Talk:Clitoris/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Number of nerves

About this line: "It, or the clitoris as a whole, is estimated to have around 8,000 sensory nerve endings – more than any other part of the human body." Is this accurate? Most sources I have seen say that the hands and tongue have much more sensory nerves than any other part of the body. Besides, many sources say that the male penis (minus foreskin, supposedly) has also 8000 nerves (this article says so further below, in fact), while the penis foreskin alone is estimated to have 20.000 nerves. Even if the part about the number of nerves is correct, the second part about "more than any other part of the human body" seems too speculative and dubious to be presented as a given fact. 95.22.55.54 (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2014‎ (UTC)

What WP:Reliable source states that the hands or tongue have more nerve endings than any other part of the human body? Various WP:Reliable sources state that the clitoris does. As for the rest, such as the human penis, I already brought that up: Talk:Clitoris/Archive 12#Number of clitoral nerve endings compared to the number of penile nerve endings. As seen there, I expressed similar concerns as you with regard to the human penis aspect. The lead uses the word estimated for the clitoral nerve endings; so does the line you have pointed to, located in this section. And if you look in this section that directly compares the human clitoris and human penis, it states, "Contrasting the human clitoris's estimated 8,000 nerve endings (for its glans or clitoral body as a whole), estimates for the number of nerve endings in the human penis (for its glans or body as a whole) are more varied. Some sources estimate 4,000 for the human penis, while other sources state that the glans or the entire penile structure have the same amount of nerve endings as the clitoral glans, or discuss whether the uncircumcised penis has thousands more than the circumcised penis or is generally more sensitive."

So the "nerve endings of a human penis" aspect is indeed addressed in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But this is precisely why I find that line so strange. It states that the clitoris is the most innervated part, and then a few lines below, denies it saying that the penis may have the same, or even more if the foreskin is counted. The most conservative numbers for foreskin innervation speak of at least 10.000 nerves in that place alone (add to that the other 4000-8000 of the penis). These studies are cited often when speaking of those numbers: R. K. Winkelmann, "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959), R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956). It's impossible thus that the clitoris has "more nerves than any part of the human body". In any case, it would have more nerves than any part of the FEMALE body. 95.22.55.54 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2014‎ (UTC)

By stating in the lead (introduction) and in the Glans and body section that the clitoris is estimated to have more nerve endings than any other body part, I gave WP:Due weight to what the sources state. That means I gave more weight to what sources generally state on that matter and left the conflicting information about that for the section of the article that is specifically devoted to comparing the clitoris and the penis. That later information is not denying the earlier statement. If you Google "The clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings," such as on regular Google or on Google Books, you will see, if checking the sources (reliable ones just as much as the unreliable ones), that a good number of them state that the clitoris has twice as many nerve endings as the penis or they will outright state that the penis has 4,000, and they will also state that the clitoris has more than any other body part. A lot of the sex guides should be discounted as WP:Reliable sources, however. There are enough valid scholarly books, some that don't show up with that specific wording search, that state the same thing as those sources.

If the sources stated "more than any other female body part," I would have put that instead. But adding that without the sources stating it is against the WP:Original research policy (specifically the WP:Synthesis part of it). The number of nerve endings that the clitoris has is not too debated; sources consistently state that it has 8,000 or more than 8,000 nerve endings/nerve fibers. And when they speak of the penis's nerve endings, they generally consistently state that it has 4,000 or more than 4,000 nerve endings/nerve fibers. Sure, they might be speaking of the circumcised penis, but they generally give no indication of that. I have not come across a WP:Reliable source that specifies the penis's nerve endings as more than 4,000 or the exact number of nerve endings in the foreskin. And if I were to (such as if the sources you provided above state that, and if they can be considered WP:Reliable on that matter), there is significant conflicting information on the topic of the penis's/foreksin's nerve endings to take into account...which is noted in the discussion section I linked you to above. That stated, I am fine with removing the "more than any other body part" text from the lead and from the Glans and body section if other editors watching this article think that it's best to do that. That sources often state that the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other body part can be left to the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above twice. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, understood. I didn't mean that the 8000 number vs. the 4000 number is wrong (I know the 8000 estimate is pretty accurate). It was just that most Internet sources I've ever found about the foreskin speak invariably of 10.000-70.000 nerves, making it the most innervated part by far. Though I couldn't find the original sources, only books mentioning the studies, such as this excerpt (http://books.google.es/books?id=nb9EAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=foreskin+70.000+nerves+study&source=bl&ots=ZpyXJp0Gky&sig=epcBkwRuSX2zO2jAKlEAkNUQX3w&hl=es&sa=X&ei=p3_xUrCGGcOr7AavtoHABA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=70%2C000&f=false), and this article by a doctor: http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.php

I don't know if this is considered reliable enough, but I didn't find any source denying the estimates, apart from some pro-circumcision sites. 95.22.55.54 (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

95.22.55.54 regarding "I didn't find any source denying the estimates, apart from some pro-circumcision sites."--I think your instincts are good: I agree we should not be looking to activist sources to source biomedical information. So, be careful with the sources you mentioned, the "nocirc.org" site you mentioned is an anti-circumcision activism site. And, all three authors on the front cover of the book you mentioned are anti-circumcision activists who run their own anti-circumcision websites and organizations. We're better off using academic sources from authors who don't have an axe to grind. Take a look at this book, for example, which is a medical textbook from a well-respected university press, and goes over the innervation and dermatomes of the genitalia, and actually makes some interesting comments about the surprising lack of research into the clitoris. I also question the value of trying to throwing up a specific number of nerve endings, as if that in itself were important, without providing commentary about their actual utility--how often do people discuss how many nerve endings a certain sensory experience involved? Zad68 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that no objective information can be found about this subject, since there's such a war in USA about circumcision. I'll try to search for something from other countries (if there's any research), where circumcision is not an issue. If I linked to that book it was rather because it named a study by Cold and Taylor (1999) called "The prepuce: specialized mucosa...", published in the British Journal of Urology, from which, apparently, arose the 10.000-70.000 numbers. This study is mentioned in the Wikipedia article about "foreskin", so I suppose it's reliable (the study, not the book that mentions it). It's here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x/abstract;jsessionid=8824CADDCC081C95D4418048FBED11D9.f03t02

95.22.55.54 (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

95.22.55.54 OK, I guess now is as good a time as any to point you to WP:MEDRS--this is the English Wikipedia guideline for sourcing biomedical information. Here we generally do not (or at least should not) use primary sources like the Cold & Taylor primary study to source biomedical information, we look to secondary sources like review articles, and secondary/tertiary sources like university textbooks, things like that. I haven't really gone through the Foreskin article carefully but it is certainly possible for that article to have insufficient sourcing in it. You really can't go by what's in some other article as a guideline for what's acceptable, especially if the other article isn't WP:GA or WP:FA quality. Zad68 03:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

95.22.55.54 you know, the Cold & Taylor 1999 source doesn't mention "70,000" or actually any number at all. I wonder where that comes from? Zad68 04:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Zad, some of what that source states about the clitoris, citing O'Connell's research, is covered by other sources in the Clitoris article; the lack of research devoted to the clitoris/inaccurate information about its structure is certainly mentioned in the article. As for citing the number of nerve endings, that is not a matter of debate with regard to the clitoris (as noted above)...not generally anyway. The number of clitoral nerve endings are mentioned because sources that discuss the clitoris often mention that aspect, and it contributes to the discussion concerning clitoral sexual pleasure...which is noted in this article. The more erotogenic nerve endings there are, the more capable of sexual pleasure an organ is. Nerve endings make up a big aspect of discussion with regard to female sexual anatomy/pleasure, which is why the lack of vaginal nerve endings are often noted in such sources (including when it concerns discussions of the G-spot). Mentioning the number of clitoral nerve endings is also in line with Wikipedia:MOSMED#Anatomy. Given that the number of clitoral nerve ending is widely cited in reliable sources, it would, in my opinion, be wrong to exclude that information from this article. Simply stating that the clitoris has many nerve endings without stating the well-cited number representing that "many" makes no sense to me, and might as well be WP:Weasel wording. The sources can be a bit inconsistent when it comes to whether it's the clitoral head (glans) alone that has 8,000 nerve endings/more than 8,000 nerve endings (meaning that the clitoris as a whole has more than that) or if it's the entire clitoral structure that has 8,000 or more, but they generally give the 8,000 number. And the aforementioned inconsistency on that (glans or whole body) is noted in the article (as displayed in this section).

