Talk:Clitoris/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

Clarifications needed?

In §Embryonic development:

"The formations that happen during the development of the urinary and reproductive organs make the male and female sex organs generally homologous (different versions of the same structure)."

"The formations that happen ..." reads awkwardly. Perhaps this or something similar:

"The structures resulting from urinary and reproductive organ development are different versions of the same structure."

"If exposed to testosterone, the genital tubercle enlarges and the preexisting phallus becomes a penis."

The preceding sentence ("The initially undifferentiated genital tubercle, a phallic outgrowth in the embryo, ...") implies that the genital tubercle and the phallus are one and the same thing; here the implication is that they are two separate entities.

The terms "genital fold" and "genital swelling" are used but not defined.

In §General structure:

I wonder if this sections shouldn't be reorganized. The subject is necessarily technical so should be written for a lay audience. I found it odd that the first paragraph starts out listing the various components but ends with relatively detailed description of the last listed component. Perhaps this section should have an opening paragraph that lists the components with brief simple descriptions. Subsequent paragraphs would then treat each component in the order mentioned in the opening paragraph. These treatment could be as detailed as required.

The second sentence is made more difficult to comprehend because of the repeated parenthetical asides. Those comments should be reserved until that component is addressed in its own place.

Because of today's wider screen's, a long paragraph is harder to read on a monitor than it is to read the same paragraph on a printed page. Shorter paragraphs in Wikipedia are better.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns, I made these changes.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Now time to explain them while also commenting on your concerns:

For the line that started with "The formations that happen," I also found that part awkward when I added it, but never got around to changing it. I didn't use your suggested wording because "structures resulting from [...] are different versions of the same structure" is redundant, isn't as clear that the male and female sex organs are generally homologous, and is missing "generally."

The genital tubercle and the phallus are one and the same thing, although some tissue of the genital tubercle is somewhat independent (for example, its sides form genital swellings that eventually form the labia majora). The genital tubercle and the phallus being the same thing is why it is also called "the phallic tubercle." The Genital tubercle article maybe needs to be edited so that it's clearer that the tubercle is already a phallus before it develops into either a clitoris or a penis. Right now, even though it says that it "develops around week 4 of gestation" before it is clearly a clitoris or penis by week 9, that's not telling people that it's already a phallus before then. The "eventually develops into a phallus" line that precedes that information could be taken to mean that it goes right into forming as a clitoris or penis before being the undifferentiated phallic structure. But then again, a structure that is being formed into a clitoris or penis is going to be phallic first anyway; it's just a matter of stressing that to readers. And as for female sex organ anatomy specifically, it's more accurate to state that the tubercle develops into the clitoral glans, not simply "the clitoris" (even though many sources simply state "the clitoris"). However, there are also sources that state that it develops into the glans/shaft of the clitoris or glans/shaft of the penis. And some sources, when speaking of the penis, state that it develops into the glans of the penis. So maybe it is safer to just state "clitoris or penis" after all. Either that, or "glans and shaft of the clitoris or penis." But whether the tubercle develops into a clitoris or penis is, of course, dependent upon testosterone exposure; this is what the "If exposed to testosterone, the genital tubercle enlarges and the preexisting phallus becomes a penis." line is stating. But I see that you feel that stating "genital tubercle" and "preexisting phallus" in the same sentence like that implies that they are not the same thing. So I tweaked that line.

"Genital folds" and "Genital swellings" are obviously tissue folds and tissue swellings that form the genitals (although there's more to them than that simple description). I considered the terms sufficient enough, and it is the terminology that the sources use, but your comment about it made me realize that maybe they are not as sufficient as I thought since they aren't descriptive beyond that. Thus, I clarified it by using "tissue folds that form the genitals" in place of "genital folds" and by using and linking to "labioscrotal swellings" for "genital swellings." But then "tissue folds that form the genitals" wasn't as descriptive/accurate as it should be (partly because some people may wonder how these folds are different from the labioscrotal swellings, which can also be called the labioscrotal folds), so I clarified that by using the alternate "urogenital folds" name with a parenthetical clarification.

Look at pages 89-92 of this source; although the source is also about hypospadias, it uses diagrams to clearly show how the genital tubercle's phallus is present before it develops into a clitoris or a penis and what the relation of the genital folds and genital swellings are. The genital tubercle is also originally a genital swelling. The text that I used to clarify the genital tubercle line -- "the genital tubercle elongates to form the penis" part -- comes from that source; the source isn't needed in the article because this text is already supported by other sources near that line (just different wording).

I reorganized the General structure section in the way that you suggested -- so that the opening paragraph is separated from any in-depth details and so that the subsequent paragraphs treat each component in the order mentioned in the opening paragraph. I don't see how the second sentence "[wa]s made more difficult to comprehend because of the repeated parenthetical asides." Parenthetical asides were agreed upon in the GA review because they simplify the text for laypeople; they tell readers what these things mean at their first occurrence and without going into detail about them, especially in the case of Wikipedia articles that already go into detail about these things. The rest of the section also already went/goes into appropriate detail about these parts, with the exception of the frenulum clitoridis because there is not much to state about the frenulum clitoridis; best left to explain it in parentheses and leave it at that and see if the article on it develops to further explain it. I removed two parenthetical clarifications -- the one about the clitoral hood and the one about the corpora cavernosa -- and left the others as needed.

