Talk:Vagina/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The lead: Initially describing the vagina, fertility, etc.

Snowmanradio, before you made this edit specifying "In humans," I was going to state the following: Regarding this, this, and this edit you made, how is it clearer for the readers if we state "The vagina is a fibromuscular tubular sex organ. It is part of the female genital tract, which extends from the exterior at the vaginal orifice and inwards through the vagina, the endocervical canal, the uterus, and finally the fallopian tubes." instead of "In humans, the vagina leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix."? Anatomy texts usually don't describe the vagina in the way that you have regarding its location; they are usually simple about its description, simply stating that it "leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix" or that it "extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva," or something similar to that. Another reason that your second line was overly specific, before you clarified "In humans," is because you were generalizing the vagina's makeup when the vagina's makeup is different in humans as compared to some other animals. That is why I had an "In humans" line, and a "The location and size of the vagina varies among species" line, so that readers know exactly which makeup we are referring to when we speak of humans. WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy states: "The lead should begin by stating in the most general form the location and purpose of the structure. For example, The metatarsals are bones found in the human foot." Clearly, it is more beneficial for readers to indicate the location and structure of the human vagina apart from vaginas of other animals.

And regarding your issue with mentioning fertility in the lead, as seen here, here, and here, I clearly disagree with excluding fertility from the lead when mentioning menstruation, having stated, "Regarding menstruation, the word 'usually' was in front of 'signals fertility.' Given the purpose of menstruation and that a person who has a menstrual cycle can usually become pregnant, that aspect should be mentioned." Menstruation in humans usually does signal the possibility of fertility, and that should be noted in the lead, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And to others watching this talk page, do consider weighing in so that we can resolve matters, such as ones noted in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the point of linking intermediate stages of the editing, which includes confusion of two people editing the introduction at the same time. I had two edit conflicts when I was improving the introduction. The introduction for the bases of discussion is this version. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by confusion. I provided the links that I did above for reasons that are obvious, to me at least. And with this edit, you have removed the "In humans" bit and re-generalized the second sentence. If you did that simply because of my above post in this section, that is something that can be confusing. But people reading this section are surely smart enough to catch on. And, before you state that menstruation is not a reliable indicator of fertility since it happens at the part of the menstrual cycle that is not very fertile, I know that. But the point is that, in humans, menstruation indicates the possibility of fertility, as many WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts make editing difficult. Two people editing the same section leads to confusion. There is no need to link intermediate stages of editing, as soon confusion has occurred. People can catch to the reasons why you link intermediate stages of editing and prior to a plateau of development appearing. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many factors important to fertility besides menstruation. In humans, menstruation occurs when fertilization has not happened. The relation between fertility and menstruation can not be easily summed up in one line for this summary. In some African tribes menstruation tends to occur several years before fertility. Also, fertility tends to decline during the decade (approx) prior to the menopause. Many infertile women have regular periods. Regular bleeding also occurs on the contraceptive pill. I think the situation is entirely different in animals; some animals are re-fertilized soon after delivery of a baby animal without a period happening. I would agree that menstruation occurs in some primates, but I recall that it is not common in mammals in general. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated in my "10:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post above. I am aware of WP:Edit conflicts, of course, and I see no issue in providing diff-links in my post above to point out our editing differences. Doing something like that is common practice, and is the point of diff-links. As for the rest, there is no denying the significance of fertility being associated with menstruation/the menstrual cycle, and many scholarly sources show that. Those "many [other] factors" you note do not have the significance that the menstrual cycle has to fertility, considering that it is the menstrual cycle that facilitates fertility. And as for "In humans, menstruation occurs when fertilization has not happened.", it's a little more complicated than that since, for example, some women have become pregnant during menstruation because they don't have the typical number of days that are usually in a menstrual cycle, had vaginal intercourse on a day they were bleeding, began ovulating days afterward, and then ended up pregnant because of surviving sperm; sperm has a good survival rate. But the lead is not meant for going into all the details and exceptions; it is meant to summarize. And by mentioning menstruation/the menstrual cycle, we are speaking of humans, which you've already clarified in the lead. Also, the "In humans" aspect should be readded regarding the location of the vagina, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to revert this, you have gotten into specific details without first explaining what the vagina is. And starting off the first line by stating "The human vagina" is not good form, despite the Vagina article being mostly about the human vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that you revert too often. You could do better than reverting, because you could enhance text instead. Apart from that, You will need to correct your edit, because it implies that the vagina is the whole of the female reproductive tract. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been overwriting your text, which is not necessarily reverting you (then again, there have been enough debates at the WP:Edit warring talk page about what a revert is or isn't). And you have been doing the same with my text. So if I revert too much, so do you. And, indeed, editors felt that you reverted too much at the Cervix article. I have been improving the text from your overly technical details, etc.; this, for example, flows better. As for the edit you think I need to correct, it states "that is part of the female genital tract." The difference between that and your wording is that your wording stated "is part of the female genital tract." Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what you meant needed correcting? Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

