Talk:Vagina/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Human-centric

The article lead presents the article as if it were on vaginas in general, when most of it is specifically about human vaginas (except for the bit at the end), which have notable differences from the vaginas of other animals. I think that there should either be clarification from the outset (e.g. with the about tag) that this article focuses on human vaginas, or else develop the article to accommodate for non-human vaginal discussion. --Humorideas (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We need an article solely about vaginas in mammals, as well as one about vaginas in humans. The problem is most people who go to the vagina page, are looking for the human vagina, and this is a high traffic page. So we have a few possible name options:

• 1. This would be the standard convention, but the problem with this combination is people looking for the article on the human vagina will keep being sent to the animal article.
  • Vagina (human): for humans
  • Vagina: for all vaginas
• 2. This would send the majority of users to the page they are looking for, but they would have to be redirected through a redirect, and the names are ugly
  • Vagina (human): for humans
  • Vagina (mammals): for all mammals
  • Vagina: a redirect to Vagina (humans)

There's some more potential ways to go, but you get the drift. I think first a separate article should be made about all vaginas, then content here that is not about human vaginas be moved there, and then we should worry about the naming.OakRunner (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of our articles are human-centric because individuals who read these articles are, as we know, humans (unless one believes that extraterrestrial life is out there studying us) and are usually looking for the human aspects of these topics. Also keep in mind that vaginal anatomy and other topics about the vagina have been studied significantly more in humans than in non-human animals. A lot of topics on Wikipedia that are human-centric are mostly that way because the topic has been studied significantly less in non-human animals. As such, we usually keep the non-human animal material in the same article under the heading In other animals, or, as Humorideas prefers, under In non-human animals. WP:COMMONNAME is also a reason, despite the redirect factor in cases that don't take readers to a disambiguation page. In other cases, it's also because a term refers more to humans than it does to non-human animals.

I'm against splitting this article...until it requires splitting, which may never be the case. Not only should the In non-human animals section be developed before any split is considered, so should the article in general. The only reason that the Human penis article was created, as separate from the Penis article, is because there was just so much human penis material in the Penis article. Yes, the Vagina article has significantly more human material than non-human material. But it's still a relatively small article in general, and, like I stated, it should be developed more (significantly more) before any split is considered.

Also, it wouldn't be best to have an article titled Vagina (mammals) while the other is titled Vagina (human); humans are also mammals. Just having an article titled Vagina to cover mammals in general, while directing readers to the article specifically about human vaginas would suffice. But then again, I'm against a split for the reasons stated above. As for the "About" template, I would prefer that it use "primarily" if, until the In non-human animals section is significantly expanded, we are going to tell readers that this article is about the human vagina. "Primarily" should be included in that case because this article is about non-human animals as well, no matter that it's currently only a little about them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree we are no where near the point of needing a separate article, but I believe if we do get to a point where a split is necessary it would be best just to simply leave this article titled Vagina for humans, and another titled Vagina (mammals) for mammals in general. I don't see an issue with having an article for humans specifically, and one for mammals, since while we are indeed mammals, the mammal article would not need to exclude us, it could(and would likely need to) include information on the human vagina, but it wouldn't be the main focus.OakRunner (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If it were needed, I obviously agree that there wouldn't be a problem with having an article specifically for human vaginas and one for mammal vaginas in general; I was of course speaking of the titles (in reference to the human/mammal wording). But now I better understand your point. And, yes, if a split were done, I'd prefer that the article about human vaginas remain titled Vagina...instead of Human vagina or Vagina (human). Flyer22 (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant to add that I do know that there is precedent for having non-disambiguated titles focus on information about humans, and the disambiguated titles focus on non-human animals, such as with Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals)...and Menstruation and Menstruation (mammal). Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Good to know.OakRunner (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought you knew about this precedent and that that's why you suggested "mammal" as part of a disambiguated title, OakRunner. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just heard of it now from you. On an unrelated note, it would be great if we could get this to featured article status as it is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia.OakRunner (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting it to WP:GA status would need to happen first. That is, I'm not familiar with any article that skipped the WP:GA process to go right to WP:FA. I know what it would take to get this article to GA status, but it may be months before I'd start undertaking such a task. There is a lot that this article should cover. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 December 2012

Footnot[7], greys anatomy isnt a reference Hollypov123 (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

While the footnote ideally would include a page number and edition information, Gray's Anatomy is among the most reliable of references. Rivertorch (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sideways Pictures

Why are all the pictures sideways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.225.222 (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Guinness record?

