Talk:G-spot/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about G-spot. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on G-spot. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A 2009 study uses anecdotal evidence to conclude g-spot is unproven and subjective

"A 2009 British study concluded that its existence is unproven and subjective, based on questionnaires and personal experience.[7]"

The use of questionnaires and surveys in scientific work is often discredited due to questionnaires and personal experience being subjective. The line itself suggests that a study used evidence from subjective sources to conclude that existence of something is unproven and subjective.

With this method one could also conclude that ghosts exist in Europe, the average length of a male penis is 7 inches, the government covered up the JFK assassination and, should you survey the globe, Allah is the one true god. (I mean no offense by this) Strictly speaking no study based solely on anecdotal evidence holds no water and is in and of itself unproven. Survey, questionnaires and personal experience ARE anecdotal evidence. Either this line is misleading or it is of unsound science and is factually irrelevant. Considering it is followed by a study that suggests it may exist through ultrasound imaging AND uses the same references I would assume that the line itself is meant to be misleading.

The actual reference of the survey also suggests that the line is misleading with the reference itself speculating that the reason there isn't a genetic link to the g-spot is the womens own inability to locate their own g-spot.

While the g-spot is so far unproven this reference does not prove it is unproven and unsubstantiated as the line suggests and, as no one is going to even look at the link, it should be modified or removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.190.164 (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The germane WP:PAG is WP:MEDRS. If the source is MEDRS-compliant, it is not our business to second-guess it. Of course questionnaires are appropriate for investigating subjective sensations. Objective phenomena, like female ejaculation, can be investigated separately, and they also have not proven the existence of the G-spot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest edits: WP:Weasel wording and WP:Lead

Samrp45, regarding this, I reverted you because your edit added WP:Weasel wording and removed a piece that should be mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead. Per WP:Weasel wording, "believed by some" is weasel wording and will result in someone tagging the sentence with Template:Who. Per WP:Lead, the female prostate aspect, which is covered lower in the article, should be summarized in the lead. I agree that we shouldn't make the G-spot look as though it definitively exists. This is why I have the lead state "is characterized as" instead of "is," and a WP:Hidden note about it. It's why the lead addresses the debate, why the "Theorized structure" section is not titled "Structure" instead, and why the debate aspects are extensively addressed in the article. Also keep in mind that while scientists continue to doubt the existence of a distinct G-spot, many of them believe that what is thought of as the G-spot is really just the clitoris being stimulated in some way (including via clitoral tissues being more extensive in some women than in others). As for any other alternative wording, such as "claimed to be" or "purported," I've thought about that as well, but it's also weaselly and has a non-neutral tone to it. Because of WP:Claim and the fact that a Template:According to whom tag can be added to it, I avoid "claimed" wording unless it's a WP:BLP (biography) matter that should include it. And one definition for "purported" even states "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely; profess."

I ask that you discuss this issue here instead of WP:Edit warring or adding alternative wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, regarding your "Removed a reference to the 'female prostate' as this is another highly-debated concept, not a anatomical equivalent to the male prostate." statement, do you mind explaining your viewpoint? As the article makes clear, the male prostate is homologous to the Skene's gland. And the Skene's gland is sometimes referred to as the female prostate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)