Per above, what is questionable with regard to citing nerve endings in this case is trying to mention the exact number of penile nerve endings; in cases such as these, WP:Verifiability suggests that we should address what the significant different views on that matter from reliable sources are, and that's what I did. Whether any of those sources devoted to penile nerve endings/circumcision should be removed, I'm not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, no worries, I wasn't suggesting that the content be removed! I was making a comment more about the sources' emphasis on the numbers, where the utility is what is more meaningful. The Wikipedia article handles this fine already. Zad68 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the penile aspect? Is there, for example, any source you feel should be removed? And do you think I should restrict the "more than any other body part" text to the section specifically comparing the clitoris and penis? Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm a little puzzled as to why the entire sentence starting "Contrasting the human clitoris's estimated ..." is in this article at all, it seems a bit off-topic. If we're keeping it, the sourcing for that sentence is pretty uneven, and could probably be improved. I'll see if I can dig up a few authoritative sources. Zad68 04:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I added it because that section is about comparing the clitoris and the penis; makes sense to me to compare the nerve endings as well...which is what some sources do...usually stating 8,000 (or more than 8,000) for the clitoris and 4,000 (or more than 4,000) for the penis or that they have the same amount of nerve endings. But as noted above, they are likely talking about the circumcised penis. The GA review holds the answers as to why I included that text, and so does this discussion section I linked to above: Talk:Clitoris/Archive 12#Number of clitoral nerve endings compared to the number of penile nerve endings. That's why I don't see it as off-topic. Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparison between penis and clitoris should be removed, only the statement that it has more nerve endings than any other part of the body. Regardless of what the authors of the study believed, such a statement can't be done as long as there's no clear estimates for each and every part of the body (and there isn't, which the article makes very clear). The clitoris will be the most innervated part or not, depending on the nerves of the penis and foreskin (4000, 8000, +10.000?). As long as that it's not known, such assertions are meaningless. It's like saying that an object is bigger than other object, without even seeing the second object. The fact that these issues are far from simple biomedical problems, and step into political and social motivations, makes me feel dubious about their objectivity as well. Let's remember that, while female genital mutilation (of any kind) is banned in USA, male circumcision is a profitable business. Blank statements like "the clitoris has more nerve endings that any other part" seem to me a loaded gun to justify these double standards.95.22.55.54 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

IP, I suggested above that the "more than any other body part" material be restricted to the section specifically devoted to comparing the clitoris and penis; you did not object then. If I remove the "more than any other body part" material from the lead and from the Glans and body section, then I will mention that material in the section specifically devoted to comparing the clitoris and penis. I will note that sources often estimate that the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other body part; that this may not be true will be evident from the contrasting information that is in that section (already noted above). Like I stated above, when reliable sources disagree or report differently, we should address what the significant different views on the matter from reliable sources are...per WP:Verifiability. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, perfect then. Sorry, I didn't understand before.95.22.55.54 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really even arguing for removing it. I think the sourcing could be improved--in particular I don't agree with using un-reviewed statements of individual opinion that do not provide any references, like Go Ask Alice! or the Chalker interview, for sourcing this sort of thing. But, every part of that sentence also carries what I feel are good-quality sources (Carroll, Crooks & Bauer, the AAFP). So the sentence itself I think is fine and I'd be working to try to track down sourcing changes that won't actually result in a change to the article content of a WP:GA article, so it's not a high priority. Zad68 14:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead implemented the format for the "more than any other body part" suggestion, as seen here and here. I'll also remove the "more than any other body part" material from other Wikipedia articles unless offering what other sources state on that matter to go along with it.

As for Go Ask Alice!, it reviews its content; see the review acknowledgment at the top of this article, the one currently used for the nerve ending information. I know that editors can sometimes be critical of using Go Ask Alice! as a source, possibly sometimes because of its title, but it has continually proven to be a good source for sexual and health information. And I think it's in line with Wikipedia:MEDRS#Other sources. Because I acknowledge that it's not an ideal source to use, I usually supplement it with other sources when I do use it, which I did in the case of the Clitoris article. As for Chalker, WP:MEDRS also allows statements from experts. Chalker is one of the experts on clitoral anatomy, as essentially acknowledged in this source (though her statements can at times contrast with other sources, somewhat because there is conflicting information about the clitoris's anatomy due the inaccuracies regarding it over the years and also because she gives weight to the existence of the G-spot). Still, I understand that an interview is not an ideal source for nerve ending information, which, again, is where supplementing better sources comes in. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Erased error on UK pronunciation

The first words of the article previously read:

The clitoris (i/ˈklɪtərɨs/, i/klɨˈtɔərɨs/, or UK /ˈklaɪtɒrɨs/)

end of quote.

There is no UK pronunciation /ˈklaɪtɒrɨs/. (Long i as in fine dime nine line) Pronouncing dictionaries on the web for British English give the same pronunciation as that in the US.

e.g. here RPSM (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

RPSM, first you left this bizarre message on my talk page. Now you've followed me to the Clitoris article, clearly after having looked on my user page. I don't know how correct what you've stated about the pronunciation is, since a different WP:Reliable source might state something different about that. That pronunciation bit is not something I added to the article (I don't do pronunciation information, not usually anyway); it's been there a long time. If the edit you made, which I tweaked, is a correction, that's a good thing. If it is not a correction, you get the point.

What I have seen of your talk page and editing, such as posting about the aforementioned clitoris matter on your talk page first, tells me that you are very unfamiliar with core aspects of Wikipedia, despite having been registered with this site since 2007. It would be in your best interest to learn those policies and guidelines posted at the top of your talk page.

On a side note, there was no need for you to change your original posts in ways such as this and this, especially without updating your signature's time stamp. All you had to do was note that you took care of the matter. It's good that I had not yet replied to you, because changing your comment in those ways after I or anyone else replied would have taken our replies out of context; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments. Flyer22 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation is done by someone who fixes all of the articles for pronunciation (perhaps there is more than one) but can't be a speaker of British English ( I am) and I used my own intuitive knowledge of my mother tongue as an initial reference and source and backed it up with a pronouncing dictionary. If /klaitɔəris/ was the UK pronunciation (to rhyme with "wide or miss; hide or this", then the slang clit would be /klait/ and that is simply unrecognizable as a word meaning anything. A vowel shift from short to long i changes the meaning to a completely different word (changing the phoneme changes the semantics) as in the minimal pairs chin/chine fin/fine sin/sine tin/tine prim/prime. It makes a new word - not a variant dialect. There is no group of Latin words that shift long to short i across the Atlantic.