I want to print about The Guinness Record on this topic. I mean Tatuana Kozhevnikova - the strongest vagina in the world (14 kg). What do you think about? Or creat new article? Night Rain 5 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Lol. But no. We got rid of trivia sections a long time ago. It's better this way because if you're unable to incorporate it into the article, then it doesn't belong into the article. Anything notable could have a page of its own and, a world record like that hardly seems notable. Monkeytheboy (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Human vaginal size

FYI, it is proposed that content from Human vaginal size be merged into this article. Zad68 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: The discussion is taking place at Talk:Human vaginal size, and it's the result of this discussion at WP:MED. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bald Vagina?

Good day fellow wiki people. Ive noticed the vagina in the picture is bald. This is not a natural as vaginas do have some hair, unless of course, they've been waxed.

good day sirs 207.194.133.9 (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC) ‎

Strictly speaking, the vagina is hairless. You are thinking of the vulva. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No actually, the entire vagina is not always hairless. --I find it misleading and wrong that the only picture of a vagina on this page is one that has had a full removal of all pubic hair. One the human penis wiki page, the male genitalia displays pubic hair - why should the female's be made to look pre-pubecent? I understand the value of anatomical labeling not being impaired, but I don't believe it would be difficult to find a neatly trimmed vagina that would lend itself to medical understanding without the full removal of all hair. -- 14:01, 10 January 2014‎ User:Sashasweety

I agree that the picture is misleading and going to Commons I was also surprised not to see any other image of the vagina other than hairless!Edmund Patrick – confer 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Genital

'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina.'

This is the first occurrence in the article of the word 'genital' which needs to be wikilinked thus: 'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina'. 121.222.35.118 (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Genital redirects to sex organ, which is linked earlier in the paragraph. I'm not sure what the best practice is in cases like this. Rivertorch (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since "genital" is a redirect and the two terms commonly mean the same thing, with the term genital referring to the external reproductive organs a bit more than the term sex organ does, we should simply do what WP:OVERLINKING advises -- only link it once unless it's clearly helpful to link it twice. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

True. My thought was that it might be helpful to link it because some readers may not be familiar with the word. Your call. Rivertorch (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would wager that it's rare that a reader would not be familiar with the term genital, but I wouldn't mind the term being linked once past the lead (WP:OVERLINKING is also okay with that). Flyer22 (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hair

the vagina illustrated, has no hair on it. This is not therefore biologically correct. Shaving vaginas has become normal due to the pornification of culture. It would be great to see a biologically normal vagina for an adult woman depicted on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.60.31 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look further up on this talk page, you'll see that your concern has been addressed already. I wonder whether you think shaved heads or even haircuts also aren't "biologically correct". Perhaps men should let their beards grow till they're long enough to trip over, and certain postmenopausal women with significant facial hair growth should leave it in place out of respect for biological correctness. Incidentally, you're making the same mistake in terminology as the other party who posted. A truly hairy vagina would be quite unusual, I suspect. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious you are very proud of your snarky self, but "unsigned post" correctly remarks that unless this genital region is supposed to be a child's, or unless it is identified as not normal adult genitalia, or unless this is a porn site, it needs hair. I'm sure if a "head" page had only photos of bald people there would some counterbalance. Maybe Wikipedia should be edited by someone other than 14 year old boys, or the man-boys they have become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acham (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Article reviewed in media

