From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge OB and gyn?[edit]

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 (Update this talk page if this information is out of date.)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 page wes made by: Jonea Rosetti- Busa —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gynaikeia...might as well use the Greek name[edit]

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: (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

male version?[edit]

could some1 tell me what a doctor who works on male nethers is called? ive looked every were and i cant find it is it just a normal doctor?Lotharsrevenge (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a urologist. Kafziel Complaint Department 08:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


do alll the girls bleed when they break out their virginity....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


THIS IS NOT BRITAN WHY ARE SO MANY TITLES SPELLED IN THE BRITISH FASHION? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fact and citation check[edit]

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Lead section[edit]

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.

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:

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.


I believe more general background about the science of gynecology and the training requirements for MDs to specialize in this field would be nice additions to this entry.


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.


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:


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

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.

See also[edit]

I'm not sure that these are essential or relevant to the page.BSW BV (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the dictionary, the article title seems to be spelled wrong[edit] (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Section on code of ethics[edit]

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)