Talk:Clitoris

Source for culture and art

This woman is creating clitoris street art to get people talking about female pleasure. It’s certainly one way of persuading people to open up - a BBC round-up of recent art projects. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, we have some clitoris awareness material. A sentence or or a few sentences on what you cited above can be added to that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added from the BBC article, and I've found some other projects that deserve mention as well, so I've folded them all in. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Carbon Caryatid, I initially reverted you, but I then restored most of the material. When it comes to big changes, keep in mind that changes are likely to be contested and this is already a big article. This is why it's best to propose big changes first. I tweaked some of your text. One issue with your edits is WP:REFPUNCT. Punctuation comes before the references. Another issue is WP:Dated wording; we should not state "recent" or "recently." Another issue is WP:Editorializing; stuff like "in fact" is not needed. And another issue is that this article uses a specific reference style, and is why Trappist the monk fixes reference issues at this article. This article doesn't cite the full reference in the main text. A few cases do that at the moment, but they need to be fixed. If I am to have this article be elevated to WP:FA status one day, consistent citation style is a part of that.

I don't feel that a "Contemporary art" section is needed. There's not much on clitoral art, and the art stuff could have continued to be covered in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, but having a "Contemporary art" section makes sense. I cut the first paragraph because it was not specifically about the clitoris. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I am unclear what you mean here. Your first sentence says you "don't feel that a "Contemporary art" section is needed," but then end your comment by saying "having a Contemporary art" section makes sense." Perhaps you meant something different? I strongly believe that the art section improves the article. I also propose that we add a section on the clitoris in literature and poetry. Perhaps the section on art could be combined? e.g. Clitoris in art and literature? AnaSoc (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

How are you unclear? I gave my opinion and then noted that having a "Contemporary art" section makes sense despite my opinion. As for a section on the clitoris in literature and poetry, most of the Society and culture section is about the clitoris in literature. So what do you mean by "literature"? Books? I would need to see a proposed section in your sandbox before agreeing to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification about what you meant about the addition of the art section. I like how the art section is coming together. I want the entries about Judy Chicago and Tee Corinne to be put back in as other examples of clitoral art. These two works are the first feminist representations of the clitoris and therefore should be included. We also might find a reference to the clitoris jewelry, glasswork, prints and paintings, and small sculptures that emerged from the 1970s cultural feminist art scene.AnaSoc (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no issue with the Judy Chicago and Tee Corinne stuff being restored as long as it about the clitoris rather than vulva as a whole. Trappist the monk and I can clean up the references for you, but you should be looking at the citation style in the article and trying to format it on your own. Trappist the monk can help you learn if you ask him. As for other stuff, please propose the material in your sandbox first, and then link to it here, so that you and I, and others, can work on it together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

why compare to penis in the intro summary?

The third sentence of the introductory summary compares the penis to the clitoris. There is no similar statement in the introductory summary for the penis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis I deleted it and added a sentence about the sole function of the clitoris. AnaSoc (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, it appears you were watching this article since you added a section about art after I was discussing it above with another editor. Whatever the case, as you can see here, I reverted your changes to the lead. You removed important summary material. It is important, which is why we have an entire section comparing the penis to the clitoris. The WP:Lead is meant to summarize the article. As for "there is no similar statement in the introductory summary for the penis," look at the Human penis article. It does mention the clitoris since the two are homologous (equivalent). That is why we compare them -- they are homologous and there is much literature comparing them, including in the case of sexism. And like lower in the Human penis article, there is comparison material lower in this article. This article, however, is better put together because it is WP:GA. The Human penis article is poor, and the Penis article is even poorer. Also, your "In humans, the only purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure." addition is not only likely not needed in the lead, it is somewhat challenged in a section lower in the article. Yes, the clitoris only seems to be for pleasure in humans, but it is an aspect that has been challenged and it's not something that needs to be in the lead unless we include it in the "whether the clitoris is vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function" paragraph. In that paragraph, we could state the following: "Although, in humans, the only known purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure, whether the clitoris is vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function has been argued."