"Wikipedia's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present" by Ben Blatt, Slate Jan. 8 2014. Scroll down to Naomi Wolf comments... -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, AnonMoos; I finished reading that media article some minutes after you posted it. I wish that I had already significantly fixed up this article, something I've been planning to do for some time now, as currently mentioned on my user page. But I'm getting to it, and this media review is a motivator. As for sexual pleasure, Naomi Wolf is right about the lead. It's more important that the rest of the article be taken care of first, though. And while there is certainly more that can be added to the Sexual activity section, I'm not sure what she is looking for with regard to expanding on such information. What is currently there is accurate and is repeated in various reliable sources. Reliable, non-popular culture sources these days don't present the vagina as a sex organ that is wildly pleasurable to all women, but rather as a sex organ that is pleasurable (quite pleasurable in certain cases) to some women and more so because of the emotional attachment; this is because the lack of nerve endings in the vagina is often acknowledged in reliable, non-popular culture sources these days, often in conjunction with information about the general inability for women to reach orgasm via vaginal stimulation (meaning without sufficient clitoral stimulation). As for the image, yes, see what is currently stated above on this talk page about that (if you haven't already) and this removed observation/threat by an IP; some people think that it's a prepubescent child porn image (I don't because, with regard to that image, I see what clearly appears to be skin that used to contain hair and what looks like razor bumps areas). As for the lack of vagina images, that is a matter of selecting good vagina images from WP:Commons (by "good," I mean the quality of the image and images focusing on the vagina instead of on all of the female genitalia and buttocks); once that is done, they can go in an Additional images section, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy. There used to be an Additional images section in this article; I'm not sure how it got removed. Either way, I hope that this media review does not bring unwanted attention (unnecessary drama) to this article; I so hoped to vastly improve it in peace. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I haven't yet read Wolf's book on the vagina, but judging by the criticism it has received (whether mostly from feminists or not), and that she is not an anatomist, sexologist or sex educator, I won't be putting much stock into her views with regard to the vagina. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help, but my only real interest or expertise in this area is some knowledge concerning vulva symbols (sometimes mistakenly called "vagina symbols", but in most cases really vulva symbols), which I doubt belong on this article at all... AnonMoos (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

About the images aspect again, just in case anyone thinks that I am stating that every additional image should be placed in the Additional images section, I'm not. The Additional images section should not be overpopulated anyway, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy. Of course there should be more than one image (including diagrams) of the vagina higher in the article (meaning not just in the Additional images body of the article). Once this article is significantly expanded in size, there will also be more room to do so without WP:Sandwiching images. However, we should look for images that clearly display the variation of the vagina; redundancy should be avoided. It's easier to display the variation of the penis, but the vagina is often obscured by the labia, which is why there are some images, like the current (and debated) lead image, where the vagina is being manually spread for view. Variation is more likely to be seen by the labia minora ("vaginal lips") in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Phallocentric description of female genitalia

The way this article is written suggests that the vagina exists in order to accommodate the penis. That's not biologically accurate, since the penis didn't exist first and facilitate the evolution of the vagina. It is also not accurate to most women's experience of their own bodies or sexual activities other than sexual intercourse with a man. Here is the part I find most problematic in this regard: "The vagina's inner mould has a foldy texture which can create friction for the penis during sexual intercourse. During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to facilitate the entrance of the penis." 173.228.80.252 (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, 173.228.80.252. I'd already been thinking of changing the "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to facilitate the entrance of the penis" part to "During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to reduce friction during sexual activity" (or, more accurately, during vaginal penetration), similar to what is stated in the Sexual activity section of the article. And the reason I was thinking of changing that, and have now changed it, is because I know that the previous line can be considered heteronormative. But as for "can create friction for the penis," that or something very similar to it should most certainly remain. And regarding either line, biologically-wise, and this is supported by various WP:Reliable sources, the vagina does lubricate during sexual arousal to facilitate the entrance of the penis. In the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources with regard to vaginal lubrication and sexual arousal, this is discussed, and I mean with regard to more than just humans. This article is not solely about humans. The sex organs are always trying to reproduce during sexual arousal and further sexual stimulation during that state, and the vagina lubricating during sexual arousal is just one aspect of that. This is no time to be politically correct in that regard and leave out a key aspect of the reason for vaginal lubrication from the lead. And notice that the word can instead of the word is for that part, which helps consider the fact that women may sexually please themselves via the vagina or that a woman may sexually please another woman via the vagina.

Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cesiumfrog, see what I stated above in this section. We should refrain from WP:Activism in this regard. I don't see how your change, which I reverted, is an improvement? Your version states "The vagina has a folded texture.", without being accurate on that matter or elaborating on that aspect. Your version does not sufficiently explain why vaginal lubrication exists, and only focuses on "entrance of the penis" with regard to vaginal lubrication. My change to the vaginal lubrication aspect broadened it to sexual penetration of the vagina in general, but put its attention on the penis when it comes to the inner mould/help enable ejaculation and fertilization aspect.