There is no sound file on the net with a long i in this word anywhere. The sound file given for British English pronunciation has a short i as in mitt fit lit grit nit bit just like the US pronunciation.

Examples of words that are pronounced differently in US and UK English: - surveillance; lieutenant;, schedule; route. RPSM (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Oxford English Dictionary source, but someone cited this link from it in the Clitoris Wikipedia article to relay the following: "The Oxford English Dictionary gives the pronunciation /ˈklaɪtɒrɨs/ for British English, adding that the word likely has its origin in the Ancient Greek κλειτορίς, kleitoris, perhaps derived from the verb κλείειν, kleiein, "to shut". It also states that the shortened form "clit", the first occurrence of which was noted in the United States, has been used in print since 1958: until then, the common abbreviation was "clitty".

So, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, if it is correctly cited, you are wrong on this "no /ˈklaɪtɒrɨs/" matter. And, no, I will not agree to remove that material from the Clitoris article unless that Oxford English Dictionary source is wrongly cited. The thing to do in this case, if WP:Reliable sources report differently on this British pronunciation matter, is to report those different views on this matter in the article with WP:Due weight; that would be following the WP:Verifiability policy. And because of this, the British mention is best left out of the lead and should be covered lower in the article, where it's already addressed, instead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree totally with your decisions to leave the the /'klaɪtɒrɨs/ variant out of the lead, and to leave the etymology section as is for the time being. /'klaɪtɒrɨs/ was a glaring error, and I am familiar with the IPA script: The pronunciation /ˈklaɪtɒrɨs/ is not modern UK English, as the lead baldly stated. No one says it like that. There could be individual variants. That would be an idiolect.

Here is a site that brings together dictionary entries on this word, (among others) and there are several with sound files.

I used the search words "clitoris pronunciation dictionary" and it produced a list of dictionaries with sound files for individual words. Somewhere there it was mentioned that Wikipedia uses an open source for providing pronunciation sound files. I think that it is exclusively US pronunciation. Must check

The facts of the matter are that there are two variant pronunciations: one with the stress on the first syllable, and another variant that stresses the second syllable: cliTOHRis. These are common, I believe to World English (everywhere).

I don't have access to the full OED either. Would have to check what is there to find out what is going on with the statement from Princeton University where a native speaker of US English makes pronouncements on UK and other non-US Englishes after reading a book. Work for the Oxford English Dictionary started in 1857, so we might be going back to the 1860s for our info. But would have to check. The OED doesn't use IPA script.

There's no big difference between US English and UK English. Some dialects in the British Isles (e.g. Irish English) are in any case mistaken for US English. RPSM (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cracked it. Here is a dictionary entry with three pronunciations 1) with a short i - accent on the first syllable - the most common pronunciation 2) accent on the second syllable 3) with a long i (straight line across the top of the i) pronounced /ai/, accent on the first syllable. (American Heritage Dictionary) which is not marked as being exclusively British English. RPSM (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Sometimes, the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong, as e.g. here RPSM (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So are other dictionaries at times, including any of the ones you've cited. What matters for this topic is, that if it is correctly cited, whether or not it is wrong on this matter; I don't feel that that's been proven by your posts above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I won't be able to tie up the arguments until I have checked the OED. Meanwhile, I contribute this reference that is not easy to find. (searchwords: clitoris+ gatekeeper) Dictionary of Medical Derivations RPSM (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of various OEDs starting with the twenty volume edition. That has collections of quotes in their context arranged in chronological order. At the time when it was published (work started on it in 1857) the assumption was that the written language had a higher status, wheras today the main view is that it is the spoken language that should be the primary object of study. I don't have access to the actual version of the OED cited, but you can look at the pages of the Paperback Oxford English Dictionary (on Amazon)and there are no markings for US or British English.

The most authoritative guide to pronunciation of English words is the Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners' Dictionary of English. In their forward on page xx they explain that if there are two common pronunciations for British English, they are given. I accessed this by viewing the book on Amazon. The Advanced Learners' Diictonary of English is on-line, and sound files augument the phonetic script, adapted from the IPA.

The basic approach, they say, is 'If you pronounce it like this, people will uderstand you.'Anyone pronouncing a word /'klaitoris/ anywhere will not be understood, and will be asked to repeat the word. Ah! you mean /klitoris/, will be the reply.

This pronunciation is unknown or obselete. The article in this respect contains wrong and misleading information. It is reproduced on the Princeton University site and is cut down, so the pronunciation and etymology section is given even more prominence there. As an editor, I do not have a duty to prove everything by checking the original sources if they are not readily available. In the article it reads as if this is standard, regular UK pronunciation. It is not. Surely common sense has a role to play somewhere in this. RPSM (talk) 11:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the entry for the Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary and Theosaurus. The above remarks were about the Collins' edition. There is only pronounciation of the word in British and American English. The etymologist Bill Casselman points out that the pronunciation that rhymes with brontosaurus is wrong."The word is pronounced KLIT-or-iss.No, it doesn't rhyme with brontosaurus." [User:RPSM|RPSM]] (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

RPSM, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. And I can't simply take your word for it that "The most authoritative guide to pronunciation of English words is the Collins COBUILD Advanced Learners' Dictionary of English." I already pointed you to the WP:Verifiability policy and stated, "The thing to do in this case, if WP:Reliable sources report differently on this British pronunciation matter, is to report those different views on this matter in the article with WP:Due weight; that would be following the WP:Verifiability policy." In other words, we are reporting what the Oxford English Dictionary source states; other sources may disagree with the Oxford English Dictionary. That can be clear by reporting what one or two other dictionaries report. However, we are not going to call the Oxford English Dictionary wrong on this matter unless a WP:Reliable source states that it is wrong. I already told you that I won't budge on removing the Oxford English Dictionary entry unless it is shown to be wrongly cited or is proven to be plain wrong. Therefore, there is no need for you to continue piling up posts in this section with regard to what other dictionaries state, especially since I am barely interested in this matter (remember: "I don't do pronunciation information, not usually anyway") and since no one else is replying to you about this yet. There are others watching this article (generally active Wikipedia editors), but they apparently don't care for this discussion. So anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If it may help build consensus, I lived in the UK for the first 27 years of my life (until 2004), and I have never, not once, heard the pronunciation in question here. It could be archaic, and one should check other articles to see if archaic dialects or pronunciations are included. I would largely think not, especially when the pronunciation is at best (as in this article) a confusing misnomer. Perhaps some further research may reveal that at one time in the UK klaɪtɒrɨs was the accepted variant, but for obvious reasons this might be difficult, and one would need to question the value of discussing etymology in minutiae within the context of this article. My vote goes to removing the reference because it does more harm than good and leads the uninitiated into believing that all British subjects naturally say the word in this fashion. Others have already provided additional sources to prove this to be untrue. Doggedly clinging to one dissenting source doesn't change that. In good faith, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.254.89 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Good argument, IP; that has made me reconsider removing it. As for "others," it was only RPSM. And RPSM could have helped this matter by adding the other information to that section to show that it's likely only the Oxford English Dictionary reporting that particular pronunciation. Flyer22 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, RPSM and others, I removed the UK pronunciation text; like that diff-link shows, I noted Talk:Clitoris/Archive 2#pronunciation. Looking through the Clitoris archives yesterday (I guess to see if this matter has been discussed before; I can't remember), I came across that discussion. Seeing that the UK pronunciation text was noted as dubious there, with one editor pointing out the age of the Oxford English Dictionary source compared to a newer source on the topic from that same dictionary (the Advanced Learner's version, actually), was enough for me to decide to remove the UK pronunciation material. Well, that combined with what has been stated in this section, especially the IP's above comment. I left in the rest of what the Oxford English Dictionary is cited to have stated, since it does not seem in dispute. What it apparently states about the word clitoris likely having its origin in the Ancient Greek κλειτορίς, kleitoris, perhaps derived from the verb κλείειν, kleiein, "to shut," is supported by this Reference.com source, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Using very old sources to support material