[[edit conflict] I understand your style a bit better now. I see that you revert and then embellish, which is not quite the same as outright reverting and leaving it as that. I have corrected your edit with this edit. I think that the introduction is getting better. For me, it is not about any particular intermediate stage. Of course, the introduction is still a work in progress, but I think that another plateau of development has been reached today. I look forward to working with you again, perhaps tomorrow. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't always revert. Moving on, though, the "In humans, the female genital tract is a continuous passage that extends from the exterior at the vaginal orifice and inwards through the vagina, the endocervical canal, the uterus, and finally the fallopian tubes." part still seems too much to me. Per what I stated in my "10:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, I don't think that we need to go into all that detail for the lead. We should keep it focused on the vagina instead of the genital tract as a whole, which means we should go with the "leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix" or the "extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva" type of wording. Details can be addressed lower in the article. We need to keep the lead simpler than the rest of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that this article is "Vagina", I agree that detailed definition of the whole female genital tract should be avoided in the lead section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I nearly did that early, but I wondered if anyone would object to it. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, for an article on Vagina, perhaps fertility need not be included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, for an article on Vagina, perhaps menstruation need not be included in such detail in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I don't like it because you have again gone into too much detail in the first paragraph, before explaining the primary functions of the vagina. That orifice bit should stay in the second paragraph that goes into detail about the orifices. Humans are mammals, and so that second paragraph does not exclude humans. And I don't like this edit because it goes without giving a proper description of the location of the vagina in humans, which goes back to my "12:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post above. And as for menstruation/fertility being mentioned in the lead, you know that I disagree with removing that...per above. I reiterate "there is no denying the significance of fertility being associated with menstruation/the menstrual cycle, and many scholarly sources show that." There is not much in the lead about menstruation/fertility, and menstruation is a big function of the vagina; it happens before childbirth and for much longer in a woman's life, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A mention of menstruation in the lead section is fine. However I don't think that there is any need for this sentence: "In healthy humans, cyclical menstruation tends to indicate a normal menstrual cycle and potential fertility." Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have removed that sentence about menstruation and fertility. I do not see any need for fertility to be mentioned in this introduction. I have retained a mention of menstruation, but removed a basic description of what menstruation is. I have only retained essential basic information in the first paragraph moving the relation to the urethral opening to the second paragraph as suggested above. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Menstruation results from a cyclical hormonal changes which have prominent effects on the endometrium. The main physiology and anatomy of menstruation are not in the vagina. Importantly, menses flow through the vagina, and I think that (or something similar) is all we need to say here. We already have that the vagina permits menstruation. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted, and then tweaked the matter, as seen here, here and here, including the "In humans" aspect I mentioned above regarding the location of the vagina. I cannot be convinced that all that you cut out about menstruation should not be in the lead. Axl didn't agree to all of that being cut. He agreed to the following line, which is the line you added, being cut: "In healthy humans, cyclical menstruation tends to indicate a normal menstrual cycle and potential fertility." Simply mentioning menstruation and not clarifying what it is about is insufficient. I also feel that not mentioning its relation to fertility is insufficient, so I have restored that, but I changed it to "and is often related to fertility," and I await more opinions on the fertility aspect. If others agree to remove "and is often related to fertility," then I will go along with that. I am leaning toward changing "often" to "commonly," however. I think that the genital orifice detail you removed should also be there, just not in the spot that you placed it in; so I moved it back to the second paragraph, and clarified it with "in humans" for the "protected by the labia" part. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I struck out a part of this post because I just realized that you didn't remove the genital orifice bit. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have become mixed up by your style of reverting and then putting things back. Why do you not just do some enhancements following previous edits, like most people do? Snowman (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Many editors revert when needed. I revert you when I think it's needed. As you know, I also enhance your text. Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

