Talk:Vaginal photoplethysmograph/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thoughts about influences

It seems pretty obvious to me that the device used for this sort of thing would heavily influence (negatively, in most cases) the level of sexual arousal. Any research on that? Seems like that would be a helpful addition, if any qualified researchers out there want to chime in. Tcwing (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleting half the content of the article

User:Barbara (WVS): Before deleting many of the informations, a discussion about how to keep at least the references would be great. --Angerdan (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I can understand your concern but I am in the process of locating sources that can replace the ones that were removed. This is my usual habit while editing and I anticipate being able to improve the article significantly. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Preserve

Barbara (WVS), again, you need to be trying to preserve some of this content per the WP:Preserve policy. Keep in mind that it is a policy while WP:MEDRS is a guideline. WP:MEDRS does not state that primary sources are forbidden; it states that they should be used sparingly and with care. And its WP:MEDDATE section is clear that some topics are going to rely on primary sources more heavily than others. Just look at the Husband stitch article that Doc James has been working on. He's resigned to the fact that there are not a lot of good medical sources out there on the topic. Similarly, though certainly not to the same degree, there is not a lot of research out there on the vaginal photoplethysmograph. It's not popular like the penile plethysmograph is, but there is enough on Google Books to source this article well. In the case of this removal you made, I see text that states "In Goldstein, C. M. Meston, S. Davis & A. Traish (Eds.), Textbook of Female Sexual Dysfunction London: Taylor & Francis Medical Books." You chopping away at this article is similar to the very recent persistent genital arousal disorder case, where you started chopping away at things and even thought that the topic wasn't notable while I took time out of my day and easily and significantly sourced and expanded that article well, as noted at its talk page. Yes, Jytdog will often chop away at things, but he also takes the time to see if some of the content should and can be preserved. One way to preserve content is to list removed content on the article talk page or point to a link to it on the article talk page. Both Jytdog and Doc James sometimes do that.

Anyway, researcher James Cantor, who is familiar with the penile plethysmograph and watches the Penile plethysmograph article, might have access to non-primary sources for this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I also see that Angerdan above has expressed concern about your deletions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a difficult topic to find references for. Sexism in medicine problem, perhaps. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

btw if you google "Handbook of psychophysiology" you will find the whole book. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you are encouraged by the message I left above for another editor. I have found a number of references already and will be inserting them shortly. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 20:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I see what you stated above, but I have seen a number of cases where you simply chop away at easily sourceable material and never restore it in an improved way. Also, unless going back and looking at what you removed, there is the chance that what you removed will not be replaced with content on those specific aspects. See WP:BEFORE; it's about doing due diligence before nominating an article for deletion, or proposing deletion. This applies to what recently happened with the Persistent genital arousal disorder article, and it's similar to what has happened here. One of the issues is that you generally don't even give Google Books a look; I know this not only because of your citing style, but because you once acknowledged not being fond of Google Books. And yet Google Books is how I significantly improved the Persistent genital arousal disorder article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)