I can invite WP:Anatomy and WP:MED editors to this discussion if more opinions in this topic area are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And regarding what you stated here about it being "phallocentric" to attribute vaginal lubrication, or rather texture of the vagina, to friction, I obviously disagree. I go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, not by an editor's theory or WP:Fringe theory over a widely accepted matter among anatomists and scholars. Of course the texture of the vagina is not only about friction; the lead does not state that is. I will leave that cn tag you added for the time being, even though that aspect is sourced lower in the article, and, per WP:CITELEAD, it does not necessarily need to be sourced in the lead as well. But I will eventually remove it, if someone else does not beat me to that removal first. I will not have WP:Activism get in the way of my editing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

G-spot

I was wondering if we can paraphrase and use Barbara Keesling's statement from here in this article.—Khabboos (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos, my answer is no. That source is about something Barbara Keesling is calling the Cul-de-Sac; it seems that she is referring to the recto-uterine pouch. She is claiming that the "Cul-de-Sac" is orgasmic, and, judging by the title of her book, that it's "the ultimate pleasure spot" for women. It's just more misinformation for women (and for men) that she's sending out. The G-spot isn't even scientifically proven and is still highly debated by scientists. And now we have Keesling, in an Esquire source from 2009, essentially claiming a new G-spot? No, such unscientific claims about female sexuality are better left out of the Vagina article. In the article, we already mention the G-spot and the debate about that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22!—Khabboos (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Esquire article seems to be rather tongue-in-cheek – lighthearted and certainly not a suitably reliable source. (Actually the article indicates that the "cul-de-sac" is the [posterior] fornix, not the recto-uterine pouch. I am aware that other sources may indicate otherwise.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that vaginal fornix bit about the article, Axl. But it seemed to me the vaginal fornix bit was the author of the article's wording. And since the recto-uterine pouch is sometimes referred to as the cul-de-sac, I figured that Keesling must be referring to the recto-uterine pouch. For example, our Recto-uterine pouch and Vaginal fornix articles differentiate between the vaginal fornix and the cul-de-sac. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Optical illusion

Do any of you notice this optical illusion:

Facing my computer but looking at it from below my eyes, the vagina picture looks like the face of an ugly baby. The vaginal opening is the baby's mouth and the clitoris is the baby's nose. (I really don't know what to say is the baby's eyes.) Try this illusion yourself. (To make sure you're doing the right thing, scroll the article so that the vagina image is at the lower right corner of your computer screen and you're directly facing the upper right corner.) I'm very sorry to bring up something that might seem offensive, but it's just an interesting illusion. Georgia guy (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Images

Why do the articles on both vagina and vulva have pictures of women's genitals yet the article on penis is full of animal pictures? Motion to have a different mammalian vagina as the main picture. 80.43.91.138 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I mean, the whole article is mainly focussed on humans, whereas the penis article is all about different animals. Why is this? Why the human focus when so many species have vaginas?80.43.91.138 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic was discussed at this talk page before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric. The Vagina article is mostly about humans because humans are the WP:Primary topic for this subject, and because the vagina is not well studied in other animals; in other words, there is not a lot to state about vaginas in other animals. The same applies to the vulva, and the clitoris (which is a part of the vulva), though there is significantly more to state about the clitoris than the rest of the vulva or vagina in other animals. By extension, there are not as many images of the clitoris, vulva as a whole or vagina in other animals as there are images of the penis in other animals. Because of these reasons, this article follows the WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy format of having an "Other animals" section in an article that is primarily about humans.

On a side note: I moved your comment down, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I also changed your section title from "Image" to "Images" because this discussion is not about one image. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Archives 5

This section of the Archives is listed in the info-box above, but not in the smaller box below it with the filing cabinet drawing. (Sorry, I haven't read about wrangling archive listings.) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that; it clearly needs fixing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. This page is archived manually. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Vulvovaginal subarticles

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. I see the validity in that, but, per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. I don't think that it was necessary to break that material into its own article. I'm not too opposed to its existence, but I do want to point out that with the Vulva disease and Vaginal disease articles existing, there is not much left to cover in the Vulvovaginal health article, and I really don't see the Vulva disease article as being needed; that bit of material can more than adequately be covered at the Vulva article.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Genital vs. urogenital