As for the "too technical" tag you added to the General structure section, I removed that after reordering the section, making the aforementioned tweaks to it...and the following tweaks: I clarified what "fibrous pectiniform septum," "labial commissure" (even though "labial" and "commissure" were already linked), "circumferentially" and "urethral lumen" mean. Even though you put in the hidden note "Reads like a news report," I don't understand why you tagged the Atilla Şenaylı line. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, use the word "stated" all the time. Just like they use the word "said." And I prefer to break up wording instead of using a blockquote for a quote that only exceeds 40 words by a little. Even for big quotes, I sometimes break up the wording instead of using an unnecessary and sometimes messy-looking blockquote. I also de-linked the Tunica albuginea (penis) link you added because that's not what Şenaylı is talking about, since that is a penile structure. I mentioned during the copyedit discussion for the GA review that it doesn't seem as though the sources are talking about the tunica albuginea (ovaries). "Tunica albuginea" can be used to refer to any "white covering," connective tissue..."such as the sclerotic coat of the eyeball"; I'll have to research that topic further. Thus, we clarified tunica albuginea as simply "literally meaning 'white covering,' connective tissue" early on in the section. But as for the technical aspect of the General structure section as a whole, this was already sorted out in the GA review. Just about everything that can be simplified for the reader has already been simplified. The "urethral lumen" part wasn't in the original GA version; that came sometime after the article was elevated to GA status and I didn't think to clarify it. But I don't see anything else that should be simplified for readers. There are no simpler terms for the technical terms that aren't explained by a parenthetical clarification. And this article shouldn't take the time to explain what each of these terms are; the sources don't explain each anatomical term either. People can obviously research the terms. Like I stated in the GA review, this article is technical where it needs to be. All anatomy articles, like the GA Brain article, have technical terminology (some, like the Brain article, more extensive technical terminology than others). And you stated that "[t]he subject is necessarily technical." All we should do in these cases, if the terms are not parts that should definitely be explained, is link to the articles for those terms if a Wikipedia article for them exists and/or explain briefly in parentheses what they mean; as stated, explaining in parentheses what every technical term means is not needed. This is especially the case if a Wikipedia article on the term exists, and when the terms are not especially relevant.

And, finally, as for paragraph size... Although, for the General structure section, I divided the opening paragraph, as well as the paragraph that used to include the more detailed information about the clitoral hood, I'm not a fan of one-sentence, two-sentence or three-sentence paragraphs, especially since they can make a section look too long if there are a few or more than a few of those in a section. Some Wikipedia editors have a tendency to feel that a section consisting of six or more paragraphs should automatically be divided into subsections. I don't agree. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading..." Yes, it mentions "paragraphs that exceed a certain length," but what is "too long" for a paragraph can be subjective in some cases, whereas everyone knows that one-sentence, two-sentence or three-sentence paragraphs are short, except for the cases where the sentences are long (sort of run-on sentences). I prefer medium-sized paragraphs, and I don't like seeing a section divided up into subsections when the subsections barely have any text in them; such formatting often makes an article look much longer than it actually is (the Penis article is currently an example of that, which needs fixing). The General structure section will be divided into subsections when such division is actually needed. But the articles for these parts of the clitoris need significant expansion before then; otherwise, this article will cover more about the parts than the articles concerning them do. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides these additions to my post above in this section,[8] [9][[10] I should have stated (and meant to state) that the first paragraph of the General structure section originally went into detail about the vestibular bulbs because the sentence introducing the parts ended (still currently ends) with mention of the vestibular bulbs and it made sense to explain right then that the vestibular bulbs are more closely related to the clitoris than the vestibule. But this formatting made more sense in the original GA version because fewer parts were mentioned in the introductory line about parts of the clitoris, with only one parenthetical clarification (for the clitoral crura). That's why it also made more sense to detail other parts in that one paragraph before branching out into even more detail. But I agree with the division you suggested, and had thought about something like that as well. So, yes, I made that format change not just for compromise, but also because I agree that it's better. Flyer22 (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Better.

"The urogenital formations during..."

Frankly, I don't find this any more satisfying. Remembering that this article is about one particlular part of the female anatomy, descriptions of the similar male anatomy should be only minimally included. What about:

Male and female sex organs are generally homologous as they develop from a common genital tubercle. Initially undifferentiated, the genital tubercle, a phallic embryonic outgrowth, develops into either a clitoris or a penis. Some sources state that sexual differentiation continues until the 12th week, while others state that it is clearly evident by the 13th week and that the sex organs are fully developed by the 16th week.

If exposed to the androgen testosterone, the genital tubercle forms the penis and male genitalia. In the absence of testosterone, the initially-rapid growth of the phallus slows to form the clitoris from the same tissues that become the glans and upper shaft of the penis. The urogenital sinus persists as the vestibule of the vagina, the two urogenital folds form the labia minora, and the labioscrotal swellings enlarge to form the labia majora, completing the female genitalia. A rare condition that can develop from higher than average androgen exposure is clitoromegaly (see below).

Still has "urogenital folds" as an undefined term and the redirect to development of the urinary and reproductive organs isn't helpful because "urogenital folds" isn't defined there. I wonder about the inclusion of the last sentence. Since clitoromegaly is rare and discussed elsewhere in the article, is it necessary to mention it here?

I would simplify the first paragraph of §General structure even further:

The clitoris is a complex structure containing external and internal components. It consists of the glans, the frenulum clitoridis, the clitoral body or shaft, the clitoral hood, two erectile bodies known as the corpora cavernosa, two clitoral crura, and the vestibular or clitoral bulbs.

Frenulum clitoridis is not discussed in the article except for it's brief mention here.

Third paragraph, second sentence: corpora not coporas?

Third paragraph, third sentence: "These corpora are separated incompletely from each other with a medial ..." What's a medial?

Third paragraph, 1st–3rd sentences: Because the parenthetical asides make up half of each sentence, they should probably be set off with commas rather than parentheses.

The thing that earned the §General structure section a {{technical}} template was this paragraph, especially the last sentence:

Research indicates that clitoral tissue extends into the vagina's anterior wall. Regarding the structure of the clitoris in general, researcher Atilla Şenaylı commented: "Histological evaluation of the clitoris, especially of the corpora cavernosa, is incomplete because for many years the clitoris was considered a rudimentary and nonfunctional organ." He added that "Baskin and colleagues evaluated the masculinized clitoris after dissection and put the serial dissected specimens together using imaging software after Masson chrome staining". This revealed that the nerves of the clitoris surround the whole corpus. It is "known that the subalbugineal layer between the erectile tissue and tunica albuginea is absent in the clitoris, but desmin and vimentin immunoreactivity evaluations in arterial and vein muscle cells of the clitoris are not clear from previous reports".

I am not inclined to change my opinion of that. In fact, I wonder if it is necessary to the article beyond the first two sentences. I have my doubts about the second sentence because nowhere in the section has there been any mention of non-functionality and that bit about incomplete evaluation might be better as part of some introductory text. I might be persuaded to keep the fourth sentence.

