From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article 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 Women's health (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's health 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 quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the 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.


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)

Gender of Physicians[edit]

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)