With this edit, KimS012 added material based on a source from 1842. I don't think we should be using sources that old unless it's to support a historical context matter. Sources that far back with regard to clitoris are likely unreliable (generally), given a lot of what was not known about the clitoris then and even now. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone else have anything to state on this matter? I'll wait a day or so longer for a response, but, after that point, I will remove the addition of the text/source that KimS012 added...except for the fix that KimS012 made. I commented before (previously in the WP:Good article review for this article) that we should (generally) stay away from sources that old for clitoris information. Like the article notes, there has been a lot of misinformation about the clitoris and there is not a lot of research out there about the clitoris in non-human animals; some anatomists and researchers in general state conflicting things on the matter, such as whether or not there are other species other than the spotted hyena that can urinate or give birth through the clitoris (though, for the birthing aspect, it seems that the sources mean only some intersex female species of bears can do that, while the entire female spotted hyena species can do it). And either way in that regard, they are still deeply perplexed about the makeup of the spotted hyena's genitalia and have been for a long time. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, removed. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A few concerns

Relating to the article's NPOV:

• "By contrast, science shows that" - I flared up a little at this because it reminded me of those freaking asinine articles with titles like "Science Shows You Are Stupid" and "Science Proves This Is Better than That". This isn't one of those, but nevertheless the wording is informal and vague.
• "make it the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and the primary source of female sexual pleasure" - I'd change this to either of the following:

• "make it a highly sensitive area often described as the primary source of female sexual pleasure"
• "make it the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and primary source of physical sexual pleasure"

As it stands, it's a little generalizing. Some human females are pleased by sex mainly for psychological reasons or have fetishes focused on other areas of their bodies.

• "The majority of women also "enjoy ..." - In what study? What women?

Tezero (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Tezero. I'm familiar with you from the Asexuality article. I changed the wording "science shows" to "anatomical texts show," per WP:Weasel words. However, like WP:Weasel words states, such words can be fine for use if for a clearly attributed matter and in certain other matters. To me, what was important in relaying that line was contrasting theory from science. I'm going by the sources, per WP:Verifiability; see what it states about WP:Due weight (an aspect of WP:Neutrality), with regard to what the majority of sources state on a matter? The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources with regard to the clitoris make no qualms about it being "the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and the primary source of female sexual pleasure"; that line from the WP:Lead is supported by several WP:Reliable sources. That some women value psychological pleasure or other parts of their bodies more than the clitoris for sexual stimulation does not negate that. We could state "generally," which is what some of the sources indicate/support, but I'm against WP:Editorializing. The wording "often described," as though there is serious debate with regard to the clitoris being the primary sexual organ for female sexual pleasure, is not something I will consider adding; it's WP:Weasel wording, to begin with, and adds doubt to a matter that is well accepted among anatomists and sexologists. I could consider the wording "physical sexual pleasure," if no editor who watches this article objects, though one could argue that adding "physical" in this case is also WP:Editorializing.

As for stating "The majority of women also 'enjoy a light caressing of the shaft of the clitoris' combined with the occasional circling of the clitoral glans, with or without manual penetration of the vagina, while others enjoy having the entire area of the vulva caressed.", again, I am going by what the WP:Reliable source states; there is no requirement that a WP:Reliable source cite studies for what it reports, any more than there is a requirement that an anatomical source cite studies for describing the anatomy of the clitoris (though, in the case of medical matters, such a source is usually preferred, per WP:MEDRS). The statements in question are not opinion, but are rather basic facts about sexual stimulation of the clitoris; they are basic facts because they are matters that have been repeatedly documented in research. The first line in that "the majority of women" paragraph, for example, is supported by five sources. It states: "Due to the glans's high sensitivity, direct stimulation to it is not always pleasurable; instead, direct stimulation to the hood or the areas near the glans are often more pleasurable, with the majority of females preferring to use the hood to stimulate the glans, or to have the glans rolled between the lips of the labia, for indirect touch." That is true. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking over one piece again... Since the "majority" wording isn't needed for "The majority of women also" line, it is cited to one source, and since I've thought since last year that the word majority for that line sounds a bit too strong (even if true), I went ahead and changed it...using the word common and other minor tweaks. The first instance of "majority" in that paragraph, however, should stay; like I noted above, not only is that bit certainly true, it's currently supported by five sources. Flyer22 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since no one objected to "physical sexual pleasure," and since it's clear that the sources are talking about physical sexual pleasure/physiology, I added the "physical" text in place of the previous text. Granted, it can be argued that when a woman becomes sexually aroused from a sexual fantasy or otherwise, the clitoris is the main body part experiencing sexual pleasure. But on the other hand, it's also the case that a sexual fantasy does not always lead to sexual arousal, there's the fact that many people who are paralyzed from the neck or waist down sexually fantasize, and there is some evidence that some people (especially women) who are paralyzed from the neck or waist down can experience physical sexual stimulation (including orgasm) via the power of the brain or other nerves in relation to the spinal cord and which bypass the paralyzed state. In addition to "physical," I was tempted to add "physiological," as in "physical and physiological," but that can be considered redundant in this case, and "physiological" is more complex, and what was the Human physiology article currently redirects to the Human body article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: With this edit (which I tweaked soon afterward, here and here), I used "generally" to acknowledge the females who may consider a part of their vagina their primary source of physical sexual pleasure (or their primary source of physical sexual pleasure only during orgasm), even though, like the Clitoris article addresses, any very sensitive or very sexually pleasing part of the vagina is very likely an extension of the clitoris or is connected to the clitoris in some other way. "Generally" also covers the females who may find some other body part, for whatever psychological reason, more sexually pleasing than the clitoris or vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Post-archive note: See here, here and here. And, yes, I'm aware that the top of this page states "Do not edit the contents of this page." That's why this post is marked as "Post archive note." Since I obviously had something else to state on this matter, I was a little premature in archiving this discussion. Rather than unarchive this discussion just to post those links, and then re-archive it or let the bot archive it a month from now, I chose this posting route. No further editing of this discussion or of the other discussions in this archive have taken place on my part; check its edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Nerve Endings in Clitoris

I just pulled up all the citations from this Wiki article that claim the clitoris has 8000 nerve endings (and that this is more than any other body part in the human anatomy). All of the sources with this claim listed in the Wiki article are secondary sources, though, and all reference the same primary source: Angier (1999). So, I pulled up Angier (1999) and was a bit surprised when it also appeared to be a secondary source written by a journalist and--most troubling of all--she doesn't even cite where her number of 8000 nerve fibers came from, nor does she give a citation for the claim that this is more than any other body part on the human anatomy.