Technical language: I know that technical language is necessary. However, it is also a barrier that can make some articles impenetrable to the lay reader (me, in this case). These terms of art are not found in everyday usage so every time I encounter one I have to pause, perhaps go backwards in the article to find the term's definition or link, read that, and then return to where I was so that I can continue (by which time I've usually lost the thread of that sentence so must restart...). I suspect that it is much the same for other lay readers. We are not here to display our erudition; rather, we are here to summarize complex topics in a way that can be understood by readers who don't have specialized education. I have the same problem with articles on mathematical subjects: a handful of words as introduction and then complex equations. Not very elucidating – articles about mathematics by mathematicians for mathematicians or mathematics students. Yeah, ok, I'm done ranting about that.

"Reads like a news report," he said: In the hierarchy of formality, news reporting falls well below the level of writing I expect from an encyclopedia. Related to this is the use of quotations. I think that the use of direct quotes from sources should be rare, very rare. Direct quotations diverge from the concept of summarizing complex topics. I have seen, even within {{quote}} family templates and <blockquote></blockquote> html markup, where editors have changed the quoted text to suit their liking. Quoted text is just harder to maintain.

Paragraph length: There is a right size though I'd rather err on the side of too small than on the side of too large. I think that tl;dr is real. If a reader perceives that the article is a wall of text, it won't be read because tl;dr. Shorter paragraphs may be more accessible because the information there comes in digestible bites.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Better? I'm not sure what you meant by "Better," unless you were referring to the edit conflict. Here are the new changes that I made in response to your most recent post above in this section:[11][12]

I'm also not sure what is wrong with the "urogenital formations during" wording, or rather why you don't find it any more satisfying than the previous wording. Yes, I know that descriptions of the similar male anatomy should be only minimally included in this article; this was discussed in the GA review and that's what we've done. It's not like that paragraph goes into a lot of detail about male anatomy; it briefly explains the homology of the sex organs during embryonic development. The Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section goes into detail, though only brief detail, about the homology of the sex organs post-embryonic development, similar to other Wikipedia anatomy articles that address the homology of organs.

For your proposed change of content for the Embryonic development section, I altered it to the text seen in the first of the two links about my most recent changes; the text is a mix of the original GA version and the current version. I believe that you will find this satisfactory, especially since the second paragraph starts out with emphasis on the clitoris. The reason that I left in the information about the other homologous parts regarding male sex organ anatomy is because the homologies of the male and female sex organs are better explained this way. The other male sex organs share connections with the penis, just as the other female sex organs (vestibule of the vagina, the labia minora and the labia majora) share connections with the clitoris. Information about all of these parts are included in all anatomical texts about this topic -- when discussing the development of the clitoris or penis, and of course when discussing both -- and should be included in this article as well. SilkTork, who did the GA review, realized this after significantly researching the topic to better review this article. Not to mention, this aspect is also mentioned in the Human penis article, although that article needs a lot of work.

"Urogenital folds" is not still undefined in the article; I stated above that I clarified in parentheses what it is. What I included -- elongated spindle-shaped structures that contribute to the formation of the urethral groove on the belly aspect of the genital tubercle -- is the definition of the urogenital folds. I did not link to the redirect because, well, it's a redirect. I've gone ahead and taken it out of parentheses, however, using  – for separation instead.

As for the "clitoromegaly" part, this was also discussed in the GA review. I found (and still find) it relevant to mention this in the Embryonic development section because it has to do with embryonic development...unless talking about clitoris enlargement in general. The Modification and mutilation section speaks of clitoris enlargement in general; it currently doesn't speak of what is medically known as clitoromegaly -- the kind of clitoris enlargement that is a birth defect or caused by other medical, non-intentional causes. But I have been planning to mention a bit about that type of clitoromegaly there.

I don't see why the first paragraph of the General structure section needs to be simplified even further. Because the frenulum clitoridis is not discussed in the article except for its brief mention there, it's better to go ahead and clarify in parentheses for the reader what it is. That the shaft may be external or internal is better clarified there as well; this is what I mean: If people click on the Clitoral body article as is (and by "as is," I mean that it needs expansion) and somehow don't read the rest of the General structure section, they'll automatically think that the shaft is only internal. However, some sources do indeed make mention of the shaft being external as well, covered by the clitoral hood, although a few may also be defining the shaft as the ridge along the hood rather than external tissue beneath it. The third paragraph tackles the clitoral body/internal shaft. There is not much to state about the external shaft and it cannot be mentioned without speaking of the clitoral hood, which is currently in the fourth paragraph. I did remove the parenthetical clarification that the clitoral crura are also known as "the legs," though, since that information is found a little lower.

Third paragraph, second sentence: Yes, it's supposed to be corpora, not coporas. I fixed it.

Third paragraph, third sentence: "These corpora are separated incompletely from each other with a medial ..." I changed "medial" to "in the midline." It originally stated "These corpora are separated incompletely from each other with a medial located by a fibrous pectiniform septum.", but was changed by an editor during the copyediting that took place during the GA review.

Third paragraph, 1st–3rd sentences: You suggested that because the parenthetical asides make up half of each sentence, they should probably be set off with commas rather than parentheses. I used  – for the first and third instances, and a comma for the second instance.

Regarding the technical template, the comment by Şenaylı is a bit too technical, yes, now that I've looked at it from a "too technical" point of view (LOL). But I don't feel that a single paragraph should have warranted the "too technical" template. When you stated that you "might be persuaded to keep the fourth sentence," I take it that you were counting the sentences from the start of the Şenaylı part. I combined the second and third sentences of his commentary and cut the "It is 'known that the subalbugineal layer..." sentence. As for the nonfunctional organ bit, I feel that it's relevant to the section because he is explaining why histological evaluation of the clitoris is incomplete. In the first subsection of the Historical and modern perceptions section, for example, you can see where Andreas Vesalius believed that the clitoris was "useless." But Şenaylı is talking more about what we now know about the cells and tissues of the clitoris rather than mostly perceptions, so these particular comments by him fit better in the General structure section than in the latter section. I did have his statement at the beginning of the General structure section before, when the section was simply titled Structure, but it's more important to introduce the parts of the clitoris and explain what they are before talking about histological evaluation of it being incomplete "because for many years [it] was considered a rudimentary and nonfunctional organ."