As can be seen with this and this edit, Snowmanradio emphasized "urogenital" over "genital" in the lead. There are two reasons that I don't think that this is a good idea. The first reason is because it is not often that the vagina is referred to as urogenital; when it is referred to as that, at least in my experience, it is usually in the context of vaginal abnormalities regarding the urogenital sinus. See, for example, what this laysource states. Of course it's not the best medical source to use, but I'm using it as the laysource that it is for this point: It states, "The urethra and vagina are separate anatomical entities in normal females. But in rare instances, they are joined in what urologists call a urogenital sinus anomaly... ...A urogenital sinus anomaly is a defect present at birth in which the vagina and urethra open into a common channel, rather than separately. There are two general types of urogenital sinus anomalies. In a low confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is short, the urethral opening is close to its normal location and the vagina is almost normal in length. In a high confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is long, the urethral opening is internal and the vagina is quite short. This type is sometimes associated with an anus that is located too far forward."

And this scholarly book source (Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012, page 423), which I will soon use for the embryonic development material of the Vagina article, states: "The debate which continues concerns that portion of the vagina formed from the Müllerian ducts and that from the urogenital sinus by the growth of the sinovaginal bulb. Some believe that the upper four-fifths of the vagina is formed by the Müllerian duct and the lower fifth by the urogenital sinus, while others believe that sinus upgrowth extends to the cervix displacing the Müllerian component completely and the vagina is thus derived wholly from the endoderm of the urogenital sinus. It seems certain that some of the vagina is derived from the urogenital sinus, but it has not been determined whether or not the Müllerian component is involved."

The other reason that I don't think that we should use "urogenital" for the lead or lower in the article is because far too many people, especially boys and men, think that human females urinate out of the vagina. Google it, and you will see that it's true if you don't believe me. This has been true for some of our male Wikipedians or their relatives as well, as seen at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo and Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Consensus about the picture; take a look at the comments by David Shankbone at 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC), 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) and at 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) in that first discussion, for example. Calling the vagina "urogenital" only further confuses people and makes the ones clueless as to how human females urinate think that human females urinate out of their vaginas. As noted by the laysource above, the vagina and urethra usually do not open into a common channel. So unless we explain that in the lead, I will remain against referring to the vagina as urogenital in the Vagina article. Simply calling the penis and vagina "genital" is enough anyway.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Urogenital is incorrect. Support revert. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Prior to my edits, lead implied that the external urethral orifice in the female is a genital orifice, which is incorrect. The adjective urogenital is useful. Note that the dictionary definition in the Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary of urogenital is the organs and tissues related to both excretion and reproduction, which are anatomically closely related. I am aware of the controversy over the embryological origin of the lower third of the vagina, and I think that the word urogenital as an adjective does not imply a direct relation to the urogenital sinus. I have amended the article and removed one iteration of the word urogenital and kept the other in. I have made other amendments to improve the paragraph with the comments above in mind, so there is no need to revert it. Of course, it may be possible to make further improvements to the paragraph. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, CFCF.

Snowmanradio, this edit you made is better and makes clear the urination matter. So I appreciate you tweaking that sentence. I know that the term urogenital, like our Wikipedia article on it states, can simply indicate "close proximity"; but I objected to referring to the vagina as urogenital per what I stated above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is still much too complex for the average reader and needs to be simplified. We need to lose as much medical jargon as possible in the lead. Urogenital is an example of a word that really adds nothing that can't be said with plainer language. I suggest that we lose it altogether from the lead. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I obviously don't mind getting rid of "urogenital," and, because I've seen Snowmanradio edit the Cervix article and that there were sometimes concerns about him being too technical there, I was tempted to remind him to keep the language simple at this article. However, though we should adhere to WP:Technical (which is a guideline, not an essay), I am against dumbing down the language to the point where it is like we are on Simple English Wikipedia. I don't think that we should be replacing anatomical terms simply for the sake of making sure that people know what we mean. We have WP:Wikilinks and parentheses at our disposal to help readers better understand what we mean. User:LT910001/sandbox/Simplifying anatomical terminology can also help. Looking at the current lead, I can't see what you think is too complex; and I don't think that just because I'm familiar with those anatomical terms. But since we are already discussing the lead at #Cultural in lede below, I feel that we should keep discussion of the overall lead in one section. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles have a broad audience from young students, the general population, English as second language readers, PhD students, and professionals. With care we can reach all of these readers at their reading level and level of interest. The idea is to write the start of the article in plain language with the first few sentences being a very simple definition. This makes it clear that the reader is at the correct article and gives them a quick overview of the topic. The next few paragraphs are a plain language overview/introduction of the article content that is accessible to average reader. Later in the article more complex topics and more technical language may be appropriate. But there is no reason to use more complex language when simpler language says the same thing.