I'm not a regular Wiki editor so I'll confess that I'm not sure what passes as a reliable source around these parts, but I am a university professor and I know that I'd have trouble accepting these as reliable sources in an academic paper.

Thoughts? Wiki4Life (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki4Life (talk · contribs), this topic (though not focusing on science journalist Natalie Angier) was recently discussed at Talk:Clitoris/Archive 14#Number of nerves. In that discussion, you can see that I point out that I came to the decision to report that, while 8,000 nerve endings are usually cited for the human clitoris, sources vary more often when it comes to citing the number of nerve endings in the human penis; 4000 is the commonly cited number of the penile nerve endings, but it seems that the sources are referring to the circumcised penis, given the many number of nerve endings that are no doubt in the foreskin. I've also considered that the "8,000 nerve endings" claim seems to have come from Natalie Angier, but because so many WP:Reliable sources cite it when discussing the clitoris, especially to indicate just how sexually responsive it is, I feel that we should mention it in the Clitoris article. And we have, long before I even became involved with the article. And notice that the article uses the words "estimated to have" and "estimated," not "has," for the nerve endings aspect. Also, because so many WP:Reliable sources cite 8,000 nerve endings for the clitoris, I've wondered if this matter has not been verified by one or more primary sources other than Angier (not that we're certain Angier has verified the matter). It is not our job to analyze the sources in the way you are suggesting; we are only obligated to report them accurately (to avoid WP:Synthesis), and to prefer WP:Secondary sources to WP:Primary sources, if we want to add material to Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaborate writeup, Flyer22 (talk · contribs)! It's clear that you've put a lot of thought into this. Thank you also for informing me of the practices on Wikipedia.

In light of the information you've provided about there not being a known primary source, but keeping in mind your desire to indicate how sexually responsive it is and also to indicate that others (including those on Wikipedia) have used this citation, perhaps a better phrasing would be something along the lines of: "It's well documented in both academics and popular culture how sexually responsive the clitoris is; some even assert that the clitoris has an estimated 8,000 nerve fibers and that it has more nerve fibers than any other part of the human anatomy."

Just my $0.02. Best of luck with this and the numerous other projects you juggle here on Wikipedia. The service you do for the community is very impressive, and I've definitely benefited from your hard work on many occasions.Wiki4Life (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey again, Wiki4Life. Thanks for the compliments. Regarding how sexually responsive the clitoris is, the article addresses that without mentioning the "8,000 nerve endings aspect"; that aspect is mentioned once in the WP:Lead, in the Glans and body section, and then again in the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section; I think that the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section does a good job at indicating that it's not 100% validated that the clitoris has approximately 8,000 nerve endings or more nerve endings than any other part of the human body. There are two reasons that I'd rather stay away from the "some even assert" wording. The first is because the clitoris having 8,000 nerve endings is widely cited and does not appear to be in explicit dispute by any WP:Reliable source; instead, we have some WP:Reliable sources stating that the human clitoris and human penis have the same number of nerve endings, which could mean 8,000, or that the uncircumcised penis has thousands more nerve endings than the circumcised penis. The other reason that I object to the "some even assert" wording is the WP:Weasel wording and WP:Said guidelines, though the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section does use the wording "some sources"; "some sources" is less a matter of weasel wording, since the sources are right there for everyone to see. When we use "some" to refer to people, however, we often have editors wanting names to be given, and it's sometimes the case that there are too many names to list in a non-WP:Linkfarm fashion, that one or more of the named people are not WP:Notable, or that the sources don't provide the names.

I wish that more people used good judgment, like Template:Who suggests, before "deciding [that] greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article," but they often don't. Template:Who states, "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:According to whom states, "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." But again, when Wikipedia editors see "some" in relation to people, they often add a "who" or "according to whom" tag to the statement(s). Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of assert....see this; LOL, here I am criticizing use of the word assert, based on a Wikipedia guideline, and yet I've used it in the section I mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: With this edit, I traded out one of the sources citing 8,000 nerve endings for the clitoris (the Harvey source) with a better source. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2014

Please remove the image of the cadavers clitoris marked "deep dissection." I feel it's vulgar and lewd to display images closely related to necrophilia. If you need a picture of a live clitoris I will submit mine for gods sake. Or at least, show an image of a dead penis on the penis page to maintain equality.

Firedball (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. pretty sure that goes against WP:notcensored. There are already pictures of clitorises (clitori?) of living people on the page. If you own or have access to a free-use deep dissection picture of a penis, feel free to place it on the penis page. Cannolis (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I honestly don't think that the image has anything to do with necrophilia! I think it has more to do with medical training. Medical students learn about the human body by dissecting it as part of their studies. I think that the purpose of the image here is to try to illustrate that there is much more to the human clitoris than what can be seen on the surface. This is shown diagrammatically at the top of the article, and in this section there is a detailed description of these important but buried or hidden features, such as the corpora cavernosa, the clitoral crura, and the vestibular or clitoral bulbs. None of these are normally visible, but they are nonetheless important in human female sexual arousal and response. As such, I think, although those of us who have never had any medical training may find the image surprising to see, it has a very valid purpose where it is placed in this article. --Nigelj (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Urethra is not labelled correctly in the vulva image.

The open vulva image which has various anatomical features labeled numerically does not correctly label the urethra. Because of the poor nature of the photo it is not completely clear where the women's urethra is, but it is not the anatomical feature labelled #3. Number 3 is, as far as I know, an unnamed anatomical feature that some women have, but many do not. It is a split in the internal raphe' that runs from top of the urethra to near the frenulum of the clitoris (the frenulum is also unlabelled). It is possible that within the split there are openings to glands as some women have two or more small holes within the split. In the image, I think the urethra is actually under #4 in which case this women has a closed urethra that is also no uncommon in many women. A better resolution photo would help immensely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55sifaka (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. In the current image, #3 should be the vulvar vestibule (although the label still isn't in the ideal spot), and #4 should be the urethra. Changing the labels would help, but another picture may still be ideal. File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg or File:Scheide-labelled.jpg might be worth considering. kyledueck (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If the image is changed, I'd prefer File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg, which has the areas named in the image . Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've made a request to whitelist File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg so that it can be used in this article. Once that request has gone through, I'll update the article accordingly. (Unless there are any objections of course) kyledueck (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bear and Clitoris

2A02:A03F:2224:E600:88F5:FAE:112E:F2CD (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Sebastian Worms

The numbers for bears are ultimately based on this one paper (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1381646?uid=3737592&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106257575251) where they captured 46 bears in Alberta and 4 showed evidence of genital malformation. With a sample size that small, a number of 10 to 20% of the general population is misleading. (Especiallly since 2 of the 4 were siblings) and only one of them had more than a tiny sliver of cartilage as "malformation".

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015 section "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" in regards to circumcision

in section: "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences"
current text: or discuss whether the uncircumcised penis has thousands more than the circumcised penis or is generally more sensitive.
improved text: or discuss whether the intact penis has thousands more than the circumcised penis or is generally more sensitive.

reason: "uncircumcised" implies that the norm is circumcision. Intact vs circumcised removes that bias.
Also the link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision should be on circumcised penis, en not on uncircumcised penis because the page is about circumcision not "uncircumcision" which isn't even a thing as that is called restoration surgery. After uncircumcised is replaced with intact it even makes more sense to move the link.

Thank you.