Technical language: I fully understand your point on that, and it seems that you fully understand mine. For me, it's not about trying to prove my knowledge. It's about presenting the material as accurately as possible (as in without the text losing its correct meaning) and keeping things encyclopedic (as in not going off in a "teaching mode" and explaining every small or tiny detail). There is only so far one can simplify what these organs are and how they work while using technical terminology and I have gone just about to the end on that. I only state "just about" because you and I are currently resolving language that is going to be too technical for some. But, really, almost all of the anatomical terms are going to be too technical for anyone who hasn't read up on them. It's just a matter of clarifying the ones that should be clarified. But there is very little laypeople-terminology for these anatomical parts. And the only way people would greatly understand these parts, how they work, and therefore the terminology for them, is to significantly study all of that. It's the same with articles on mathematics. Basic math is easy for most people to understand. But throw in calculus, and then math is a lot harder to understand. While Wikipedia informs, it is not here to be a teacher. A person who wants to understand calculus well is going to have to teach themselves by significantly researching it or taking a class on it. The same goes for the clitoris. The words "erudition" and "elucidating" are not words that most laypeople say either, in my experience, so you definitely have somewhat of a "too technical" quality to you...unless you were only using those words to prove a point. I wish that you had spoken up about your technical wording objections in the GA review. By that, I mean that this would have already been resolved. I'd gotten used to the thought of any "too technical" issues having already being resolved, and so it kind of feels like I'm taking steps back with regard to this article. But I also view it as taking steps forward, since the clarifications made since your technical wording objections will help people.

I'm going to have to completely disagree with you about using "he stated" or some variation of that and quotes in general; Wikipedia is not a typical encyclopedia, as we know. Lots of quoting in text goes on at this site, and the practice isn't considered in any way low-level. That's why in addition to GA articles, we also have WP:FA articles with such quoting. And articles dealing with musical artists, television shows and films, or popular culture articles in general would barely get by without them. But like I stated, I also break up quotes; it's not always a full quote. Summarizing what a person stated without it simply being WP:Close paraphrasing is not always easy. And summarizing what a person has stated is what I have seen is harder to maintain since people often misrepresent what was stated, either due to their own biases or not being careful enough with the wording. I've seen many editors add the direct quotes because of instances such as that, especially in cases of WP:Edit warring regarding what the person, group, company, etc. stated. The only time that changing quoted text is permissible is when using brackets to make text clearer and/or to correct a word without changing the meaning of what was relayed; that's what I do and I've done it in this discussion as well -- the "I don't see how the second sentence "[wa]s made more difficult to comprehend because of the repeated parenthetical asides." line in my initial comment above. A person changing an article's quote, without using brackets and doing so in a way that the meaning of what was relayed is changed... Well, that person should be reverted.

Paragraph length: I'll continue to err on the side of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs. I'm not on the side of too-small or too-large paragraphs, but I also don't want relatively reasonable-sized paragraphs split just for the sake of being sure that a person's attention span doesn't divert from the paragraph. Statistics about Wikipedia readers show that most of our readers don't read past the lead anyway. That subsequently shows that most articles are "walls of text" to them; either that, or some of them feel that they got what they needed from the lead and don't need to read the rest of the article. In the case of this article and some others, however, I'm certain that most people do read past the lead; as this article makes clear, most people aren't as familiar with the clitoris as they are with the penis and vagina, and even some other sex organs, and so I'm certain that most people are coming to this article to learn a great deal about the clitoris. For any article, if a person stops reading a paragraph because they perceive it as too long, then I don't think that person was that interested in the paragraph to begin with...unless the paragraph is actually a monster block of text. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

After comments by me, you made changes, I think the changes were for the most part helpful so I said so.

"The urogenital formations during the development of the urinary and reproductive organs demonstrate that the male and female sex organs are generally homologous (different versions of the same structure)."

I think that there is a verb missing from that sentence. I think it belongs between formations and during. The language you use in your most recent edits fixes this issue.

Because there is a section that addresses male/female similarities in some detail, it seems to me that such comparison is best left to that section unless absolutely necessary to have it in §General structure. Discussion of male genitalia in §General structure dilutes the focus from the article topic. This applies to clitoromegaly as well.

Why isn't frenulum discussed in the same relative detail as the other clitoral components?

"The two copora forming the clitoral body ..." still missing an r?

Şenaylı: Better. What is a masculinized clitoris? How is it different from a "feminized" clitoris? When you say that the "nerves of the clitoris surround the whole corpus", what body is that?

Technical template: Why shouldn't a single paragraph warrant a technical template? If the language used in the paragraph is of such complexity or the terminology sufficiently specialized that lay readers can make little sense of it without attendant specialized knowledge, then the paragraph deserved to be flagged as technical.

§General structure, second paragraph may need reorganization. Sentence subjects are: glans size, number of nerve endings, amount of hood coverage, glans size, glans size. The amount of hood coverage sentence might be moved to the hood paragraph.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that the wording for the Embryonic development section has been resolved. I made these changes in response to your most recent post above in this section.

You stated that "Because there is a section that addresses male/female similarities in some detail, it seems to me that such comparison is best left to that section unless absolutely necessary to have it in §General structure. Discussion of male genitalia in §General structure dilutes the focus from the article topic." ... I agree, and that's why discussion of male genitalia is not in the General structure section. It's in the Embryonic development section and in the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section, for the reasons I've already explained above. It's in the former because the homologies of the male and female sex organs are being explained and "Information about all of these parts are included in all anatomical texts about this topic -- when discussing the development of the clitoris or penis, and of course when discussing both -- and should be included in this article as well.", something that the GA reviewer also recognized. The in-depth, though still brief, homologies of the male and female sex organs post-embryonic development are addressed in the latter section, seeing as other Wikipedia anatomy articles address the homology of organs. And like I mentioned in the #Good Article congratulations section above, "Something else that I've noticed is how much the clitoris is compared to the penis in the literature about the clitoris, which also shows in this article. It's something that can't be escaped, however, given that the clitoris has historically and still currently continues to be widely described as a tiny penis...which is the best way to initially describe the homologies between the two organs to people (that, and calling the penis an enlarged clitoris)...and that there is also the fact that it's noted as the default version -- what the penis would be without male hormones having altered it." So basically, there is extensive discussion about the similarities between the clitoris and penis in scientific literature, and it seemed especially relevant to create a section about how they compare and differ. So that's what I did, in a section separate from the General structure section. From what I see, it's best to leave the embryonic development information -- which cannot be sufficiently explained without mentioning the homologies -- there in that section instead of combining it with the latter section.