It is challenging to explain the concepts to someone with a limited medical or technical vocabulary, or a lower level of comprehension. But can be fun and rewarding, too. I'm fine discussing it in one location. Maybe we should open a new section where we can write an overview/introduction in plain language. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Using plain English is one thing; dumbing down aspects to the point of making them a Simple English Wikipedia matter is another; and, as stated above, I am firmly against the latter. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia; nor should it be. We should only forgo anatomical terms when needed. The Cervix article is a WP:Good article; it uses language in the lead that I think should be used in the lead of that article, and I don't see the language that is currently in the Vagina article's lead as any more complex than what is currently in the lead of the Cervix article. In fact, from what I see, the current lead of the Vagina article uses less technical language than the Cervix article uses for its lead. All that stated, I am open to what lead wording you might propose for the Vagina article and am fine with you starting a new discussion section with your proposal(s) there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a large number of Wikipedia science and health articles are not accessible to the average reader. I put the introduction of this article in a tool that checks the reading level and it came back as a college reading level text. This puts the material well outside the level of comprehension of the vast majority of readers in the world.

It's more work but in the end we can do so much more with the content if it is written for a broad audience. For example, by always using plain language in the overview, and when it makes sense lower in the article, it makes it much easier to translate the article into other languages that do not have scientific/technical words that are equivalent to the English term. Flyer22, I hope to persuade you of the goodness of writing for the broad audience of readers. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the broader audience in mind when I write Wikipedia articles, usually anyway. If the reading level for this article is as high as you estimate (I don't see that, since what is currently in the lead is found in just about any middle school or high school anatomy book), that is the difference between the English Wikipedia and the Simple English Wikipedia. If readers want a simple Vagina article, they can go to the latter one. The writing in the lead at that latter one is not how I think that the English Wikipedia article on the Vagina should be. Furthermore, some technical words cannot be replaced by everyday words, and I don't think that we should try in those cases. If your proposal is significantly like what I see in the lead of the Vagina article at the Simple English Wikipedia, you won't win me over. You can try, though. And I am open to seeing you try. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

To start off, urogenital may in a dictionary say that, but its common usage is of organs relating to the urinary tracts, something which the vagina does not. The vagina is very seldom going to be referred to as urogenital, and isn't so clinically.

Second, I read the lede of this article, and it's exceedingly technical. I think what has been done is we've tried to cram as much information into the lede as possible, resulting in less than stellar readability. I really think we should strive towards high readability of the lede. Either the lede should be longer and simpler, or should be shortened substantially. I'm very happy with the way the lede of Heart has turned out, and it scores just out of reach of a 13-15 year olds readability on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, which is decent.

For some inspiration of how to simplify the Vagina article, this is from CNX Anatomy & Physiology (CC-BY) (some edits), and might give an idea of how it could be simplified.

The vagina is a muscular canal (approximately 10 cm long) that serves as the entrance to the reproductive tract. It also serves as the exit from the uterus during menstruation and childbirth. The outer walls of the anterior and posterior vagina are formed into longitudinal columns, or ridges, and the superior portion of the vagina—called the fornix—meets the protruding uterine cervix. The walls of the vagina are lined with an outer, fibrous adventitia; a middle layer of smooth muscle; and an inner mucous membrane with transverse folds called rugae. Together, the middle and inner layers allow the expansion of the vagina to accommodate intercourse and childbirth. The thin, perforated hymen can partially surround the opening to the vaginal orifice. The hymen can be ruptured with strenuous physical exercise, penile–vaginal intercourse, and childbirth. The Bartholin’s glands and the lesser vestibular glands (located near the clitoris) secrete mucus, which keeps the vestibular area moist.

The vagina is home to a normal population of microorganisms that help to protect against infection by pathogenic bacteria, yeast, or other organisms that can enter the vagina. In a healthy woman, the most predominant type of vaginal bacteria is from the genus Lactobacillus. This family of beneficial bacterial flora secretes lactic acid, and thus protects the vagina by maintaining an acidic pH (below 4.5). Potential pathogens are less likely to survive in these acidic conditions. Lactic acid, in combination with other vaginal secretions, makes the vagina a self-cleansing organ. However, douching—or washing out the vagina with fluid—can disrupt the normal balance of healthy microorganisms, and actually increase a woman’s risk for infections and irritation. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that women do not douche, and that they allow the vagina to maintain its normal healthy population of protective microbial flora.