At some point, I might contact WP:Med and/or WP:Anatomy to weigh in on the lead and/or to help out with the article in general, since the matters of the article are currently only being worked out by three people (the two of us and Axl). The value of more opinions is why I asked those watching this talk page to consider weighing in; I appreciate that Axl is helping. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate additional erudite editors helping out, especially for the more complex parts of the main text. However, what we have been editing so far is basic stuff. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: As seen with this edit, I removed the fertility aspect from the lead until, or if ever, that is addressed better below (in the Secretions section). I re-added mention of the menstrual cycle, which is another link that editors can click on to find out detail on fertility and menstruation. Because menstruation and the menstrual cycle are mentioned in the lead, I might forgo adding anything to the lead about fertility, despite the fact that the menstrual cycle is thoroughly connected to fertility and therefore childbirth. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not fully understand your explanation of your update, because you added back the mention of fertility a few edits previously, as seen in your reverting here, and you report that you removed it a few edits later. Actually, I removed the mention of fertility, because User:Axl suggested this and I agreed with it, and then you reverted it. Please try to write updates that give a holistic summary of what has happened. Note that I have had to correct your text which appeared to say that the vagina extends to the cavity of the body of the uterus (which you called the uterine cavity for short). I think that you can trust me and User Axl that there is no need to mention fertility in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• "... , and also permits menstruation, which is the normal periodic discharge of blood and mucosal tissue from the lining of the uterus during the menstrual cycle.". I the introduction, think that this can be shortened to "... , and also permits menstruation.". Any comments? Snowman (talk) 10:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you are confused about. My comments above are clear. Above, I clearly stated that I restored the fertility part. Then I mentioned that I removed it, and I noted why I removed it. Did you skip over my comments before my Update post? Axl, who watches this article/talk page (and therefore does not need to be pinged to it via WP:Echo), did not agree to remove all mention of fertility from the lead; he agreed to remove the fertility sentence that you added, clearly because that sentence, unlike my mention of fertility, was excessive. Also, this edit regarding uterine cavity is not a correction. I rarely make mistakes on female anatomy topics. Some sources, such as this DC Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology source (page 4) that I've used lower in the Vagina article, use the word uterine cavity in place of the word uterus when stating where the vagina leads from. Should I point you to more WP:Reliable sources that state similarly? Other sources use the word cervix in place of uterus, or vice versa. Did you miss where I mentioned "uterine cavity" above and stated that we should keep the lead focused on the vagina instead of the genital tract as a whole, which means we should go with the "leads from the opening of the vulva to the uterus (womb), but the vaginal tract ends at the cervix" or the "extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva" type of wording? I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state when editing topics such as this, and they are not always consistent with aspects of female sex anatomy, since male sex anatomy has been studied far more than female sex anatomy has and there have not been as many researchers trying to obscure things about male sex anatomy as there have been trying to obscure things about female sex anatomy. For example, many sources state that the vagina is composed of three layers, but a lot of other sources state that it is composed four layers; I note both in the Vagina article. Per WP:Verifiability, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." That's what I do. And if you are going to edit topics on female sex anatomy, you need to be well informed on the conflicting information out there about it, and what is commonly accepted among anatomists and scholars regarding, and what is not. I am. In this case, I agree to use the word uterus or cervix instead of uterine cavity since uterine cavity is not used as much as the other two in anatomy texts regarding where the vagina leads from (or "communicates with" in anatomical terminology; see definition 8). Therefore, I made this change in text lower in the article.

And, yes, we should be clear about whether or not we are referring to the human vagina when stating "the vagina extends from the vulva to the cervix," which is why I made this, this and this edit regarding your latest changes. And as for mentioning menstruation without mentioning what menstruation is, I won't be agreeing to that, given how much of a significant aspect menstruation is regarding the vagina and vaginal health, and given that the lead should summarize the article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Grays Anatomy and other anatomy books describe the uterine cavity, also called the cavity of the uterus and the cavity of the body of the uterus as the space in the uterus above the endocervical canal. Duttas books says that the vagina is communicating with the uterine cavity, which is not quite the same as saying that the vagina extends to the uterine cavity as you did. I would suggest that Duttas book is a little sloppy with his anatomical terminology here and that this part should not be transcribed to the wiki, because is not inline with dedicated anatomy books. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In my "11:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, I just added what "communicates" can mean in anatomical terminology; see definition 8. Like I stated with this edit, "Some sources state 'from the vulva to the uterus'; other sources state 'from the vulva to the cervix' or 'from the vulva to the uterine cavity.'" Perhaps when sources use the word uterine cavity in this case, it should not be taken so strictly, as to mean exactly extending from the uterine cavity. I did not take it as strictly as you did. Whatever the case, I already agreed above that it is better for this matter to use uterus or cervix. And I did indeed use cervix; the word uterine cavity was in parentheses to cover what other sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that by this edit, you've gone with uterus instead of cervix. I don't mind using either, but we should be consistent on the matter, so I changed the text lower in the article to match that.

Also, regarding sources for female sex anatomy, as good as Gray's Anatomy is, I tend to stay away from very old sources unless I'm perhaps noting historical matters, per what I stated above about female sex anatomy not being as well studied as male sex anatomy, and some aspects of female sex anatomy having been intentionally obscured by male anatomists and other scholars. So much of what anatomists and other scholars thought they knew about female sex anatomy has been proven inaccurate over the years (including the last 60 years) or incomplete. For example, very old sources describe the Bartholin's glands as the primary source for vaginal lubrication, when, these days, anatomists and other scholars are generally in agreement that it is plasma seepage from the vaginal walls that is primarily responsible for vaginal lubrication. And, of course, there is the Müllerian duct aspect we discussed in the #Genital vs. urogenital section above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