As for clitoromegaly, I mentioned that the text about it in the Embryonic development section is about embryonic development; so that's why it fits there. I also mentioned that I have been planning to add a bit to the Modification and mutilation section about the type of clitoromegaly that is a birth defect or caused by other medical, non-intentional causes.

You asked, "Why isn't frenulum discussed in the same relative detail as the other clitoral components?" I already answered this. It's not discussed in the same relative detail because there is not much to state about it, just like there is not much to state about the external shaft. The frenulum is found at different parts of the body, and there's generally not much that anatomical texts state about it. It's not very important to understanding the clitoris, but it is attached under the glans and so I decided to mention it in this article. As you can see, its own article states most of what I've stated about it in this article. I'd rather the article on it develop beyond a single sentence before more about it is mentioned in this article. This goes back to what I stated above, that "the articles for these parts of the clitoris need significant expansion [before being significantly expanded here]; otherwise, this article will cover more about the parts than the articles concerning them do." I have considered redirecting some clitoral parts to this article, but I've also reconsidered that because most of those articles can be significantly expanded if someone would just come around and significantly expand them. It seems that I may be the only one who is likely to do so.

"The two copora forming the clitoral body ..." Yep, was still missing an r of course; I fixed it.

Şenaylı: Well, "masculinized" is in Şenaylı's quote. We aren't supposed to explain what Şenaylı means by that part of his quote. In my opinion, it's obvious what he means, and I believe that most readers will understand that as well, but "masculinized clitoris" is the same as what's discussed by mention of clitoromegaly in the Embryonic development section and what is discussed in the Modification and mutilation section. However, I've gone ahead and pipelinked the term with Virilization, which is what Masculinization redirects to, even though I try to avoid having links within quotes because I've seen it advised against at WP:Manual of Style (on both the project page and discussion page). I've also gone ahead and redirected "Masculinized" to the Virilization article.

You asked, "When you say that the 'nerves of the clitoris surround the whole corpus', what body is that?" ... I'm certain that he is talking about the entire body of the clitoris, which is also called "corpus clitoridis." In anatomy, "corpus" without qualifiers -- such as Corpus cavernosum of clitoris ("corpora cavernosa" when used as plural) -- means "body." But again, that is a quote by Şenaylı. It's currently not in quote marks. But if it was, unless trading out "corpus" for "clitoral body" with brackets, we are not supposed to clarify what Şenaylı means by that part of his quote. But since I'm certain that he means "clitoral body," and since the clitoral body is filled with corpora cavernosa, as addressed in the article and shown in this source, I went ahead and used "clitoral body" in place of "corpus" without putting that part of his quote in quotation marks and without using brackets; I used parentheses beside it to clarify that "clitoral body" can also mean "corpus," especially since O'Connell uses the word "corpus" later on in the article (in the Clitoral and vaginal orgasmic factors and relationships section). In any case, if I had not clarified this, and readers found that they were confused by what Şenaylı means, there is the source for it and the source that he cites for that line to see if that better clarifies this.

Technical template: The reason that I don't feel that a single paragraph warrants a technical template is because the template implies that the whole section needs to be simplified...and because there's no way for an editor to know that the template is referring to one paragraph unless a hidden note is left beside it clarifying that. But I understand why you added it, so I have no serious gripe about you having done so.

General structure section, second paragraph: Good call on moving the hood information to the hood paragraph; I've done so. The rest of the second paragraph is fine, mentioning the glans size first, the number of nerve endings and then the study information. While the study information goes back into the topic of glans size, it's better that the information about the number of nerve endings stays where it's placed instead of being placed at the end of the study information like it is an afterthought, or instead of having a single-sentence paragraph about it. I thought about moving the "Tissue of the labia minora also encircles the base of the glans" line up to the glans paragraph, but quickly reconsidered because the hood paragraph is about the labia minora...and therefore the labia minora also encircling the base of the glans fits better there. Thus, I combined the "considerable variation" line with the "labia minora also encircles" line.

Side comment: Trappist, I've been trusting you, compromising with you (including on reference formatting), and I have generally implemented your suggestions. But you have to trust and compromise with me as well. It seems that you have compromised with me on leaving the two parenthetical clarifications in the first paragraph of the General structure section. But our interactions as of late feel like I'm going through another GA review, where formatting in the article is largely dependent upon what the GA reviewer says. That's not a good feeling, to me at least. I know that this aspect of our interactions is partly due to my understanding the topic better than you, but it still feels like a GA review (that line is another unintentional rhyming line on my part, by the way, LOL). You are bringing up matters that were already resolved, although I agree that some of the matters needed revisiting, and I am again devoting far too much time to this article -- an article that does not need urgent and/or significant attention content-wise -- when there are Wikipedia articles that do need my or someone else's urgent and/or significant attention content-wise. I know that you are helping, but some things are more about personal preference than about being a definite improvement or detriment to the article. Personal preference was also a matter between me and the GA reviewer, and we agreed to disagree on some points. I feel that the same should be exercised between us (you and me). As we know, collaborating on Wikipedia is often about compromising. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Message received and understood. Signing off. Trappist the monk (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm noting here that I removed mention of the frenulum of the clitoris because it's generally not mentioned when naming/describing the parts of the clitoris; I should have removed it sooner. Flyer22 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good Article congratulations