While this only scores 31 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, it is an improvement over 27 (current lede), and there is more that can be improved. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CFCF. I think that you know I agree about "urogenital." And your input on the lead is a help as well. I don't think that the current lead is too big, though. We definitely need to make sure we summarize the article as a whole. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo

Im a little concerned about the photo...It looks like a childs or teems vagina....I would prefer to see a womans...my vagina hasnt looked like that since I was about 13.... Lady Ez (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hello, Lady Ez (talk · contribs). This has been brought up times before; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5. From what I can tell, the image is of a shaved vulva. Look at the image close-up: File:Vaginal opening - english description.jpg. There are razor bumps or pores that indicate that substantial hair was once on that vulva, which means that the vulva is not prepubescent. I assume it's an adult vulva rather than a teenage vulva. In any case, it's the best image of a vagina (rather of the vaginal opening in its normal state) that Wikipedia has. By that, I mean, an image clearly showing the vagina, without the vaginal opening being concealed by the vulva or artificially spread (meaning fingers stretching the opening). The fingers in the picture are merely stretching areas of the vulva to show the vaginal opening.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant "teen?" Nonetheless, the photo is a good one, "good" that it effectively illustrates the detail needed for the article. In other words, with tons of hair down there, it's hard to label it. If it's hard to label, it's hard to explain. If it's hard to explain, men might not understand all of it. Wait...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read with amusement some of the archived threads about the so-called "pornographic" nature of photographs of the female anatomy. Defending the article's photograph must be exhausting at times. Perhaps this image will be a little less contentious and more of a compromise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelvic_examination#mediaviewer/File:Skenes_gland.jpg