When it comes to this "female midwives during the Renaissance knew about the clitoris, believing that orgasm aided women to become pregnant" part you added, it is already in the article. It is in the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section, which states, "Although 17th-century midwives recommended to men and women that women should aspire to achieve orgasms to help them get pregnant for general health and well-being and to keep their relationships healthy." This is a big article. Whatever you are thinking is not covered in it is likely covered in it. Also, per MOS:MED, we simply call the sections "Society and culture," not "Society, culture, and history." When you see a WP:Hidden note, it is there for a reason. The hidden note that you removed and I restored states, "No History subheading was created, because it is unnecessary/non-beneficial to artificially separate the historical content from the Society and culture section; it's all society and culture." This is true. A "History" subheading is not always needed. Also, this article uses a particular citation style. So your citation style should follow that, although Trappist the monk is here to help.

I ask that you propose/discuss any significant changes before making them to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help with an image?

The new section on art lacks any image, which isn't ideal. Common sense tells me that including a logo or advertising material ought to be fair use, but I can't cite WP chapter and verse. I'm thinking of something like this for the ClitArt Festival. Can someone add it, or something else appropriate? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I've now copied the artwork from Sophia Wallace, but still, one of the "poster" images for the ClitArt festival or Clitorissima film would be a useful addition. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

check out the cool CC image here: https://theconversation.com/why-the-clitoris-doesnt-get-the-attention-it-deserves-and-why-this-matters-53157 May not work for this article, but an image to keep in mind. AnaSoc (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Citation style

reference info for Clitoris

unnamed refs	45
named refs	182
self closed	312
Refn templates	7
cs1 refs	89
cs1 templates	210
cs2 refs	1
cs2 templates	1
harv refs	149
harv templates	257
sfn templates	2
uses ldr	yes
refbegin templates	2
webarchive templates	1
use xxx dates	dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates	29
cs1|2 ymd dates	1
cs1|2 dmy access dates	110
cs1|2 mdy access dates	9
cs1|2 ymd access dates	1
cs1|2 dmy archive dates	108
cs1|2 last/first	198
cs1|2 author	2
cs1|2 vauthors	1
List of cs1 templates cite book (135) Cite book (3) cite journal (33) Cite journal (7) cite magazine (1) cite news (14) cite web (14) Cite web (3)
List of cs2 templates Citation (1)
List of sfn templates sfn (2)
List of harv templates harvnb (257)
explanations

Trappist the monk, when you get the chance, will you fix the instances that have the references directly in the main text and relocate them to the References section instead? Or do you recommend that we finally use a different citation style for the whole article? As you can see with this edit, despite what I stated above, AnaSoc still used a different citation style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Trappist the monk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

purpose of clitoris

Scientific and medical debates about the clitoris has for generations rendered the clitoris invisible and/or maligned. Modern scientists agree that the evolutionary purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure. This is well documented and is one of the most important facts about the clitoris. I would like to see this fact in the summary. AnaSoc (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

you mean the part where it says: "The clitoris is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure" in the second Paragraph, or maybe "Extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot. Although, in humans, the only known purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure" in Para 3? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for pointing me to this. But I mean a general statement of the function of the clitoris in the first paragraph, the function that is common to all animals, not just humans. AnaSoc (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, and per what I stated below, that piece does not belong in the very first sentence. Except for sexual pleasure, anatomists and scientists do not know what the purpose of the clitoris is. They speculate, yes, but they are also clear that they have no definitive answer. We have a whole section about it. And we have Helen O'Connell, one of the main researchers who has advanced the knowledge of the clitoris, stating. "It boils down to rivalry between the sexes: the idea that one sex is sexual and the other reproductive. The truth is that both are sexual and both are reproductive." We also know that the spotted hyena does not only use the clitoris for sexual pleasure, and, according to the "Other animals" section, it seems that the clitoris does not solely exist for sexual pleasure in a few other animals as well. Also, for flow and structure, debate material should stay in the debate paragraph of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I already replied in the #why compare to penis in the intro summary? section immediately above and below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