From the GA talk page: "This is a very fine article, probably one of the best on the topic that is going to be readily available to most readers. It contains a wealth of knowledge, and ranges across biology, culture, sexual politics, and history, and tells us not just about this female organ, but also about ourselves in our reaction to and understanding of this organ. Read carefully, this is a profound article." SilkTork is not kidding! This is all true. Congratulations to Flyer22 and all the others who have worked hard to make this article so good. --Nigelj (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nigel. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I left out including sexual stimulation practices, but I at least soon realized such neglect and added information on such techniques as part of the Sexual arousal section, renaming that section to Sexual arousal and stimulation practices. So with that and other tweaks/additions, including these, the article is further improved. And, of course, more improvement will continue gradually. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just listing this version here for when this section is archived; this is how the article generally should have been when it was elevated to GA status. By that, I am only referring to what I should have included at that time -- among other things, generally the sexual practices, a bit about male-defined sexuality in ancient Greece and Rome, and more about vestigiality, adaptionist and reproductive views (as can be seen in the article's GA version, there had been a bit on vestigiality and reproductive views...but not enough). And I stated "generally should have been" because section titles/overall article structure and reference formatting can vary and there is still of course room for general improvement, as with most Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Amending September statement with these edits, which have some corrections.[13][14] I wish that I'd earlier spotted the error of "Corpus spongiosum penis" pipelinked under "male corpora cavernosa"; I definitely would have if "Corpus cavernosum penis" wasn't so similar in wording to "Corpus spongiosum penis." Just as bad or worse is that, because of the error, the male corpora cavernosa were described as "spongy tissue surrounding the male urethra." But at least all of that is fixed now. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: After trying on this change soon afterward, I changed this heading back to the one before my November 8 edits. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I should have also made these tweaks (more so the first one) before now (and I might still remove the second one).[15][16][17] While an argument (which would be a weak one) can be made that the vulva is an external part of the clitoris (as in it's connected to the clitoris and is external), the fact that the clitoral structure (with the exception of the glans, hood, shaft [I'd meant "external shaft" when I made this comment]) extends beneath it makes the vulva's more technical connection to the clitoris an internal one. And the external parts of the clitoris being stimulated by consistent friction against the labia majora is more so considered indirect stimulation, although what is direct or indirect stimulation can be reported differently at times (except for in the case of stimulating the clitoris vaginally, which is always considered indirect stimulation). Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Going back to my comment about about the vulva, it's not such a weak argument to call it an external part of the clitoris when considering the labia minora's connection to the glans, that part of the labia minora forms the clitoral hood and, for some women, stimulating the labia minora may actually feel like direct clitoral stimulation; I emphasized the former and addressed the latter during these tweaks and expansions. And since the shaft, which can refer to the body of the clitoris, also extends beneath the vulva, I also pointed out (in that edit) what the shaft can refer to -- either the external part beneath the hood or the body beneath the vulva.

I removed the Hollick 1902 source, as I was never comfortable using such an old source (not unless attributed to a specific researcher's beliefs at that point in history -- 1902). And I removed any text that it supported that I could not find any other sources, modern (as in research of today) in particular, supporting it; the mention of rabbits, as also seen in my removing that mention from the lead, is one such piece.

Upon further reading, I am now comfortable with mentioning that other animals beside the female spotted hyena urinate through the clitoris, and so that is also seen in my recent tweaks and expansions. As noted in the GA review, I was unsure about that matter before -- whether or not the female spotted hyena is the only animal that urinates through the clitoris. I'm still a bit unsure about it, given how sources usually only speak of this feature in female spotted hyenas, but it's fairly reliable recent sources also reporting this feature in other animals (though only a few other animals). Researching this further, however, I've become confused as to whether or not the female spotted hyena is the only species that urinates, copulates and gives birth via the clitoris. This source, which has been in the article since I created the In other animals section, mentions that intersexed female bears also copulate and give birth through the clitoris, and seems to be saying that the bears don't have an external vaginal opening. And so does this one; it also mentions the previous source, though. And then this source (page 232) makes it seem as though female spotted hyenas and certain species of female intersexed bears urinate, copulate and give birth via the clitoris -- that the clitoris of both groups do all three functions. I would state that this doesn't mean that female spotted hyenas aren't the only female species that urinate, copulate and give birth through the clitoris and aren't the only mammalian species devoid of an external vaginal opening...since the bears that are this way are only this way because they are intersexed, but the above sources also call female spotted hyenas intersexed while noting that they aren't hermaphrodites. The sources are clearly differentiating between being "intersexed" and "hermaphroditic." But they also seem to be be defining "intersexed" differently than how it is typically defined; by that, I mean that they mention how the female spotted hyena's system is not merely a combination of male and female characteristics, but that the masculinized characteristics of female spotted hyenas rather belong to their female species; it's what makes their system unique. So I've tackled this information the best that I could at this time in the article.

Something else that I've noticed is how much the clitoris is compared to the penis in the literature about the clitoris, which also shows in this article. It's something that can't be escaped, however, given that the clitoris has historically and still currently continues to be widely described as a tiny penis...which is the best way to initially describe the homologies between the two organs to people (that, and calling the penis an enlarged clitoris)...and that there is also the fact that it's noted as the default version -- what the penis would be without male hormones having altered it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Also seen in the link above showing my most recent extensive tweaks and expansions to this article, I changed "most" to "all" for the part of the line that says "the clitoris is present in all female mammals" that is in the In other animals section; I'll be looking for a better source or more than just that to support the statement, however. Flyer22 (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Tweaked to this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Also restored this piece about Georg Ludwig Kobelt, which had gotten removed during the most recent significant expansion noted above because of one of the reasons mentioned in the edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also neglected to add information about sexual disorders that affect the clitoris, but I recently added that (and made a minor tweak, and another, soon following it). Flyer22 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably my last note in this section: Something that I forgot to mention is WNT4 when discussing with SilkTork that female fetal development is the "default" state in the absence of substantial exposure to male hormones. So the human fetus doesn't simply develop into female without all that male hormone exposure; I mean that it's not as simple as that because WNT4 plays a role as well. I'm not stating that I believe that mention of WNT4 should be in this article, especially since most sources about the development of the sex organs don't mention it; I'm just making a note of it here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Need further clarification/information

I notice that this (overall excellent) article mentions, and provides a photo for, an enlarged clitoris; however, there are many people with clitoral abnormalities (such as those who have survived female genital mutilation) who may benefit from actual photographs of damage/excision of the clitoris.

