Talk:G-spot

Breach of WP:NPOV

The article fails to highlight that medical opinion does not support this anatomical claim.

Delvin, David (May 2008). "The G-spot". Healthy Living. NetDoctor.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-11-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) states:
If you think the G-spot equals mind-blowing orgasms, think again. With Italian research the latest to lay claim to this fabled female erogenous zone, our experts explain why medical opinion remains to be convinced.
Hines, Terence M. (August 2001). "The G-spot: A modern gynecologic myth" (abstract). Clinical Opinion: American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 185(2). pp. pages 359-362. Retrieved 2008-11-06. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help) states:
The G-spot is an allegedly highly erogenous area on the anterior wall of the human vagina. Since the concept first appeared in a popular book on human sexuality in 1982, the existence of the spot has become widely accepted, especially by the general public. This article reviews the behavioral, biochemical, and anatomic evidence for the reality of the G-spot, which includes claims about the nature of female ejaculation. The evidence is far too weak to support the reality of the G-spot. Specifically, anecdotal observations and case studies made on the basis of a tiny number of subjects are not supported by subsequent anatomic and biochemical studies.

Although the article's main editor was aware of these references, he selectively used one and ignored the other as it did not suit his argument. WP:NPOV states: NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about, and make them the main point of the article. Popular opinion is not sufficient to outweigh considered medical evidence and the article should be worded accordingly. It is unencyclopaedic to deal with what is largely held to be a "fable" by the medical community as though it is true and to mention the controversy only fleetingly. --Matilda (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm going to ask that you guys tone it down a bit, so we can get this thing settled. We don't need to argue, only communicate better. Lets just focus on how these new concerns can make better content. Ok you two? Synergy 23:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny how you talk about me selectively using sourcex, and yet you seem to be completely ignoring the websites, books and studies all dedicated to the G-spot and it's existence. Hypocrite, much? --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are sources you Gwib cited, one in the article, the other in support of your DYK nomination. I have not gone looking for sources (or ignored them). I have evaluated these two sources provided by you as being reliable per en:WP:RS and then looked at how they have been used. Both sources are authorative and both sources are emphatic that medical evidence does not support the existence of this anatomical feature. I am happy for you to bring other sources to the article, but you can't ignore sources you have already raised because they do not suit your argument - that is the thrust of my NPOV complaint. --Matilda (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. Looking up 'G-spot' on google or any other search engine will get you thousands of hits, all debating on it's existence and location. Go to your local library, I guarantee you'll find books researching it. That you're basing your arguments on the sources I've used, fine, but to say that this article is unsuitable because there isn't any defining research is wrong. There have been studies showing definite locations, of which I can get references (although I'd have to buy a book), and even important authors like Matt Ridley accept the existence of a G-spot.

You accuse me of ignoring quotes in those references above, you seem to be ignoring tens of thousands of sources out there all confirming a G-spot. --Gwib^-(talk)- 06:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the two of you are starting to ignore the most important thing. Civility. It's hard to collaborate together when you're at each other's throats. Settle, please, or get a mediator. ס ^Talk 06:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict No - you misunderstand me - we don't actually need to look for more sources. We have some. You have cited some in favour of the argument that there is such an anatomical feature. You have found some other sources, which are reliable enough, which quite clearly state that medical opinion does not support the view that there is an anoatomical thing called a G-spot. Those two sources are from different sides of the Atlantic. They appear to be authoriative medical sources and they state that the medical profession does not believe the G-spot exists. I don't think you can ignore the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and go look elsewhere. Its views are not bizarre and would definitely be considered authorative on the subject of female anatomy. The views in that article are supported by the UK based netdoctor.com.uk - the article there is written also by medical professionals. Between them the two articles disparage the concept throughly. However, the article does not present these views except low down and with significant qulifications inplying they are outside views. Bty doing this, you misrepresent in this encyclopaedia the weight of scientific opinion. I am sure I could find many sources for a flat earth or fairies too. The medical profession describes this anatomical feature as "fabled" or an "allegedly highly erogenous zone" and if somebody reads this article they would not know that the medical profession disputes the assertions in this article.--Matilda (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Samekh - edit conflict before I would be grateful if you would suggest where we have been uncivil - I note I have been called a hypocrite but I cannot do anything about soembody who has ignored the sources except repeatedly draw it to his attention. I do not believe that is being uncivil. Per en:Wikipedia:Civility Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia - I think my focus is on improving the encyclopaedia. I do not think we ahve exceeded the bounds of Differences of opinion are inevitable in a collaborative project. When discussing these differences some editors, in trying to be forthright, can seem unnecessarily harsh. Other editors can seem oversensitive when their views are challenged ... Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions --Matilda (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda, I'm very aware of the English Wikipedia civility policy. Perhaps I have a stricter interpretation of the civility policy, as I was a mediator on en wikipedia. I'm not the first person to come to the talk page to ask the temperature to be turned down. The comment was directed at the both of you. more a generalised comment to cool it rather than a caution for bad behaviour. Now, I think the best thing to do in this case is to address the issue calmly. It would be best, in my opinion, to note in the article that there are different opinions regarding the existence/nonexistence of the G-spot, and source them. ס ^Talk 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wording by Gwib and reply

