Talk:Gynaecology/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gynaecology. 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

Merge OB and gyn?

Should obstetrics and gynaecology be merged into a single "obstetrics and gynaecology" article? Or should obstetrics be viewed as a subset of gynaecology? -- Karada 11:09, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. The specialisms are generally practiced in tandem, but apart from their pertinence to women, they have surprisingly little in common. Keep the status quo. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

There is currently a vote running at Talk:Obstetrics and gynecology on whether to rename the article in accordance with the British spelling, as this individial article is. Feel free to add your vote. (Update this talk page if this information is out of date.) haz (user talk) 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yess! I think the above would be great! I hate to click out of a page!

No, and the Above comment is invalid Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a Flip-Through book. Clicking isn't a chore and 1 click more to see a subset wouldn't kill you. Gynecology should remain as is... You don't see Science or Astronomy in the same page... augrunt 06:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This

this page wes made by: Jonea Rosetti- Busa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.202.252 (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gynaikeia...might as well use the Greek name

According to the Suda, the ancient Greek physician Soranus practiced in Alexandria and subsequently Rome. He was the chief representative of the school of physicians known as "Methodists." His treatise Gynaecology is extant (first published in 1838, later by V. Rose, in 1882, with a 6th-century Latin translation by Moschio, a physician of the same school).

"Although it claims to be a simplified, catechistic version of Soranus' Gynaikeia produced for midwives who cannot read Greek, Muschio's text is more of a version than a translation, giving only a flavour of the original. Muscio rarely mentions Soranus by namel in some manuscripts, there is no mention of him at all."

>> JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-840X%281995%292%3A45%3A2%3C453%3AGMC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U 134.121.247.116 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact and citation check

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Lead section

This section requires much more information and citations. Some useful sources would be:

Basic Gynecology and Obstetrics (Lange Medical Books)Norman F. Gant (Author), F. Gary Cunningham (Editor) 1993, Appleton and Lange.

http://www.obgyn.net/

http://www.webmd.com/search/search_results/default.aspx?sourceType=undefined&query=gynecology&navState=6208

Additionally, there seems to be too much text detailing the Kahun Gynaecological Papyrus. A simple link out to that topic would suffice.

A good source for J. Marion Sims (father of modern gynecology) is at: http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/marion_sims.htm

I think this page could benefit by a discussion of the overall, basic science of gynecology and requirements for MDs to specialize in this discipline.

Examination

There are no sources for the performance of a gynecological examination. In addition to general medical texts, another potential source is: Public Privates: Performing Gynecology from Both Ends of the Speculum by Terri Kapsalis 1997 Duke University Press.

The sentence about sonography could also benefit from the following citation: Mosby's Comprehensive Review for General Sonography Examinations Susanna Ovel RDMS RVT RT(R) 2009 Mosby.

This area would also benefit from a discussion of clinical findings and what they mean. There is no discussion of what a practioner looks for during an exam.

Diseases

This list of gynecological diseases is incomplete. Additionally, there are no symptoms provided, no discussion of how such diseases are diagnosed, or how they are treated. At the very least, there should be a brief mention of all of these. One general source addressing these issues is: http://womenshealth.about.com/od/gyndiseasesandconditions/Gynecological_Diseases_and_Conditions.htm.

Therapies

There are no citations related to treatments of the various gynecological diseases. Some sources could include:

http://www.patientsmedical.com/healthaz/gynecology/treatments.aspx

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/womenshealth/research/disorders/sel_treatments.cfm

There is a sentence that states: and many newer surgical textbooks include chapters on (at least basic) gynaecological surgery. This should provide citations for those texts.

WP:ENGVAR

THIS IS NOT BRITAN WHY ARE SO MANY TITLES SPELLED IN THE BRITISH FASHION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.77.222 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, especially when most international organizations use the US spelling. Since most international organizations use the US spelling (and a Google search has the US spelling beating the UK spelling by a margin of more than 3:1), it should be moved. TJ Spyke 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a policy that unless articles have a close tie to a subject, they stay in whatever variant of English they were started in. So this looks like it was started by a Brit, and it will stay in British English. Likewise, gasoline was started by an American, and it will stay there, despite requests by Brits that it be moved to "petrol". But seriously, it's really not a big deal. Oreo Priest ^talk 06:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