Also, damage to the clitoris occurs during some early-childhood sexual abuse. It would be helpful to include this cause of clitoral abnormalities as well. I wish I had the research to back this up; I know this more from clinical experience than from research. Maybe someone with a subscription to a good medical research engine could look some of this up.GretchenInChicago (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

(International) Clitoris Awareness Week

Here's a YouTube video about reasons for making that awareness week by Clitoraid. It's every first month of May. Any reactions to that yet? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I saw this around the time you posted it. Just now replying to it, obviously. I can't remember if I ever came across that website (clitoraid.org) or anything about Clitoraid before, but I think I haven't, which is odd when taking into account how much I have studied (including Googled) the topic of the clitoris. Judging by the video, the people responsible for that site have definitely read this Wikipedia article (some of the wording used in that video is from this article, whether altered a bit or not). As for Clitoraid's launch of Clitoris Awareness Week, it's gotten some attention in the news, such as this source (though they do have a disclaimer at the bottom that says "The Wall Street Journal news department was not involved in the creation of this content."). Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

With this edit, I added information to the article about Clitoraid/Clitoris Awareness Week. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Clitoraid article

The Clitoraid article was created by an editor today. I have not linked to the article in the Clitoris article yet because the Clitoraid article is barely an article at the moment, and, in my opinion, the topic is better left covered in this article because the organization probably fails WP:Notability when it comes to having a Wikipedia article created for it. And because even if it does not fail WP:Notability, it is clear that the article currently cannot be expanded much beyond a stub. I have expressed similar thoughts in the edit history of that article here, here, here and here so far. I will not nominate that article for deletion (don't think I've ever nominated an article for deletion) or redirect that article, especially considering that I do not have a good history with the editor who created it; I will instead leave that up to anyone else who feels that the article should be deleted and/or redirected here and the merging of any relevant material from there to here (though I would likely tweak any merging). Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont mind if you merge/redirect it. Pass a Method talk 18:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the word 'rape'?

In section 4.3 (Spotted hyenas) is the use of the word rape incorrect in the sentence that reads, 'This trait makes mating more laborious for the male than in other mammals, and also makes attempts to rape females futile.'? I feel the word rape may be inappropriate as it is a criminal act committed by humans.. I feel the term 'Sexual coercion' may be more appropriate. My proposal is the change the sentence to read 'This trait makes mating more laborious for the male than in other mammals, and also makes attempts of sexual coercion futile.' Paul Bates 1973 (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Paul. Rape isn't necessarily an incorrect term in this case...considering that the term sexual coercion, when applied to non-human animals, usually means rape among non-human animals. A search on Google Books, for example, shows that researchers, and simply authors, additionally use the term rape to describe forced sex acts among non-human animals. It's not simply a legal term. But I understand your point (some sources in that Google Books link even show that there is debate with regard using the term rape for non-human animals) and I would be okay with you changing the text to "sexual coercion." You may want to also change it in the Spotted hyena article, which is where I got that text (except I changed "impossible" to "futile" because the matter is not impossible; for example, though I'm not sure, there may be some other form of forced sex that takes place). Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to "makes attempts to sexually coerce (force sexual activity on)." I added the parenthetical clarification so that it is clear that a threat is not what is meant. But it still doesn't come across as clear with regard to the expression "physically force" as rape does. By that, I mean that people usually think "physical force" when they think of rape. So then I added "physically" in front of "force." I also considered putting "rape" in parentheses, but then someone would be tempted to link to the Rape article. And, in this case, it is best that we don't direct readers to the article that is only about humans. Suffice it to say, I'm not pleased with the new wording and will likely change it at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Male variant

"Unlike the penis, the male variant of the clitoris," should say "Unlike the penis, the male homologue of the clitoris,". The penis is not a variant of the clitoris, just like humans are not a variant of lemurs, and beer is not a variant of bread. Also, I thought this was "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Yet, I cannot edit the page. 63.152.120.74 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The term variant, with the WP:Pipelink to the article Homology (biology), was added during the WP:Good article review by WP:Good article reviewer SilkTork to make the language more accessible to readers; homology and homologue are not everyday words; a lot of people don't know what they mean. And it is sometimes better to not only link to an article to help readers understand what something means, but to also use a layman word for the article. And considering the definition of homologous, for example what this Merriam-Webster source states, the use of variant in this case is not inaccurate. This is also shown by the Homology (biology) article. The clitoris and penis are different versions of the same structure (which is explained in greater detail in the Embryonic development section), while the examples you provided are not different versions of each other (other than the first two being animals, and the second pair being food). That stated, I don't mind much using homologue in the way that you suggested. But let's wait a day or two and see if others weigh in on this.

As for you not being able to edit this article, like I stated in the #Reason for no edit option? section above: This article, like the Penis and Human penis articles, is indefinitely semi-protected due to the excessive vandalism or other unconstructive edits these articles face whenever they are unprotected. Registered editors, when they click on the "Edit" option [now "Edit source"], can see that "Excessive vandalism" is the reason given for the indefinite semi-protection of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism is a part of having something anyone can edit. Well-meaning idiots do more damage to wikipedia than vandals.

"Variant" is simply the improper word. Variant implies an item (penis) as a derivative of a standard/norm (clitoris). This is simply incorrect usage and it matters because it perpetuates the popular myth that the penis develops from the clitoris, and more broadly that fetuses are female before sexual differentiation. If this were the case, then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome would not have morphological effects! My example of calling a human a variant of lemurs is incorrect in the same way, since they are related by common ancestry, not by a parent-child relationship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure). On the penis article it says, "The penis is homologous to the clitoris." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homologues_of_the_human_reproductive_system , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)#Homology_between_genders_and_forms , for more examples of the consistent style this article is violating. "Counterpart" and "Equivalent" are two other non-technical words that would at least be better than "Variant". However, I think SilkTork's reasoning should only apply to simple english wikipedia. This version of wikipedia has no restrictions on precision of language that I am aware of. 63.152.120.74 (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We semi-protect articles that are prone to excessive vandalism and/or other unconstructive edits; this article, just like the Penis article and Human Penis article, is no exception. And vandals cause far more trouble (though perhaps not as much long-term damage) around here than "well-meaning idiots."