When sources state that the vagina communicates with the uterine cavity or extends from the vulva to the uterine cavity, I think they mean what this Maternity Nursing - Revised Reprint source (page 27), from Elsevier Health Sciences, states; it states, "The opening between the uterine cavity and the canal that connects the uterine cavity to the vagina (endocervical canal) is the internal os." I reiterate that I think we should stick with uterus or cervix for the "vagina extends from" or "leads from" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit verbose; nevertheless, the line that you quoted from the nursing book looks correct to me. The nursing book just gives an account of the normal anatomy of endocervical canal including what is at both ends of it. The line from Dutta's book, that we have been discussing above, looks sloppy to me. I know the anatomy, so I think I know what Dutta meant to say. If he meant "communicates directly", he seems to have wrote it as if the uterine cavity includes the endocervical canal, but this is not the case. I speculate that it could be tentatively mooted that he meant "communicates indirectly", but that leaves it open to misinterpretation of the sort that you did when you took it to mean that the vagina extends up to the uterine cavity. On a different issue that you commented above; Did you know that the editor-in-chief of the 39th and the 40th editions of Gray's Anatomy is a female professor of anatomy? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am surprised that the out of copyright version of Gray's Anatomy is linked in the infobox of WP Anatomy articles, because on some topics it can be very much different to modern versions of Gray's Anatomy. Incidentally, I do not use old versions of Gray's Anatomy for writing Wiki articles; however, when the old version is similar, I might use the old version for discussion, because it is easy to link to. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that about the editor-in-chief; I do feel better about it that she's female, like I am, even if that sounds sexist. And I appreciate that you use the modern versions of Gray's Anatomy; I obviously much prefer that we use the newer versions for female sex anatomy than the older versions. And I agree that using the older versions is fine for an anatomy aspect that is the same as it was at the time that Gray's Anatomy was first published. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Susan Standring who works at Kings College, London has edited the 39th edition (2005) and the 40th edition (2008) and I understand that she is working on the 41st edition of Gray's Anatomy. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good; I'll research her and get to know more about her. Also, regarding this bit you added to your post above -- "the vagina extends up to the uterine cavity" -- I used "extends from" wording and noted above that I did not interpret "extends from" as strictly as you did regarding the uterine cavity. There is various terminology in anatomy books that some might consider less accurate than other descriptions, but the sources mean or are trying to relay the same thing; for example, sources in anatomy books sometimes mean "pointing toward" or "meeting" when they use the word extends. Again, when I see the same wording or descriptions in different anatomical texts, I consider relaying that in addition to the different wording or different descriptions reporting the same thing. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just Googled her; yes, she is familiar to me, though I have not kept up with her as well as some others. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If I have understood your comment correctly, you are implying that "extends up to ..." is "less accurate" as you put it. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would like User Flyer22 to reflect on the edit summary that she wrote here in which she said; "Snowmanradio, have you not read enough human female sex anatomy texts? Like I stated, in this case, some sources state "uterine cavity" instead of "uterus," but I will go with the latter as more common/clearer. See talk page." Any comments? Reading how many anatomy texts would be enough? Snowman (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "extends up to," I was simply noting the actual wording that I used, which was "extends from." As for my comment that you've cited, I don't see the point. I relayed the following above: Like I stated with this edit, "Some sources state 'from the vulva to the uterus'; other sources state 'from the vulva to the cervix' or 'from the vulva to the uterine cavity.'" Perhaps when sources use the word uterine cavity in this case, it should not be taken so strictly, as to mean exactly extending from the uterine cavity. I did not take it as strictly as you did. Whatever the case, I already agreed above that it is better for this matter to use uterus or cervix. And I did indeed use cervix; the word uterine cavity was in parentheses to cover what other sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not know how to respond to this part of the edit summary; "Snowmanradio, have you not read enough human female sex anatomy texts?". Would you help me to understand your question? Snowman (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to it seeming that you never came across an anatomy book stating "from the vulva to the uterine cavity," or something similar to that, when describing the location of the vagina. And, yes, "extends up to" would be a "less accurate than other descriptions" matter when comparing various anatomy books to other anatomy books. Flyer22 (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that Dr Dutta's book is a gynecology book and it is called Textbook of Gynecology. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your point on the Textbook of Gynecology matter? Do you think that a gynecology textbook is less accurate for female sex anatomy than other anatomy text books? If so, I can't agree with that. Also, from looking over various anatomy books, I have come to the conclusion that some of them define uterine cavity more loosely than others do; the looser cases seem to equate uterine cavity with uterus, as in a general sense, almost like people commonly referring to the vulva as the vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question with regard to the number of books that I have read or not read; I think that it would be an irrelevant number to being able spot text in the article that is "less accurate", misleading, or wrong, because the important thing is to understand the anatomy rather that to read many anatomy books and other textbooks. Of course, reading anatomy books is only one way of getting to understand anatomy. Snowman (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of anatomy, and especially of female anatomy, is not limited to anatomy books and other scholarly books, and certainly not "I read it online." But anatomy books and other scholarly books are what we should be primarily using to source anatomical content on Wikipedia; and like I stated, such sources are not always consistent with their descriptions of anatomy, and this is especially the case for female sex anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

*sigh*

"Axl... did not agree to remove all mention of fertility from the lead; he agreed to remove the fertility sentence that you added, clearly because that sentence, unlike my mention of fertility, was excessive." Technically the first part of the sentence is correct. However the reasoning is not quite right. I do not think that fertility should be mentioned at all in the lead section. I am glad to see that the lead section does not currently mention it.

"And as for mentioning menstruation without mentioning what menstruation is, I won't be agreeing to that, given how much of a significant aspect menstruation is regarding the vagina and vaginal health, and given that the lead should summarize the article." I also think that menstruation should be defined in the lead section. However this is because "menstruation" is a technical term that many readers may be unfamiliar with. (I note that you aren't arguing for the inclusion of formal definitions of "sexual intercourse" and "childbirth".)