good point about sexual pleasure not being the sole function in some animals. But modern scientitists do largely agree that sexual pleasure in humans is the primary biological function. Perhaps we might compromise on the first paragraph in the intro? I provided a good reference, Lehmiller, and there are many other references that could be provided. Although historically there was debate about the function or purpose of the clitoris, there is a solid scientific consensus now. AnaSoc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, regardless of modern scientists largely agreeing that sexual pleasure in humans is the primary biological function of the clitoris, I am stating that it is not something that needs to be in the lead paragraph. Why do you think it needs to be in that paragraph? Why would we place it before the "The clitoris is the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone and generally the primary anatomical source of human female sexual pleasure." text that is in the second paragraph? And why not leave it in the third paragraph, where it fits? I compromised by having it in that third paragraph, where it flows best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. If modern scientists agree that the primary (anatomical/biological) purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure, why would we not include it in the lead paragraph? Why do we, instead, say what the clitoris is not through the contrast with the penis? I agree that having a statement of the homologous relationship with the penis should stay in. You have convinced me of this. But I remain unconvinced that this article should reproduce the sexism of the past by giving the penis primacy in the lead paragraph. This article is about the clitoris. The lead paragraph should stick to that topic. No contrast to the penis should be in the first paragraph in my opinion.AnaSoc (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've explained why I've questioned putting the "primary purpose" or "sole purpose" aspect in the very first paragraph. For the first paragraph, I would change "In humans, the visible button-like portion is near the front junction of the labia minora (inner lips), above the opening of the urethra." to "In humans, the only known purpose of the clitoris is to provide sexual pleasure; the visible button-like portion is near the front junction of the labia minora (inner lips), above the opening of the urethra." if it were not for the fact that we have the "vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function" aspect in the third paragraph and the "only known purpose of the clitoris" text therefore fits better there. I don't think that the "vestigial, an adaptation, or serves a reproductive function" aspect should be moved to the first paragraph, which is what you did at one point. That material concerns debate and is better placed in the third paragraph, which talks about debate.

As for the rest, including the penis comparison in the lead paragraph is not giving the penis primacy; nor is it sexism. It has to do with how the clitoris works. The "In humans" text includes "above the opening of the urethra." It's logical and good flow to then note that "unlike the penis, the male homologue (equivalent) to the clitoris, it usually does not contain the distal portion (or opening) of the urethra and is therefore not used for urination." It is one sentence and does not fit anywhere else in the lead. It certainly does not need its own paragraph. Per WP:Lead, the lead usually should be no more than four paragraphs anyway. Furthermore, getting the urination aspect out of the way allows for the "while few animals urinate through the clitoris" text. It doesn't make sense to talk about animals urinating through the clitoris without first making it clear that the clitoris usually is not used for urination, which contrasts the penis's function. And, yes, since the urination aspect is one of the main differences between the clitoris and penis, and is addressed lower in the article, we should note it. There's also the fact that the clitoris concerns other animals as well, of course. And so the lead paragraph is not solely about humans. But given that we are noting the function aspects in the lead sentence, I do think that after the "and is therefore not used for urination" part, we should add "It is also usually absent a reproductive function"...which addresses animals, including humans, as a whole. I'll go ahead and try that as another compromise. The only reason we even mention the spotted hyena case in the lead paragraph is because it's unusual and contrasts the "no urination" and "no reproductive function" aspects.

On a side note: I understand how passionate you are about women's issues, and I am very much aware of the sexism we often face, but we need to edit Wikipedia from more of a detached viewpoint. This is why I pointed you to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in the #Latest edits section below. WP:Advocacy is another page that comes to mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and the addition of this sentence in the first paragraph: "It is also usually absent a reproductive function." Can we wordsmith this sentence a bit so that it is more clear? 137.229.78.131 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest edits