People need to get their facts right. American is the only English speaking country to spell this without the A. Even Canada (which often drifts towards the US spelling) spells it gynaecology. See also the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Obstetrical and Gynaecological society of Malaysia, Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society of Hong Kong, Obstetrical & Gynaecological Society of Bangladesh, the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India, and a lot more. Yes, sometimes non-anglophone countries translate the names of their societies the American way, but they probably do not realise that in general, English worldwide favours the gynae spelling or they have defective dictionaries :). Personally, I don't care that much, but I do object to this being spelling being labelled the "British" spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.107.131 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Section on code of ethics

I deleted the section regarding code of ethics for several reasons: 1) The sources do not match the text in some case. For example, the first sentence mentions male gynecologists and women's perceptions in that arena; however, a look at the article does not mention gynecology at all, nor does it discuss women's perception/education. 2) Clear WP:SYNTH is in play here: addition of the code of conduct by ACOG is juxtaposed by a random assortment of news articles from across the world and dating back to 1996. What is the point here? Why are we discussing the 2007 ACOG statement results if we are using events from before the statement? And why the juxtaposition? 3) There is a clear WP:UNDUE weight problem. There is misconduct (sexual, professional, etc) in every profession, but we don't have a separate section for this misconduct which is based on a compilation of disparate primary sources, as that leads to the undue weight that there is a problem with the profession (which appears to be the agenda of the section).

I have deleted the section due to the above concerns, and we need to address them before restoring it. Yobol (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions now that you've laid out your reasoning. I do not intend to restore it. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 16:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender of Physicians

The section on the gender of gynaecologists is the longest section of the article, which seems to put too much emphasis on an issue that may have significance, but which is really secondary to most other aspects of the profession. To make matters worse, there is a lot of redundant information, the editor(s) seems to have injected personal opinion and bias, and many of the cited sources are of poor quality (anecdotal reports; unscientific/informal surveys; etc), or are linked to web pages that are longer valid/active. If no one else takes the initiative to do so, nor presents valid arguments why the section should remain as it is, I'll probably return to clean the section up. DoctorEric (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a little long, so a bit of a trim could be useful. Please note, however, that the fact that other sections are not as thorough as they should be doesn't mean that the gender section should be cut until the proportion feels right. Any content that belongs in a final, complete version of the article is to remain. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 13:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You're correct about not cutting just to make things proportional. But I stick by my statements about redundancy, personal opinion, poor sources, broken links. Finally, more is not always better, especially when it distracts from the article as a whole (this is a problem with many Wikipedia articles, I'm afraid). Rather than have a long, detailed section on one aspect of modern gynaecological practice, a new page should be created if it's determined that the gender of gynaecologists is a subject needing its own Wikipedia page for in-depth discussion.DoctorEric (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears we agree. So trim away, but don't go overboard! Oreo Priest ^talk 15:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That section is poorly worded and is extremely poorly sourced. It should be cut to a single paragraph until it is presented properly. Per WP:Preserve, that content can be transported to this talk page and WP:Hatted and worked on that way. Also consider taking this matter to WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have some spare time and am happy to make this change, I can see that everyone seems to agree that this is an important section but is too long and needs better sourcing but nothing has been done. I will do some editing in the next weeks or so. Esplorare (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

calouses on vigina walls.

can callouses form from regular sex on the virginal walls and how long for them to disappear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.70.43.105 (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gynaecology. 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) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, the article title seems to be spelled wrong

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gynecology--71.205.113.109 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the US spelling. This page appears to use the UK/Commonwealth spelling. Oxford Dictionary --EarthSprite^∞ 19:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

what happen generally when uterus comes in the centre ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.204.161.183 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2018

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

Goralgandhi (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Breast health

Why doesn’t this article mention breast health as within the purview of gynecologists? It seems like an oversight. 2601:640:8980:B847:F842:D938:20DF:1C70 (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Gynecological surgery into Gynaecology

Small stub already covered more on target page section Therapies Iztwoz (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I feel it should be kept as separate article as the surgery article can be later expanded with content related to it. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

In order to maintain simplicity and better understanding for readers in and out the field, I feel it should not be merged but can transited into through links that could be inserted into the parent article. Xingi06 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There being no support for this proposal, I have removed the tags.

Gardenkur, Iztwoz's right about the surgery article being extremely short. Are you able to find a source or two and expand it at least a little? It should presumably mention common surgeries like hysterectomies as well as subspecialties like Oncogynecological surgery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing. Request you to give me some time for expanding it. Will surely do it as there are sufficient sources with substantial coverage. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:There is no deadline for this. I'm glad to hear that you'll look into it when you can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)