"Some sources, such as this DC Dutta's Textbook of Gynecology source (page 4) that I've used lower in the Vagina article, use the word uterine cavity in place of the word uterus when stating where the vagina leads from." Dutta states "The vagina is a fibromusculomembranous sheath communicating the uterine cavity with the exterior at the vulva." It does not imply that "uterine cavity" is a synonym for "uterus". Snowmanradio helpfully linked to "Uterine cavity" which shows that the uterine cavity is distinct/separate from (albeit in direct communication with) the cervical canal. Of course the cervix is part of the uterus, so I am happy with the current text: "In humans, the vagina extends from the vulva to the uterus."

"When sources state that the vagina communicates with the uterine cavity or extends from the vulva to the uterine cavity, I think they mean what this Maternity Nursing - Revised Reprint source (page 27)... states; it states, "The opening between the uterine cavity and the canal that connects the uterine cavity to the vagina (endocervical canal) is the internal os"." Maternity Nursing's statement is certainly accurate. However it is not clear to me that "sources state that the vagina... extends from the vulva to the uterine cavity." Dutta certainly does not state that.

Like Snowmanradio, I am dismayed by the ad hominem attack in this edit summary. (It's obvious to me that Snowmanradio actually knows a lot about this anatomy.) After some digging around, I found that the text changed in the edit was originally added by Flyer22. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Axl, it seems that I have upset and disappointed you. I regret that, especially since you have been supportive of my editing the Vagina article and other medical articles in the past. I also apologize to Snowmanradio for that edit summary; from his editing and interactions at the Cervix article, I figured that he is mostly familiar with anatomy by having read Gray's Anatomy, and perhaps has not expanded his knowledge of anatomical matters much beyond that. The #Genital vs. urogenital section above, where I noted/debated his use of urogenital to describe the vagina, and the scarce interchangeability of genital and urogenital, further gave me that impression. And regarding menstruation being explained in the lead, I figured that it would be Snowmanradio to state "I note that you aren't arguing for the inclusion of formal definitions of 'sexual intercourse' and 'childbirth.'" I think it's obvious why, as also noted by your explanation, that neither of those things need elaboration in the lead.

As for the term uterus vs. uterine cavity, I'll provide another take on that: About two years ago, through anatomy books that I own and especially anatomy books and anatomy journals online, I was heavily researching anatomical terms that are used interchangeably, whether correctly, incorrectly or somewhat misleadingly. I also talked with medical friends of mine about it. It's because of this type of research that I do every couple of years that I knew that it's generally best not to use the term urogenital for the vagina (well, that and because of many people thinking that the human vagina is partly for urination). Regarding this particular research two years ago, however, I wanted a refresher on some of those "correctly, incorrectly or somewhat misleadingly" aspects, more insight on others, and interchangeable matters that I would be best off avoiding. The vaginal and uterine topics were among those. I noticed a few texts stating that the words uterus and uterine cavity are sometimes used interchangeably, as though the uterine cavity is the uterus. One of those sources heavily criticized the usage. A different source, this one, Ultrasound: A Practical Approach to Clinical Problems, 2011, page 501, from Thieme Medical Publishers (which I remember because of its discussion of the terms uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence), notes that the terms uterine rupture and uterine dehiscence are used interchangeably, but also notes that the terms are distinct when one is strictly speaking of them. Another source was a Saunders source, but I can't remember the exact title of it. What I have taken away from such research is that, in some cases, we should relay the different wording/descriptions that sources use for anatomy, so that readers know what is actually meant if they read or heard it somewhere before. Above, for example, I noted that the vagina is described as having three layers in many sources, but as having four layers in many other sources. It therefore seems insufficient to only stick to one of those descriptions. In the case of uterus vs. uterine cavity, I agree that this was a poor choice on my part. I used the following wording: "The human vagina is an elastic muscular canal that extends from the cervix (or uterine cavity) to the vulva." I kept "uterine cavity" in parentheses because I did not consider it a standard description, and, like I noted above, was trying to cover any discrepancy between anatomical sources. I did not interpret "extends from" for "uterine cavity" as strictly as Snowmanradio did, but I should have thought better of using uterine cavity in the way that I did, especially since it is not standard for describing the length of the vagina. Yes, it is better to be as accurate as possible instead of worrying about what less-than-accurate anatomical wording an anatomical source used; if needed, such a matter can be explained in the Vagina article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, thank you for the further explanation. Especially, thank you for apologizing to Snowmanradio for the edit summary. We can move forward and hopefully reach a consensus. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Parous anatomy

The article currently says; "It [the vagina orifice] is closed by the labia minora in female virgins and in females who have never given birth (nulliparae), but may be exposed in females who have given birth (parous females).[13]" I am unclear what exactly being described for parous women in Dr Duttas book, how it arises, and how common it is. Snowman (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Until corroboration or explanation of this this anatomy in parous women is found, I suggest that it this content is removed from the article. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