AnaSoc, like I stated above, this article is WP:GA, which means that care needs to be taken with it. Not only has wording for the article been extensively worked out, it follows a particular citation style. Despite me noting that it follows a particular citation style, you did not take the time to try to learn it or ask about it. Instead, you added yet another piece that does not align with the citation style for this article. And despite what I stated on your talk page about WP:Minor edits, you are still marking non-minor edits as minor. I reverted you on this because the "only the button-like portion" is "visible externally" part mainly applies to humans. It clearly does not apply to spotted hyenas, for example. And "this highly complex organ" piece is unnecessary WP:Editorializing on your part. I'm not opposed to changing "well-developed" to "large," and I went ahead and did that. But, again, you are not trying to discuss, even after I asked you to above and noted on your talk page that you should. This is to avoid mistakes, redundancies, guideline issues and WP:Edit warring. And as for this, we follow what the sources state. It is not our job to right the great wrongs. If the source states "pea," so do we. And regarding this, on what grounds are you arguing that this is false? Yes, the clitoris has been subject to much sociological debate. Are you defining "sociological debate" differently? You also returned this "sole purpose" material. You did it in a similar way I suggested, but it does not belong in the first paragraph. So I moved it to the relevant paragraph and used my suggested wording. If you keep editing WP:Disruptively, I will be reporting it.

Johnuniq and Rivertorch, I assume you are still watching the article. Can I get your thoughts on this? We have an editor -- AnaSoc -- who is not listening and seems to sometimes be editing from her own viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

please point me to a source that verifies that there has been "extensive sociological... debate... concerning anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." This is anatomy, not sociology. Thanks. AnaSoc (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, I am well-aware that this "is anatomy, not sociology." And? It is still a fact that the clitoris has been subject to much social/sociological/societal debate, as the article makes abundantly clear. Why else do you think the "17th century–present day knowledge and vernacular" section speaks of "terminology used by college students, ranging from Euro-American (76%/76%), Hispanic (18%/14%), and African American (4%/7%), regarding the students' beliefs about sexuality and knowledge on the [clitoris]" and "A 2005 study reported that, among a sample of undergraduate students, the most frequently cited sources for knowledge about the clitoris were school and friends, and that this was associated with the least amount of tested knowledge"? And what do you make of the female genital mutilation aspect, which is mentioned in sociology books, such as this 1998 "Modernity, Medicine, and Health: Medical Sociology Towards 2000" source, from Psychology Press, page 117, which speaks of "fierce debate among feminists"? Is none of this sociology in your opinion? What about feminist sociology? What about this 2008 "Sociology for Social Workers" source, from Polity, page 163, which states, "Nymphomania was the medical term given to women who were seen as having unhealthy sexual desires or fixations. The condition was also seen to affect women's genitals, and in some cases led to clitoridectomies (castration of the clitoris). Goldberg (1999) discusses how women were subjected to a range of treatments to cure abnormal sexual desires."? And, yes, this aspect is also already covered in the article. There's also sources like this 2016 "Sociology: The Essentials" source, from Cengage Learning, page 52, which states, "Many have called for international intervention to eliminate [female genital mutilation], but there is also a debate about whether disgust at this practice should be balanced by a reluctance to impose Western cultural values on other societies." Sources on these matters are in the article; I have not falsified a thing. Once again, you need to start discussing first. Adding first and then discussing is not ideal on a high-profile anatomy/medical article such as this. Read WP:ONUS.

IdreamofJeanie, good to see you at this article as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still watching this article. I see that AnaSoc is keen but so far has not been able to hear your comments. @AnaSoc: To repeat, the WP:LEAD is a summary of, and follows, the article. The article is developed, then the lead. Please engage with the comments on this talk page by responding to their substance. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for your comments. Citing sociological data, e.g. statistics, is not documentation of sociological debate. Perhaps a compromise might be to delete the term “debate” and substitute a more neutral term, e.g. “discussion” or “analysis”? AnaSoc (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, "extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate" flows better than "extensive sociological, sexological and medical discussion," and it's more accurate than "extensive sociological, sexological and medical analysis." It's not as much an analysis (except for certain aspects) as it is a debate. Similar goes for simply calling it a discussion. These aspects of the clitoris have been debated in all three fields. I don't see what is non-neutral by simply stating "debate." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