178.116.31.145 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Two sources are given to support the text in the article; the one which I have access to refers to circumcision specifically. Furthermore I personally object to the use of "intact" to refer to the uncircumcised penis, which presents a bias that circumcised males are not whole or are damaged. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Ivanvector that "intact" is inflammatory POV. But, Ivanvector, which of the two sources is inaccessible to you? If you mean the book source, the URL link for the page is provided in the article. It's this page. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

You can not remove a part and still be left with a whole. Whether it is damage or an improvement has nothing to do with the terms intact vs circumcised which are both objectively describing the state of the penis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.31.145 (talk • contribs)

What is the current thought on the subalbugineal layer?

Most references seem to say that the clitoris does not have a double subalbugineal layer that allows for a true erection, however Vincent Di Marino and Hubert Lepidi published a recent (2014) study that included histological microscope photos that suggest that, like the penis, the clitoris tunica is also double-layered.

Are their findings generally accepted or rejected by the medical community? Most cities from 2015 still say the clitoris lacks a second layer, though Marino and Lepidi claim to have found it in their work. The picture is in this document:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wKMpBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=%22tunica%22+clitoris+%22venous+plexus%22&source=bl&ots=TIHQ4434AI&sig=H1LM3l6Xt2yaC7yPpRjkW7xHoCc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBWoVChMIn8Gq2vHJxwIVwSuICh3Itg0R#v=onepage&q=%22tunica%22%20clitoris%20%22venous%20plexus%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevideodrome (talk • contribs)

Ambiguity is information behind quotation

Under Sexual stimulation, findings and debates in the last paragraph the last line is written as 'but knowledge of the measurement of physiologic parameters of sexual function in women is lacking "and far behind that in men".[23]'

When looking up the article the quote from the article is "knowledge of the measurement of physiologic parameters of sexual function in women is still lacking, and far behind that in men"

By adding still to the quote from the clitoris wikipedia page this whole line can be quoted and although this may seem trivial when first reading the page I mistook the line the line for implying that the sexual function of women is far behind that of men which if other's also misread this it would have social implications. Even though this is due to human error, I believe the quotations around the whole quote would give a clearer understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditerSam (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

EditerSam (talk · contribs), I removed the piece, per my reasoning in the WP:Edit summary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have never been aware of any rule that says that all items in the bibliography must be referenced in the text. Items in bibliography - sometimes referenced as further reading, or less helpfully, external links, provide tools for both users and future editors. I added two recent books for lay readers, as opposed to medical texts. But if people her insist I'm happy to reference them from text too. I was just reviewing the scope of Women's Health in the WikiProject of that name and am trying to strengthen it. I'm reverting pending discussion here. Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

At the top of §Bibliography, in the wiki source is this:

<!-- NOTE: All of these are used as references in the article; removing any without removing the corresponding attribution (ref name source) in the article will result in broken references. Also, "Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity" 2009 and 2012 are slightly different versions of the same source, not the exact same source. -->

Because it says 'all of these', I take it to mean that anything added to this section must, necessarily, be used as a reference in support of some specific point made in the article's text. Adding items to the bibliography that are apparently related to the article topic but aren't used to support the article in any way merely adds clutter to an already lengthy list of reading material.

I do not dispute that the items that you have added may provide tools for both users and future editors, but in keeping with the statement embedded in the wiki source, perhaps these items should better be placed elsewhere. An unsigned (to avoid bot archiving) bibliographic list at the top of this talk page might be useful to other editors. Or not. I don't know how useful §Further reading would be given the extent of §Bibliography.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear, I ask that you do not WP:Edit war over this. I reverted you per Trappist the monk's reasoning above and per the reasoning I'm about to give. Buisson and Foldès are already cited in the article, where they should be cited, so I don't see what you were going for with that addition. And I don't at all see why we should be adding Naomi Wolf as a citation to this article; she is nowhere close to being an expert on female anatomy and, as made clear in her Wikipedia article, her Vagina: A New Biography book was heavily criticized. It is more so about the vagina than the clitoris anyway. Furthermore, this article has enough citations. I went overboard with some of the citing; see WP:Citation overkill. And so I do not see that the article needs any more citations. I you look at MOS:LAYOUT, the "Notes and references" and "Further reading" sections, you can see that "Bibliography" is separate from "Further reading". I can be okay with having a "Further reading" section and adding some of your suggestions there, including Vagina: A New Biography, but I don't think we should place that material in the Bibliography section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Woh! Nobody is talking about edit wars. it is just that it is better to discuss issues here than make edits to each other's contributions. As it is I did incorporate the sources into the text as per the heading. The heading of course was to discourage removal of sources, not addition. We could debate Naomi Wolf but at a lay level it had quite an effect. Whether things go in bibliography per further reading is simply a matter of style, and I don't have any arguments on that.

The Foldes and Buisson issue arose (a) because bundling references creates some confusion, and there is an accent on Foldes in the text which curiously is not in my copy of the paper, therefore it failed to show up in a search of the text. I subsequently removed it. Hope thos helps. Reverting all my edits does seem to fly in the face of the header at the top of the Bibliography does it not? After all Trappist's original complaint was simply that they were not referenced in the text - which I complied with. Hope that is clear. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

PS We just had an edit conflict over this! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Goodyear, given the concerns noted by Trappist the monk and myself, I felt that it was better to simply revert all of that. Sometimes it is better to make edits to each other's contributions and discuss afterward. Your main point seems to be adding a "further reading" addition, and adding a Further reading section to house your suggestions is easy enough. I felt that we should discuss the possibility of a Further reading addition here. As noted, I wouldn't mind you adding one, though I would prefer quality sources for that section. As for your argument that "Whether things go in bibliography per further reading is simply a matter of style", that viewpoint is why I pointed to MOS:LAYOUT above. By "heading," it seems that you mean the WP:Hidden note that Trappist the monk cited. That note states "removing any without removing the corresponding attribution (ref name source) in the article will result in broken references." So I don't see how my revert of your edits flies in the face of that note. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Carnivorous?

"Some other carnivorous animals, or mammals in particular, such as lemurs and spider monkeys, also have a well-developed clitoris."

This is very odd wording. In fact *all* the animals that have a clitoris are mammals - and it's not clear that carnivorousity has much to do with it. Snori (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Snori, I somehow missed this comment you made. What about that sentence (from the lead) does not make sense to you? The previous sentence is about the spotted hyena, which is carnivorous. The second sentence mentioned "carnivorous" because of that, but I can see how that can be confusing, considering that the previous sentence doesn't even note that the spotted spotted is carnivorous. I'll tweak the wording. As for the rest, as I noted when reverting you with this edit, mammals are not the only creatures that have a clitoris. But before I reverted you, it's clear that you'd realized that the ostrich, which is not a mammal, is mentioned in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: Changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Other animals section

Snori, regarding this and this edit you made, I reverted you on the heading change and incorporated your edit into the previous heading. The reasons I did this are the following: Per WP:MEDMOS#Sections, we title the section "Other animals." If there was a lot to cover about the clitoris in non-mammals, however, I would consider your heading change as an improvement. As it stands, there is little to state about the clitoris in non-mammals. And, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."