MedMOS

Re Women's Health on webmd.com This webpage is used a as source in the article. I have been trying to decide if it is compliant to MedMOS or not. Near the bottom there is a paragraph under the heading "From our sponsor" that says that the webmd team have not reviewed the content for accuracy. Hence, I do not see any evidence that the main medical content of this page is peer reviewed and the evidence that I do see appears to say that is is not peer reviewed. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that WebMD is compliant with WP:MEDMOS; it's that it's compliant with WP:MEDRS. I've seen you use "MedMOS" in place of "WP:MEDRS" a few times. WP:MEDRS is the sourcing guideline for medical content. And WebMD passes, and is listed in, the Other sources section of WP:MEDRS as an acceptable medical source to use. But I was planning on replacing it or leaving it in as an adjunct to scholarly sources (once I've added scholarly sources to go along with it, and I did add a scholarly source for the Kegel exercises part to assist it). But, like, I noted in the #Vulvovaginal subarticles section above: With this edit, Mikael Häggström broke out the vast majority of the vaginal infection/disease material and made it into an article called Vaginal disease. So that cut away work that I'd intended to do for the medical section of the Vagina article. I feel that the Diseases section of the Vagina article needs more fleshing out, which is why I made this edit soon afterward Mikael Häggström's splitting of the content (followup edits are here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Snowmanradio has queried WP:Med editors about this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Section organization

The sections on gross anatomy, histology, and embryology need there own dedicated sections (or subsections) to unscramble the disorganization. The heading "Layers, regions and histology" includes too much. Anatomical relations should also have a separate heading. I see many readability problems and ambiguities, which needs a tidy up with a reorganization. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it disorganized to combine the embryonic development material with the general structure material, as is currently done? As shown by the hidden note I left in that section, I combined embryonic development material with the General structure section since the General structure section is otherwise too small; per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."

And layers, regions and histology all go together, as that section shows; it's challenging to talk about one without talking about the other; I see no need for artificial separation of that material, which can cause a disjointed feel. And again, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." I am not keen on very short subsections, when that material can be adequately combined with another section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, look at how the Heart article, which is being worked on and seemingly improved for WP:Good article status, currently has a Membranes, surface features, and layers section; that section is similar to my Layers, regions and histology setup. The difference in this case is that the Heart article has subsections that are hidden from the table of contents, which makes the table of contents easier to read and does not make the article look longer than it actually is. I would be somewhat okay with doing similar for this article, since part of the reason that I don't like subsections for very small content is because it makes the table of contents less easy to read and the article look longer than it actually is. However, I'd still prefer that we don't needlessly break content into subsections. The current setup that I have going is fine, in my opinion, whether we reorganize a bit of that material in the current setup or not. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the Heart article, which is not currently a good article. Incidentally, I doubt that it will be a GA until a considerable number of amendments have been done, which will involve a lot of work over weeks or months. The heart article has the embryology in a dedicated section unlike in the vagina article. Unfortunately, the heart article does not have any micrographs of the heart showing histology nor a histology section. I do not see why the heart article should be considered as an example of how to organize the vagina article. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, not a policy, and, as noted by that guideline, we can have a layout that best suits the article. I pointed to the Heart article as an example of an anatomy layout that is perfectly acceptable, and is similar to the way that I have formatted the Vagina article in one aspect. I did not look to the Heart article for designing the Layers, regions and histology heading and its contents, as the time frames between the two articles should show. And I have no doubt that the Heart article will soon be a WP:Good article, with the editors it has working on it. You can obviously disagree with the way that editors there are formatting that article, as you have disagreed with people's WP:Good article or WP:Featured article work times before, but it will be up to the (hopefully very experienced) WP:Good article reviewer to pass or fail that article. The Heart article currently has its histology material incorporated into its Membranes, surface features, and layers section because that stuff goes hand in hand, similar to what I stated above about the Layers, regions and histology section of the Vagina article. And like WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy makes clear, we can put the histology material where appropriate. The Heart article has the "embryology in a dedicated section" because there is a lot more to state about the development of the heart than there is about the development of the vagina. Furthermore, the Heart article has its development material away from the Structure section; it's much farther down, in a section called Development. I prefer to have embryological material in the Structure section, which is acceptable, per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, and I prefer to have it come before we explain the other anatomical details. In my opinion, for information past the lead, it makes more sense to explain the development of the anatomy before we move into explaining the anatomy in general, and so on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that essence of your comments about my reviewing of articles nominated for GA and FA is inaccurate. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are never, or are rather rarely, satisfied with an article's WP:Good article or WP:Featured article status. Sometimes, you seemingly shoot for WP:Featured article status on an article that is aiming for WP:Good article status, as was noted by others at the Cervix article talk page. It can be fine to always feel that a Wikipedia article needs improvement (I often feel that way), but I disagree with feeling that way to the point that a Wikipedia article can never reach WP:Good article or WP:Featured article status. Not every Wikipedia article is going to be perfect. Partly, because there's always that one person who doesn't find it perfect. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that essence of your comments about my reviewing of articles nominated for GA and FA is inaccurate. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And I don't, per what I stated above; my mind won't be changing on that unless I see that it should be changed on that. Matters like these and others certainly don't inspire me to change my mind on that. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would ask editors to reflect on the histology that is being discussed on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about when it comes to needless division. In what way is it needed to have the reasons for modification divided into subsections? Surgery and female genital mutilation are both genital modifications. And, again, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, female genital mutilation is a clinical significance matter. So, of course, information regarding it belongs in the Clinical significance section. I included the purely medical aspects of surgery and female genital mutilation in the Clinical significance section, and I included the reasons for these matters as a subsection (Reasons for vaginal modification) in the Society and culture section; this is because the reasons are mostly a cultural matter. These things are both medical and cultural matters, and it seems best to me to have them addressed in both the Clinical significance and Society and culture sections, instead of choosing to place all of that material in one section or the other. Flyer22 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Organisation of the "Structure" section