As for statistics, I pointed to those two studies not because of statistics...but because of their sociological aspects. I also cited two sociology sources that make clear the debate matters and specifically use the term debate. The clitoris has quite clearly been debated within feminist sociology. In addition to the other sources I listed, this 2007 "Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, Updated" source, from Cengage Learning, page 57, states, "Understanding cultural relativism gives insight into some controversies, such as the international debate about the practice of clitoridectomy—a form of genital mutilation." The clitoris has been debated with regard to gender inequality, and this includes not only female genital mutilation, but how it has been obscured and does not get the attention it should...which also leads to a lack of knowledge about it. In the #Can someone help with an image? section above, you even cited a source about it not getting the attention it deserves. Even the Kinsey Reports, which challenged the "penis-in-vagina" narrative and Freud's theories on clitoral orgasm, and led to numerous debates, were sociological surveys. Like this 2012 (reprint) "Human Motivation" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 54, states, "Research concerning normal human sexuality first began with sociological surveys, such as the famous 'Kinsey Report.' " And we have a whole section in the article concerning these debates as they relate to the clitoris and feminism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the conversation. Although I agree that there has been extensive discussion in the discipline of sociology about FGM and cultural relativism, I disagree that there has been extensive sociological debate about other aspects of the clitoris. The Kinsey studies were not sociological studies; Kinsey's work is more properly considered to be sexology. [pp. 28-31 in Lehmiller, Justin J. 2014. The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley Blackwell.] While it is true that Kinsey and his colleagues used interviews as a technique to gather data, the use of that particular research technique does not mean that the study itself was sociological. Other disciplines also use the interview technique, e.g. anthropology, ethnography, psychology, history, linguistics, and cultural geography. I just looked in the index of ten introduction to sociology textbooks that I have in my office. All of them are standards in the discipline. Not one of them lists the clitoris as a topic. So I do not see verifiable evidence that supports the claim made in the existing article that "Extensive sociological... debate [has] focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I do agree with you that some feminist sociologists have linked the clitoris to gender inequality, but do not agree that there has been "extensive debate" within the discipline of sociology about "anatomical accuracy, orgasmic factors, and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." The texts I examined include: Jon Witt's SOC 2018; John J. Macionis's 2011 Sociology; Richard T. Schaefer's 2012 Sociology; James M. Henslin's 2012's Sociology: A Down to Earth Sociology; David M. Newman's Socilogy: Exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life; Michael Hughes and Carolyn J. Kroehler's 2009 Sociology: The Core; Anthony Giddens, Mitchell Duneier, Richard P. Applebaum, and Deborah Carr Essentials of Sociology; Richard T. Schaeffer Sociology in Modules; Jonathan H. Turner 2006 Sociology; and Kerry Ferris and Jill Stein 2012 The Real World.AnaSoc (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for taking the time to discuss. It seems that you take issue with what you think is the implication that "extensive sociological debate" means "with regard to all aspects of the clitoris or all clitoral topics." When it comes to "all aspects of the clitoris or all clitoral topics," however, I was not stating that. I simply stated that there has been extensive sociological debate. The extensive aspect is in a sentence that also includes "sexological and medical debate." There hasn't been sexological or medical debate regarding all aspects of the clitoris either. Until relatively recently, all many people thought existed of the clitoris was the glans. Many still think that. But there is no need to insert "some," which can at times be a WP:Weasel word, and state "There has been extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate with regard to some aspects of the clitoris." Or "There has been extensive sociological, sexological and medical debate with regard to some clitoral topics." There is no need to be vague.