Since I have time, I'll go ahead and add a bit more about the clitoris in non-mammals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Updated: Here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine now, and great to have those extra refs. My initial concern was that we were saying things in the intro that had no backing in the body - and that's well and truly resolved now. Snori (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Snori, yeah, as you know, I understood your point when initially reverting you. You've helped to improve this article. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Nerves

"The glans (head) of the human clitoris is roughly the size and shape of a pea, and is estimated to have more than 8,000 sensory nerve endings." It might as well be 80,000 or 8. One of the main interests a person would have is how sensitive it is and without anything to compare it to the statement is meaningless. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Biofase, the "8,000 sensory nerve endings" comparison is lower. It's too complicated to address in the lead. The lead is for summarizing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposing or justifying various changes

A couple of weeks ago I made a series of edits, mostly links or glosses, and almost all of them have been reverted with the comment "overlinking, poor linking". I made the edits bit by bit, with explanations in the edit summary, but apparently that was not enough; I'm happy to bring them here to the talkpage for discussion. I find it strange, to say the least, that the article has gone back to a state where it has a link to Africa but not to human female sexuality.

I am here to serve our readers. I think it makes the subject clearer to them, i.e. it improves the article, to have these links, definitions, and glosses:

• human female sexuality: ideally a wording that allows that phrase, or at least a link piped from "female pleasure" or similar
• "sport of nature": I linked to Wiktionary, but I'd be content with a rephrasing or gloss
• Feminist health centers: when the text covers Feminist Women's Health Clinics
• to make plain what MRI stands for, i.e. "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements" instead of the needlessly covered-over "MRI measurements"
• the "climb-on model of a giant golden clitoris": a useful pipe is to Mechanical bull, for those who haven't come across either before
• the medical term "cosmesis" is used in a quote; gloss and link i.e. (Cosmesis usually refers to the surgical correction of a disfiguring defect.)
• the term "vaginal opening" is used; the medical term should also be given (as well as, not instead of) and linked to, i.e. "vaginal opening (introitus)"

• we have an article Intersex surgery; why mention "intersex operations" and not link to it?
• we have an article Clitoral hood reduction; why mention clitoral surgery and not include it?
• we have an article Genital reconstructive surgery; why not include it?

There are other, mostly minor, changes I'd like to propose, but let's work on these first. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Carbon Caryatid. I reverted you here because, as stated, you engaged in WP:Overlinking and (in my opinion) made some other poor linking choices. I missed one of the linking choices you made, and it was instead Mr. Granger who reverted you. I wasn't against all of what you did, though, which is why I re-added this, and this content and tweaked it afterward.

As for your above points/proposals, I'm not opposed to "human female sexuality" being added to the article. How could I be? But I don't think it needs to be linked in the lead. I also don't like the idea of pipelinking it with "female sexual pleasure" since female sexuality is not the same thing as female sexual pleasure. The word "sexual" is pipelinked with "human sexuality," and that article addresses sexual aspects that the Human female sexuality article doesn't. Ideally, it should link to the Human female sexuality article. When one link takes readers to related articles, we don't have to shove all of those related articles into the article we are focusing on. "Feminist health centers" is not the same thing as "the Federation of Feminist Women's Health Clinics (FFWHC)." I don't even see it mentioned in the Feminist health centers article. If it were mentioned there, I wouldn't mind the pipelink. It is, however, mentioned at Feminist Women's Health Center (Atlanta, Georgia). I wouldn't mind you re-adding "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)," but I don't see an issue with letting "MRI" stand by itself while pipelinked to "Magnetic resonance imaging." "MRI" is the common term; so many people have heard of it just by watching shows like E.R. and/or Grey's Anatomy. I wouldn't mind you re-adding the "Mechanical bull" link. I didn't like you adding "(Cosmesis usually refers to the surgical correction of a disfiguring defect.)" because I viewed as it WP:Editorializing, but I'm not strongly opposed to you re-adding it. In the case of this article, there is no need to add "introitus" beside "vaginal opening"; they mean the same thing, and "vaginal opening" is the more common term. In fact, "vaginal opening" is used quite often by medical sources. It's not as though it's slang. As long as "vagina" has been linked once in the article, "introitus" is not needed in the article...since "vaginal opening" and "introitus" redirect to the Vagina article.

I won't mind the "intersex surgery" link being re-added. As for you adding that "Another type of surgery is the clitoral hood reduction. More broadly, see Genital reconstructive surgery.", it was not needed and included a WP:Self-reference. The sentence was not needed because, to reiterate, "When one link takes readers to related articles, we don't have to shove all of those related articles into the article we are focusing on." The Genital modification and mutilation article, which is linked at the top of the "Clitoral modification" section, includes information on clitoral hood reduction; it addresses it and links to it. We don't need to include the "clitoral hood reduction" link as well. And we don't need to include the "Genital reconstructive surgery" link at all; you essentially demonstrated that by adding "more broadly." This article is not focused on the "more broadly" genital stuff, except if it is needed to explain clitoral matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. I'll take the points one by one:

• I'm glad you agree that Human female sexuality should be added. The phrase itself does not occur in the article. I agree piping is not ideal, so we need to come up with a sentence or clause that enables its inclusion. I would prefer to see it in the lead, but if you don't, fine; what section do you propose?
• You are incorrect in your assertion that the FFWHC is not mentioned in Feminist health centers; it has been there since the article was created in 2012. As you say you don't mind the pipelink, I will re-instate it.
• MRI: as you say you don't mind me re-adding it, I will. (My justification, not that you're asking for one, is WP:MOS "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." My target readership includes the many people who do not have access to American TV dramas.)
• Mechanical bull and intersex surgery links and the cosmesis gloss: as you don't mind them, I will re-add.
• Introitus does indeed mean "vaginal opening", but you are incorrect in asserting that it redirects to vagina.
• Genital reconstructive surgery, as a phrase, sounds very different to genital modification and mutilation. The reader might well not understand the latter to include the former. The latter phrase does not, to me, immediately invoke modern health-related procedures. Clitoral hood reduction is one operation. If there is a mention only of the latter, I can't see how a reader would ever guess the existence of this operation (as above, without following the link, which they may not be able to do).

I'll re-add the agreed points now, and await further discussion on the others. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For the inclusion of the human female sexuality link, I suggest that the first sentence of the lead's second paragraph be changed from "The clitoris is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure." to "The clitoris plays a significant part in human female sexuality; it is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure."

Yes, it was incorrect to state that the FFWHC is not mentioned in the Feminist health centers article; I'd seen it there years ago, but I somehow overlooked the mention on November 4th.

Good point about the "MRI" link.

Regarding the Introitus link, I meant that "vaginal introitus" redirects there. And did it redirect there until a sockmaster changed the redirect last year. I still view the "introitus" link as unnecessary. As one can see, the term does not only refer to the vagina, the Introitus article is tiny and points to the Vaginal opening (introitus) section of the Vagina article. It doesn't tell the reader anything that they cannot find out from reading that section. I might redirect "Vaginal introitus" back to that section.

I still don't agree about including the genital reconstructive surgery link. Regardless of some people not being able to click on it, we can't include every related term in an article without having a link farm, and I don't see why a reader needs to be redirected to that article in the Clitoris article when we already point readers to Genital modification and mutilation. It's easy to recognize that genital reconstructive surgery is an aspect of genital modification and mutilation. And if one really wants to click on a link but can't, they will go to the article without clicking on the link. Most importantly, the Genital reconstructive surgery article doesn't tell readers anything about the clitoris and it was recently formatted as a disambiguation page. As for the Clitoral hood reduction link, although I still don't think it's needed at this point in the article (especially since readers can find it by following other links), I understand you feeling that it's an important aspect of clitoral modification. Why not add it as a "Further information" link in the "Reasons for clitoral modification" section? Or add a sourced sentence there about it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would be delighted if we could work human female sexuality into the lead after all. The first sentence of the second paragraph is a good choice. Your suggested first clause is clear, direct, and succinct; the second, however, isn't. I suggest "The clitoris plays a significant part in human female sexuality; it is the most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of sexual pleasure." (The alternative is the much-mocked "Wikipedia style" that gives us gems such as "The United States presidential election of 2016 <snip> is the 58th quadrennial U.S. presidential election." Repetitive, redundant, and also repetitive.)