As for variant, I still fail to see how it is necessarily "improper"; I state that as someone with a lot of knowledge about the anatomy of the clitoris, penis and other aspects of sex anatomy. With regard to the belief that the default sex of the embryo is female, similar to what I stated in the WP:GA review, though such an assertion is not completely accurate, some good modern sources (and this article is mostly made up of good modern, including recent, sources) state that. That is because without the Y chromosome, the embryo is usually designated as female (will become female). "I state 'usually" because of the topic of intersex. But initially being designated as female is why scientists state that it is more accurate to call the penis an enlarged clitoris, instead of referring to the clitoris as a tiny penis. It's also why nipples exist in males. ... Without that Y chromosome and the exposure to androgens, the penis would be a clitoris. Even those who have XX male syndrome still possess the SRY. All of this is why the SRY is called the sex-determining gene." But, of course, like I mentioned at the end of the #Good Article congratulations section above, WNT4 plays a role as well. Either way, to reiterate, "I don't mind much using homologue in the way that you suggested." So if no one objects after today, I'll add it. Still, per what I've stated to you about using a layman term, it is likely best to clarify in parentheses what is meant by it...like the way we use "different versions of the same structure" in parentheses in the Embryonic development section. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. 63.152.120.74 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And though the day is still not over for me (currently 6:51 PM where I'm at), it's clear that no one else is going to weigh in on this matter at this time. Thus, I went ahead and tweaked the lead at your request; as seen, I used "biological variation" in parentheses. It might be better to use "male equivalent" (some reliable sources use that wording as well, just like some reliable sources use "counterpart" for this matter). Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed the parenthetical clarification to male equivalent; it also helps that I swapped the word of for to. I've been second guessing myself on using variation because it is close to variant. But looking at the origin of the term, it is also close to equivalent. However, using equivalent seems less accurate to me because the clitoris and penis are not exactly the same structure. They are different versions of the same structure, which is what variant or variation conveys. Of course...use of male before equivalent helps, and equivalent can mean "similar" in addition to "same," but still... And counterpart is a synonym for equivalent. However, looking again at some definitions of variant and variation, I now see what the IP means about variant implying "[d]eviating from a standard," but I was going by the definitions that don't mention "deviation from a standard or norm." The words "Having or exhibiting variation; differing.", or something similar to that, are usually the first definition of variant or variation, as opposed to what this source states at the very top. So basically, I was going by what the Encyclopædia Britannica states with regard to the term variation (in biology).

Anyone other than me and the IP have any thoughts on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's fine as it is, "Unlike the penis, the male homologue (male equivalent) to the clitoris," and I understand about non-technical readers. But on the other hand, homologue is the exact right word, and trying to redefine such a concept concept using only one word, whether it's equivalent, variant, counterpart or whatever, is bound to be fraught. If there was another word that meant the exact right thing, specialists wouldn't have used homologue. So, I would actually stick with homologue, remove the parenthesis, and rely on the wikilink to inform readers for whom it's a new word, or an unfamiliar one. I don't think it was anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines, but somewhere I was told something like, "We should assume our readers are infinitely ignorant of the subject, but also infinitely intelligent and willing to learn." We need to tell them everything, but only once. --Nigelj (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL, Nigel, I at first (when seeing this edit summary) thought you meant that I'm "infinitely ignorant, but infinitely intelligent." Doesn't sound too bad because of the "infinitely intelligent" part. Then again, I suppose it applies to all of us because we are all Wikipedia readers. Thanks for weighing in here about this "variant" matter after I mentioned that (for me) your thoughts on this are most welcome. Regarding the notion of letting the readers follow the link to see what we mean, I have argued that quite a lot during my years on Wikipedia. But there is also a valid point about assisting readers so that they don't have to click on a different article just to know what we mean, and that, per WP:Technical, we should try to be less technical when we can be. Those substitution words for homologue are also used by specialists and there is a definitional/lead mess currently going on at the Homology (biology) article, ever since this, this and this recent edit (which a different editor fixed a bit here and here, and which I will soon get around to responding to at that talk page). That article's lead currently does not explain what we (us at the Clitoris article) mean by "homologue" right off the bat, despite the WP:MOSBEGIN guideline (especially the "First sentence" part of it). The article should use the most common definition first, or include one of the definitions first, unless the topic does not have a most common definition or is too difficult to define in one sentence. Defining homology isn't a "too difficult" case, and that lead is currently less encyclopedic, considering that it now refers to itself (WP:Self reference) and has the number points.

On a side note, with this post, I changed the title of this section from the Lede to Male variant so that it is more representative of what this section is about; that will also help locating it when it's archived. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, just changed the heading with this post. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

question about the anatomy

Hi there,

I had a question about the corpora cavernosa. I have seen in several sources that they are in the shaft, not the crura. One such source is a college level Human Sexuality (Biology) textbook published by McGraw-Hill. I was wondering where the author of this article got this information.

Thanks! Kristen — Preceding unsigned comment added by KristenK-10 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, KristenK-10. You can click on the numbers (the references) placed beside the text in the article to find out what information comes from what source. What text in the Clitoris article are you referring to? In November 2012, I relayed the following at Talk:Clitoral body, "Yes, the clitoral body (also called the shaft, as noted in the article) is filled with the corpora cavernosa. See here (page 32) and here (page 54)." So, KristenK-10, in what way are you separating the body from the clitoral crura? As you may know, the clitoral crura are extensions (the legs) of the clitoral body, which the Clitoris article notes. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

editing

Can I edit this page please? I wish to reduce the lede and caregorize some of the surplus info into relevant paras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.166.230 (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, due to a long history of bad edits, you have to register an account to make edits to this article. Also this article has been evaluated as a good article, and its structure is driven by the standards of the appropriate Wikipedia projects that cover anatomy. The article is built the way it is by design, generally there'd have to be a really good reason to make an exception for the use of the guideline driving its the current structure. Zad68 02:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ] Hello, IP. See what is stated in the #Reason for no edit option? section above; that is the reason this article is indefinitely WP:Semi-protected and is a very good argument for keeping it indefinitely WP:Semi-protected. As for the lead length, which is currently four paragraphs long (previously three paragraphs long when the last two paragraphs were combined), it is that long because that is the length that adequately summarizes this article; see WP:Lead. And like the introduction of WP:Lead notes, many of our readers do not read past the lead. In fact, some Wikipedia statistics state that most of our readers don't read past the lead. As for "categorize some of the surplus info into relevant paras," what are you referring to? The excess material that would be left over after you reduce the lead? Again, that material is already covered lower in the article. The lead simply summarizes it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)