The extensive debates concern "anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot," as mentioned in the article. It seems that you know that these debates are extensive, but you question their extensiveness with regard to sociology. You stated that "some feminist sociologists have linked the clitoris to gender inequality," but sociology sources I listed above state "fierce debate among feminists" and "the international debate." The sociological debates pertain solely to the sociology stuff. Gender inequality is a broad category that covers, among other things, the clitoris topic being obscured (and this includes the term clitoris), women only having incidental orgasms because of clitoral neglect, sexist views about the clitoris, and female genital mutilation. You stated, "The Kinsey studies were not sociological studies; Kinsey's work is more properly considered to be sexology." And yet a source I listed above states, "Research concerning normal human sexuality first began with sociological surveys, such as the famous 'Kinsey Report.'" And this 2009 (reprint) "Sex and Reason" source, from Harvard University Press, page 30, states, "Although Kinsey was a zoologist, not a sociologist, the Kinsey reports, especially when viewed as a contribution to theory rather than as a mere amassing of uninterpreted data, are conventionally and I think accurately viewed as contributions to the sociology of sex, as is the subsequent research output of the Institute for Sex Research." One does not have to preclude or exclude the other; a survey or study can be both sexological and sociological, or categorized as either or both. And, clearly, there are reliable sources that define the Kinsey Reports as sociological surveys. Many sociology sources take the time to mention and/or analyze the Kinsey reports. Also, as noted in the Sociology article, sociology is a very broad category and can include health (sociology of health and illness) and medical aspects (medical sociology) as well. One of the sources I listed above is called "Modernity, Medicine, and Health: Medical Sociology Towards 2000."

All that stated... Given your concern, would you accept simply dropping "extensive" and changing the current sentence to "Sociological, sexological and medical debates have focused on the clitoris, primarily concerning anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot."? Or perhaps "Sociological, sexological and medical debates have concerned the clitoris. These debates may focus on anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, or orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot."? We can also change "sociological" to "societal," but I think it's best to retain "sociological" instead. As for the books you've reviewed, I have many sociology, sexology and medical books that don't mention the clitoris either. We already know that the clitoris gets far less attention than the penis and vagina do; the Clitoris article is very clear about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the discussion. Yes, I think your suggestion of dropping the word extensive would adequately address my concerns. AnaSoc (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I keep mulling this over, so I thank you in advance for allowing a re-re-revisitation of this issue. I can find no verifiable evidence that the discipline of sociology has engaged in debates about the clitoris in the ways you claim in the third paragraph. If there were debates in the discipline, then analysis of those debates would appear in introductory sociology textbooks. Please point me to a reliable source that verifies your claim that there has been sociological debate about the clitoris. Also, please point me to a reliable source that verifies your claim that the debates have "primarily concern[ed] anatomical accuracy, gender inequality, orgasmic factors and their physiological explanation for the G-spot." I wonder if your claim about the debates is "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources," <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research> and therefore consists of original research. Thanks again for your work on this project. 137.229.78.131 (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hi AnaSoc. Wikipedia welcomes all editors, and we encourage people to be bold; so, thanks for joining the project, and being bold and knowledgeable enough to tackle the Clitoris article. However, while we want people to be bold, and the community is willing to assist new editors as that is how the project develops, there are times when we ask people to stop being so bold, and listen more carefully to the advice that is being given. The Clitoris article is one of our most viewed, complex, controversial, and sensitive, so editing on it is preferably done with care and thought. We want people to edit on it and improve it, and we want debate on what is best for the article, but when an editor's work is being challenged or reverted, that is the time to stop and listen. I have looked over the changes you have made to the article, and agree with Flyer that the changes on the whole are not helpful. I am unclear on the use of the word "refugees" in this edit for example, as sources usually refer to migration, which is somewhat broader - refugees implies forced migration rather than economic, and numbers of refugee immigrants are generally significantly lower than economic immigrants. I was unable to check your source as you did not use a page number, though I checked other sources which use migration rather than refugee. In editing an article at this level we would prefer people to be consulting a wide spread of sources, and then summarise the general agreement, using one source as the example citation. We want you to edit Wikipedia, but in order to do that effectively you need to be listening carefully to the advice of editors like Flyer, and to only edit this article after your proposals have been looked at, discussed, and agreed. If you wish to discuss this matter with me further, please leave a note on my talkpage or email me. Regards SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I used the term refugee, and not migrant or immigrant, because the source I cited used that term. I thought I had included the page number, but note that I did not. It's page 270 in the Crawford and Unger text I listed. I agree with you that immigrant would be a broader term that would take into account other reasons for movement of the practice than using the term refugee.AnaSoc (talk) 23:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)