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy. This gives some ideas on how to re-organize the structure section. It shows an overall plan of how to organize it, which is useful. I think that a "Histology" subsection would be helpful. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We've already addressed this in the #Section organization above, where, in part I stated, "WP:MEDMOS is a guideline, not a policy, and, as noted by that guideline, we can have a layout that best suits the article" and "like WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy makes clear, we can put the histology material where appropriate." I find it more appropriate where I've placed it; this is for the reasons I already noted in the Section organization section above. Layers, regions and histology obviously all go together. You have not given me a valid reason for creating a separate Histology subsection. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the headings and organization of the "Structure" section could be improved. At this juncture, I would be grateful if User Flyer22 would reflect on the current organization and look for potential improvements. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I am focused on the current organization and see no need for artificial division. Flyer22 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to engage more opinions, so I have invited participation with a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Applying_WP_Anatomy's_guidelines_on_headings. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw and commented there. But there are already two WP:Anatomy editors other than me watching this talk page, as indicated here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Anatomy main page lists 34 participants. I would say that my invitation on the WP Anatomy talk page is relevant. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And the vast majority of those participants are not as active with anatomy topics as the two editors I pointed to are. Being at that project often, I know that the vast majority of posts there do not attract a significant number of editors. However, I was not suggesting that your aforementioned post is irrelevant. Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Three different layers of cells for the vaginal epithelium

The text for the three different layers of cells for the vaginal epithelium used to state: "The vaginal epithelium consists of three different layers of cells  – superficial cornified cells, intermediate cells and basal cells."

With this edit, Snowmanradio changed "superficial cornified cells" to "superficial flat cells," stating "the link to 'cornified' is wrong because that is a page about keratinised cells. I thin[k] [Dutta] probably meant partially cornified - just put flat cells for now."

In response to that, as seen here, I stated, "Hmm, regarding cornified cells and the vagina, I usually see that discussed with regard to a rat or mouse's vagina." and "Regarding humans, some texts state 'pre-cornified and cornified' for what they mean by 'superficial layers.'"

Snowmanradio followed that up with this edit, where he stated "rather ill defined layers" and changed "different layers of cells" to "three rather arbitrary layers of cells."