I will cede my point about using the word and link Introitus (which, by the way, I have just made a very slight attempted to improve) but not re genital reconstructive surgery. You say "It's easy to recognize that genital reconstructive surgery is an aspect of genital modification and mutilation." I disagree. When I hear the phrase "facial reconstructive surgery", I think of people who have been burned by acid or born with a hare lip or mangled in a car crash; when I hear "facial modification", not that that's a particularly common phrase, I'd think of Permanent makeup or Maori lip and chin tattoos or earlobe stretching. Surgery != modification.

Your idea of adding Clitoral hood reduction as a "Further information" hatnote is a good one, and I will do so now. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The only difference between your suggested wording and mine are the two instances of the words "human female." I agree that that there is no need for "human female" now that we will be stating "human female sexuality." So, yes, I agree to your suggested wording. I'm sure I would have eventually removed "human female" after the new addition once I had a chance to think about the redundancy.

It seems we are at an impasse regarding the genital reconstructive surgery link. Keep in mind that I also stated, " Most importantly, the Genital reconstructive surgery article doesn't tell readers anything about the clitoris and it was recently formatted as a disambiguation page." And even more recently a few days ago. So I still can't agree to its inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clitoris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106211856/http://www.uic.edu:80/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html to http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Freud's influence of female orgasms/female sexuality

With this edit, I reverted NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk · contribs) on changing "Freud's 1905 theory about the immaturity of clitoral orgasms (see above) negatively affected women's sexuality throughout most of the 20th century." to "Freud's 1905 theory about the immaturity of clitoral orgasms reduced the amount of orgasms from women throughout most of the 20th century." The sources do not state "reduced the amount of orgasms from women," which is poor grammar, by the way. But the sources are explicitly clear that Freud's 1905 theory about the immaturity of clitoral orgasms negatively affected women's sexuality, especially their chances of having an orgasm.

NoToleranceForIntolerance cited "NPOV" for his reason for changing the text. Like I noted when reverting NoToleranceForIntolerance, WP:NPOV has nothing do with it. On Wikipedia, NPOV is about going by what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state. The sources report Freud's orgasm theory as a negative for women, for different reasons, not as a positive. I am not aware of any reliable sources that state the theory was a positive for women. We cover the same matter in the Sigmund Freud article as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If any editor's issue is that the first source used for the sentence in question doesn't use the word negative (although the source is clearly discussing the matter in a negative context) and that what the second source states is currently unavailable via its URL, I can easily add an additional source on the matter, although I'd rather avoid WP:Citation overkill, especially since this article already employs citation overkill in more than one area. This 2013 A Psychotherapy for the People: Toward a Progressive Psychoanalysis source, from Routledge, page 226, for example, states, "The neglect of the clitoris neither began nor ended with Freud; Freud consolidated into theory a long tradition of devaluing the clitoris, differentiating between paroxysm and orgasm, and limiting the definition of sexual satisfaction to vaginal penetration. However, as Laqueur (1990) notes, it was Freud who actually invented the notion of the vaginal orgasm. Freud's formalization into psychoanalytic theory of the 19th century view of female sexuality perpetuated its detrimental effect on women, especially true believers in psychoanalysis, who were told by their psychoanalysts that they were frigid because they were not having vaginal orgasms." This source uses the word detrimental, and is clearly speaking of Freud's theory in the negative sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction needed

Since I am not registered, I cannot edit. I'd like to, however, bring your attention to the next matter. The subsection "Clitoral and vaginal orgasmic factors", ends in:

Supporting a distinct G-spot, however, is a study by Rutgers University, published in 2011, which was the first to map the female genitals onto the sensory portion of the brain; the scans indicated that the brain registered distinct feelings between stimulating the clitoris, the cervix and the vaginal wall – where the G-spot is reported to be – when several women stimulated themselves in a functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) machine.[98][104] Barry Komisaruk, head of the research findings, stated that he feels that "the bulk of the evidence shows that the G-spot is not a particular thing" and that it is "a region, it's a convergence of many different structures".[102]

If you check reference #102 (Kilchevsky, Amichai; Vardi, Yoram; Lowenstein, Lior; Gruenwald, Ilan (January 2012). "Is the Female G-Spot Truly a Distinct Anatomic Entity?". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 9 (3): 719–26. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02623.x. PMID 22240236.) you find a completely opposite account of Komisaruk's statements: "Komisaruk et al. reported that regions of the sensory cortex activated by clitoral, vaginal, or cervical self-stimulation, while slightly verlapping are, in fact, separable. This finding indicates that there is a significant, and separate, sensory response to stimulation of each of these genital regions thereby keeping the possibility of a discrete G-spot viable". The only other mentioning of Komisaruk in the paper regards pain-threshold elevation in response to vaginal stimulation.

Please correct. --94.223.142.139 (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IP. The reference includes a lay summary media source. Now some would rather not rely on a HuffPost source, but it's included as a lay summary of the research and because it showcases an interview with different people (researchers). In that interview, it states, "Barry Komisaruk, the lead author of the fMRI study and professor of psychology at Rutgers University, advocates calling it the G-area, or G-region, instead." It then quotes Komisaruk: "I think that the bulk of the evidence shows that the G-spot is not a particular thing. It’s not like saying, ‘What is the thyroid gland?’" Komisaruk said. "The G-spot is more of a thing like New York City is a thing. It’s a region, it’s a convergence of many different structures." It goes on to state that "Komisaruk said that pressing on the area proclaimed to be the G-spot also presses the urethra and a structure called Skene’s gland, which is analogous to the male prostate." It then quotes Komisaruk again: "Each of those areas have different nerve sites," said Komisaruk. "I think there’s good enough data that a lot of women feel that that is a particularly sensitive region." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the source more carefully, it looks like HuffPost was repeating a MyHealthNewsDaily article. Either way, I don't see that Komisaruk has contradicted himself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the aforementioned contested quote is now included in the 2015 50 Great Myths of Human Sexuality book by Pepper Schwartz and Martha Kempner, page 25. I am aware of Schwartz's research. I am unfamiliar with Kempner, who doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article. Currently, I am not sure if the quote came from an academic paper or interview, but this book makes it seem that it came from an academic paper. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Citation overkill

Jarble, the text you are adding references for in the "General" subsection of the "Other animals" section is already sourced, sometimes to two or three citations (bundled or otherwise); so I don't think any more citations should be added to things already sourced. I also prefer not to use very old references for the material since anatomists have been wrong about some things in the past, especially female anatomy. And I prefer that the citation style stay consistent. You are adding a different citation style when you add references. The current citation style of the article is atypical; so I understand that it's not the easiest to use. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed these extra references. As for the others you added, they came with new content you added; so all I need to do for those is format them like the other references in the article (I might replace them, though). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And I removed these two extra references added by a different editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)