. Added to which Google Books links aren't stable, and whether or not they're available to read can depend on your geographical location. In short, the Google Books links in themselves aren't that useful, particularly when they're just to snippet views, and the accessdates are completely useless. Think about it another way if that helps; the point of separating the citations and bibliography is to prevent the book details having to be repeated when different pages from the same source are cited (I already raised the issue of missing page numbers above), so what page would the Google Books link be to anyway? ] ] 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Removal of the term sex organ. The clitoris is NOT an organ. It is like a nipple or urethra.
It is a raised region of nerve endings that cause sexual arousal when stimulated.
Even check Misplaced Pages sex organ definition. This is NOT an organ, as in heart, stomach, lungs. It is a feature of the vulva with the function of sexual arousal & pleasure.
Misplaced Pages should not be this bad. Fix this ! ] (]) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> that describes it as a sex organ. ] (]) 00:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|RoseEatsRice}} The clitoris is uniquely involved in arousal & orgasm, characteristics of a secondary sex organ. As per your statement {{tq|Even check Misplaced Pages sex organ definition}}, in the ] of '']'' it states that {{tq|the female sex organs include the ovaries, ], ], ], ], and ''']'''.}} That article also states {{tq|''Secondary sex organs'' are the rest of the reproductive system, whether internal or external. The ] term ''genitalia'', sometimes anglicized as ''genitals'', is used to describe the externally visible sex organs: in female mammals, the ].}}
:In the '']'' article, the lead states {{tq|The ] vulva includes the ] (or mons veneris), ], ], ''']''', ], ], ], the ], ], and ] and ] vestibular ]s.}}
:I have added bold to certain terms & italics for emphasis so that you may better understand. To state that the {{!tq|clitoris is NOT an organ}} is an obviously inaccurate claim. ] (]) 20:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
::The logic for maintaining the status quo does not follow. Your argument summarizes:
::"The clitoris is part of the vulva, and the vulva is a sex organ, therefore the clitoris is a sex organ."
::That's akin to saying "A wheel is part of a car, and a car is a vehicle, therefore a wheel is a vehicle."
::Which is silly.
::You also referred to the clitoris as a "secondary sex organ". If there exists a well-sourced definition of "secondary sex organ" that includes the clitoris then the wording should change to clearly say "secondary sex organ", not "sex organ", linked as appropriate.
::An edit is warranted in either case. ] (]) 20:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:10, 8 March 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clitoris article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Good articleClitoris has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAnatomy: Gross High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Misplaced Pages. 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.
WikiProject iconAnimal anatomy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's Health High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
          Other talk page banners
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Clitoris.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors


Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Removal of the term sex organ. The clitoris is NOT an organ. It is like a nipple or urethra. It is a raised region of nerve endings that cause sexual arousal when stimulated. Even check Misplaced Pages sex organ definition. This is NOT an organ, as in heart, stomach, lungs. It is a feature of the vulva with the function of sexual arousal & pleasure. Misplaced Pages should not be this bad. Fix this ! RoseEatsRice (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: here's a source that describes it as a sex organ. M.Bitton (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@RoseEatsRice: The clitoris is uniquely involved in arousal & orgasm, characteristics of a secondary sex organ. As per your statement Even check Misplaced Pages sex organ definition, in the MOS:LEAD of sex organ it states that the female sex organs include the ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, vagina, and vulva. That article also states Secondary sex organs are the rest of the reproductive system, whether internal or external. The Latin term genitalia, sometimes anglicized as genitals, is used to describe the externally visible sex organs: in female mammals, the vulva.
In the vulva article, the lead states The human vulva includes the mons pubis (or mons veneris), labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, vestibular bulbs, vulval vestibule, urinary meatus, the vaginal opening, hymen, and Bartholin's and Skene's vestibular glands.
I have added bold to certain terms & italics for emphasis so that you may better understand. To state that the clitoris is NOT an organ is an obviously inaccurate claim. Peaceray (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The logic for maintaining the status quo does not follow. Your argument summarizes:
"The clitoris is part of the vulva, and the vulva is a sex organ, therefore the clitoris is a sex organ."
That's akin to saying "A wheel is part of a car, and a car is a vehicle, therefore a wheel is a vehicle."
Which is silly.
You also referred to the clitoris as a "secondary sex organ". If there exists a well-sourced definition of "secondary sex organ" that includes the clitoris then the wording should change to clearly say "secondary sex organ", not "sex organ", linked as appropriate.
An edit is warranted in either case. 24.137.93.163 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Clitoris: Difference between revisions Add topic