On my user talk page Gwib proposed: ::Final decision. Would you be in agreement of inserting a phrase into the article:

“

Some people, including doctors, don't believe that the G-spot exists,[citations] however, there is also evidence to suggest that the G-spot is simply a sensitive area[another citation]

”

Something to satisfy the both of us, including both views and sources.

Firstly I think, based on the quite emphatic statements in the sources given above, the qualifier needs to be in the lead. I feel that stating "some people, including doctors, " is too much of a toning down. Are there any sources to say that significant numbers of reputable obstetricians and gynaecologists believe in it and have found anatomical evidence for the spot - ie is there informed scientific support for the concept? If not I think there needs to be some other wording. The article has been tagged by somedoy else as querying who are the majority - I think that needs to be answered.

I appreciate that in the history of sexuality literature it is a significant phenomena but I think that view of literature needs to be conveyed as that rather than as accepted scientific fact. If there is medical/scientific endorsement of the concept that is fine but we need the cite for it and the cite should not come from the sexuality industry or psychologists, it should be anatomically based as at the moment the article represents that there is an anatomical area.

This Time magazine article from 1982 (essentially a book review) suggests popular disbelief based on the scepticism of most (but not all) gynaecologists. It is essentially a review of the 1982 book by Ladas et al and not in my view a particularly favourable review. I note that the review draws attention to the fact that Ladas and Perry were/are psychologists and Whipple a nurse - none particularly qualified in anatomy. The review also suggests that the book was aimed at the popular market not the scientific community.

Without wishing to harp on it, I think this is potentially analogous to evolution vs creationism. Many people believe in creationism - that doesn't make it a fact. Our article on that subject makes it clear that Almost all scientists, as well as the United States courts say that creationism is not part of science.

I think for me at the moment, the only sources cited to date would also give rise to wording in the article - Doctors who specialise in the anatomy of women say there is no anatomical evidence for the "spot".[cite netdoctor and AJOG and Time]. --Matilda (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small note

First of all, I am not a doctor, so I am not qualified to say what I do:

there seems to be certain parts in the vulva with more nerve endings; these can be stimulated, and get the resp. woman a pleasurable feeling; whether these are called Gràfenberg spot (and under what conditions the woman actually gets the pleasurable feeling) is not my concern.

Put differently: the question seems to be more about naming the beast, than actually agreeing that there is such a beast (found by Gräfenberg) does not seem to be the issue? Btw, orig. papers are:

Ernest Grafenberg (Ernst Gräfenberg): The Role of Urethra in Female Orgasm. Int. J. Sexol. 3: 145-149 (1950) (comparison of versions of 1950 and 1953)--Eptalon (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some tags still outstanding

I have modified the article as per the comments above. There are some requests for citations still outstanding. Sources need to be provided or the assertions need to to be removed.--Matilda (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]