Axl or anyone else, do you have any thought on this? It doesn't seem too accurate to me to refer to these layers of cells as arbitrary. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding Snowmanradio's use of the word arbitrary in this case. Also, I'd rather stick to what the WP:Reliable sources state on this matter. As seen with this Google Books search (Vagina cornified), sources are usually focusing on rat or mouse anatomy when they talk about the vagina and use the word cornified. Either that, or they are talking about vaginal cornification occurring in women between the 8th and 12th days of the menstrual period or because of some vaginal disease. By contrast, this Google Books search (Vagina pre-cornified and cornified) shows sources giving better space to humans while also talking about non-human animals. And if you look at this source, currently from page 3 of that search, Physiological Pharmaceutics: Barriers to Drug Absorption, 2000, page 273, CRC Press, it shows a cross section through the vaginal mucosa, stating: Cornified Cell, Precornified Cell, Intermediate Cell, Parabasal Cell, Basal Cell, and Lamina Propria. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is that the piped Wikilink ([[Cornified layer|cornified cells]]) went to Stratum corneum, so it was necessary for me to remove the wikilink (see my edit). Cornified layer has a redirect to a Wiki article about the keratinised layer of the skin, which is inappropriate here. The wiki does not have a link about the a top layer of squamous cells other than Squamous cells, so I replaced the unsuitable Wikilink with this better one. We could go into the ultrastruture of the vaginal epithelium and include the glycogen content, keratin, and intracellular structures at a later stage in the development of this article. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of coarse, the layers of the vaginal epithelium are rather ill defined in histology - look at the layers to see how hard it is to fathom out where one layer begins and another ends. The reliable source that I have added as an inline source in the article to support this is: Kurman, R. J, ed. (2002). Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract (5th ed.). Spinger. p. 154.. In addition note that some articles say that the vaginal epithelium is three layers and some say that it is five layers. The article currently says three layers with references, while the book, Physiological Pharmaceutics: Barriers to Drug Absorption says it has five layers. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's easy to see why Cornified layer currently redirects to the Stratum corneum article; look at its Function section, which addresses cornification. What would be a better redirect for Cornified layer? I currently don't see what would be. And what do you mean by "We could go into the ultrastruture of the vaginal epithelium and include the glycogen content, keratin, and intracellular structures at a later state in the development of this article"? As for the rest, I'm not convinced that we should state "arbitrary" or "ill defined" for the layers of the vaginal epithelium; we are already going to be stating something similar to that for the three or four-layer aspect noted above on the talk page, and I don't feel that we need to go into overkill on these discrepancy matters. But specifically regarding your point about three layers vs. five layers for the vaginal epithelium, I do understand where you are coming from on that. For example, this source, Robboy's Pathology of the Female Reproductive Tract, 2009, page 112, from Elsevier Health Sciences, that I recently added to the section we are discussing (partly for the "number of layers for the vaginal epithelium" aspect), states, "The epithelium consists of a single layer of basal cells, several layers of parabasal cells, and thick intermediate and superficial layers of highly glycogenated cells." But take note that some sources describe the layers as three even while noting the basal and parabasal layers and precornified and cornified layers. For example, putting aside where it states "15-20 layers thick," this source, Clinical Gynecology (4Th Edition), 1998, page 98, from Orient Blackswan, states, "The lining epithelium is 15-20 layers thick and consists of deep (basal and parabasal layers), middle (intermediate) and superficial (precornified and cornified) layers." I'm not sure how WP:Reliable the Orient Blackswan source is, but, to me, its approach seems like the better approach to take in this case; I mean regarding its "deep (basal and parabasal layers), middle (intermediate) and superficial (precornified and cornified) layers" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Normal vaginal epithelium does not have a stratum corneum, so that section on the function of the stratum corneum layer of skin is almost entirely irrelevant here. Incidentally, it seems odd to me that the stratum corneum layer topic has a separate page, because it would fit well on the Epidermis (skin) page (which also contains a description of the stratum corneum of skin). Snowman (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, I would include a minimalistic description of the layers of the vaginal epithelium, because the effect of oestrogen is replaced by progesterone in the second half of the menstrual cycle after ovulation and the appearance of the vaginal epithelium changes cyclically. I may include a more detailed description of the effects of these influences later. Hence, I would simply call the top layer "flat cells", as I have done in one of my edits to the article. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The description of the thick vaginal epithelium that you include above would be typical for the reproductive years of a woman's life, as the time between puberty and menopause as it is sometimes called. It does not matter to me, if this is described in three, five, or uncounted layers, as long as two (or more) descriptions are not included. The article has an illustration of the vaginal epithelium, so almost certainly interested readers will be looking at the picture in parallel with reading the text. When reading histology books, try to picture the tissues in 3D and not worry too much about the style of the presentation. Take your 3D mind map from book to book, not the exact words or style of description. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Since presentation of these cells is more varied than the "three or four layers for the vaginal wall" aspect, we are in agreement not to go into the discrepancy aspects regarding the layers of cells for the vaginal epithelium. I still feel that we should go the "deep (basal and parabasal layers), middle (intermediate) and superficial (precornified and cornified) layers" route. I also think we should specifically address under what circumstance cornification happens. Flyer22 (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, uncounted "basal, parabasal ..." is good in my opinion except I am unsure about the "cornified" bit. The upper layers change with cyclical hormonal changes, so that would need special consideration. I am a little mystified by what cornified cells means at that site, and I would rather not mention my vague hunches in case I am wrong and inadvertently start a long discussion. There might be something in my book that includes electron microscopy photographs, but I can not find it at the present time. I am not commenting on the use of uncounted, three or four layer descriptions that could be used to describe the same vaginal wall here. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did mention above (my "19:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)" post) that some sources, when talking about vaginal cornification, are clear that they are "talking about vaginal cornification occurring in women between the 8th and 12th days of the menstrual period or because of some vaginal disease." Flyer22 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If cornification is transient, then surely this would be included in a paragraph about cyclical changes. It looked to me that it was presented in the opening description of the epithelium and seemed to me to imply that cornification is continuously present throughout the menstrual cycle. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

A recent success on a related topic: Female genital mutilation article

The Wiki "Female genital mutilation" article has recently achieved FA status following its nomination by User:SlimVirgin. I wondered if she might be interested in contributing to the short sections on FGM in this article, so I have left a short message on her talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. And I saw that you contacted her. What does this have to do with section organization, though? There is still the matter that I want the sections a certain way, and you want the sections a certain way. SlimVirgin generally does not edit anatomy articles, and SlimVirgin and I have a difference of opinion when it comes to reference formatting. I prefer to use citation templates; she does not. Flyer22 (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The topic of FGM was being discussed above with regard to section organization; however, I am happy to make this a new section unrelated to section organization, so I have brought SV's invitation to the bottom of the page. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio means this. Also, I added ": Female genital mutilation article" to the heading to make it clearer what this section is about.

As for the material regarding female genital mutilation, what more are you looking for, Snowmanradio? All the Vagina article needs to do on the matter is sufficiently summarize the content...with WP:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical aspects); the Female genital mutilation article is obviously the main article for that material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

My invitation to SV is for assistance in writing a brief summary on the topic of FGM, following her recent success with the Wiki FGM article, which has achieved FA status. User Flyer22's comment to use WP:MEDRS sources for medical content is relevant, but I think that User Flyer22's link to one of my edits (above) refers to an intermediate stage of editing that is irrelevant to this discussion. Of course, the main article on the topic is FGM. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I linked that to make it clearer that this section's contents had been moved. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand more about that link now, so I have struck out my comment about it above. I had already explained that I had brought the discussion to the bottom of the page, nevertheless, I guess that the actual link might be helpful too. I think that User Flyer22's amendment to the title of this section adds clarity. Snowman (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)