• The photo is very clear.
• The labels are nearly the same as the one in current use.
• This difference is that this photo includes a gloved hand, encouraging the idea that this is part of a bona fide medical exam and not a random image uploaded by the...gasp!...randy. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, as you may know, we use that image as the lead image for the Skene's gland and Bartholin's gland articles. I wouldn't mind using it as the lead image for this article as well, though doing so would add a redundancy factor considering that it is the lead image at those other articles. However, people will still complain about showing a real-life image of the vagina, and, in some cases, a drawn or other non-real-life image of the vagina, even if less complaints result from the use of the image you have proposed above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you like the image, I don't see how using it in other articles signifies. If it fits here, it fits. For those people who want a photographic image of an actual vagina showing the tubular structure, the only way that's going to happen is if someone uploads a photo of a sagittal section of a female cadaver. That would add another layer of headache! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wordreader, the image is okay. I feel indifferent to any of the image choices for a lead image of the Vagina article...unless they only show the vulva and not the vagina or unless they show the vagina in some stretched state instead of a relaxed state. As for redundancy, I'm not big on redundancy (even when I'm being redundant). I don't like it when we are demonstrating a structure with a lead image and then point to a different article for people to learn about a different structure...but what we are pointing to has the same lead image. If you want to change the lead image to your above proposed image, go ahead and do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the current image is clearer. the proposed image stretches the skin far beyond normal appearance.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to these two images of the vagina, they look pretty much the same. And both stretch the vulva a bit. I noted on my talk page that since Wordreader's proposal will undoubtedly help decrease the complaints about that vagina image being a prepubescent child's vagina, or what Naomi Wolf considers to be abnormal, as noted in this discussion, or the vulva of a porn star, changing the lead image to his suggestion would help. But again, I don't care too much about which image is used. Flyer22 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I had not realised that there is a discussion about the images in the infobox. I think that it would be better to replace a vulva image in the infobox with a lateral diagram of the structures, because it shows the internal anatomy better and goes well with the AP image above. This one would be suitable - File:Female_reproductive_system_lateral_nolabel.png. A vulva image would be better placed in the section "Vaginal opening and hymen". Snowman (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here because, given the misinformation and misconceptions about the vagina, and that it is such a big factor in both female and male sexuality, I think that we should show an actual vagina for the lead image or at least Wordreader's proposed image, so that readers see exactly what it looks like upfront. Sure, the two initial proposed images above show the vaginal opening rather than the vagina as a whole, but showing more of a real-life vagina (or an image that looks like it's a real-life vagina) would require stretching the vagina open, almost as though in an act of fisting (and we certainly shouldn't show the vagina in that unnatural state as the lead image), or it would require a scope/instrument looking into the vagina (which also is not ideal for a lead image). And the lead image is already accompanied by a diagram anyway. I also don't like your proposed image because it includes the much debated/disputed G-spot. Yes, I know that it's an image used elsewhere on Wikipedia, such as at the Cervix article, but I think that using that image can be highly irresponsible since it is presenting the G-spot as some valid entity, when, in reality, it is not valid to the vast majority of researchers (at least as far as categorizing it as some distinct entity that exists at the very spot that the diagram shows it to be at for every human female). Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are similar diagrams that do not include the G-spot in the labeling; such as File:Blausen_0400_FemaleReproSystem_02.png, which would make a very good infobox image. I think that medical illustrations that showed the anatomical relations of the vagina would be more informative for the infobox than an AP view of the vulva. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Diagrams without the G-spot would certainly be better. But I still think that we should use one of the aforementioned images of the vaginal opening as the lead image, whether we use the current diagram with that or a diagram you have proposed with that (minus the G-spot). I have alerted WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Important as the vaginal orifice may be, the vulval photographs actually show a tiny portion of the vagina and so to me a vulval photograph is not a good choice for the infobox. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think that it's important to show a real-life aspect of the vagina for the lead image, so I still prefer either the current lead image of the vaginal opening or Wordreader's proposed image of the vaginal opening. Wordreader's proposed image doesn't show as much of the vulva as the current lead image, and (per above) is less controversial than the current lead image, so it is probably best to go along with that one. Again, I don't mind much which accompanying diagram image we use to go along with that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If a photograph of the vulva is to be shown in the infox, I think it should be properly captioned with the age of the subject. The current photo shown could have an explanatory note on the absence of pubic hairs and any other relevant details to help readers. Nevertheless, as I have stated above, I think that the infobox photograph should be replaced with an anatomical illustration that shows the anatomical relations of the vagina. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If the age is provided on the image's description, then, sure, note the age. But for the current lead image that is up there now, an image that is certainly the vulva of someone who is nowhere close to prepubescent (per what I've stated above in this section), the age is not provided. So no age will get mentioned as long as that image is the lead image. And as for the other image, like I already stated, Wordreader's proposed image doesn't show as much of the vulva; no age is mentioned there either. No age is provided for the vast majority of anatomical images on Wikipedia. There are currently two lead images in the Vagina article (a photograph and a diagram), and I don't see why one of the lead images in the Vagina article should not be a real-life, or seemingly real-life, image of the vaginal opening. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Cultural in lede

Hi,

I took the cultural language out of the lede because it didn't seem to have enough background to be more than random comments. It is not as much that it lacks references as it seems really to lack context that could come by reading the references. Maybe a better wording of a cultural summary would work but it reads really odd to me now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Current wording: Cultural perceptions of the vagina have persisted throughout history; these perceptions range from viewing the vagina as the focus of sexual desire, a metaphor for life via birth, an organ inferior to the penis, or as visually unappealing or otherwise vulgar. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, FloNight. As you know, I reverted you. When I added that wording, it was as part of a huge expansion to the article back in June of this year. Like I stated in this followup edit to that addition, "Of course...focusing on the article body before the article lead can be more important, since it can tell an editor how to format the lead, but this article expansion has given me a decent or OK-ish outline for the lead." So it was more of an outline matter for that portion of the lead, noting that the lead needs to mention the society and culture aspects of the vagina; I think that these aspects should be the final paragraph. I know that my wording on that is not the best, and I was certainly going to get back to working on that part of the lead after taking care of the rest of the article first. I'm fine with you or someone else creating a better summary for that material, but I do think that all of those points I included should be in the summary. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Thank you for the work that you are doing to improve the article. I would appreciate working together to get the lede in tip top shape so that it is something that could be used used as a standalone piece. Think of it being used for background information or an introduction for a topic related to the vagina, or something that would be good for translation. More later. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And, yes, per WP:Lead, I understand what you mean. I still believe that it's usually best to have an article in top shape before worrying about having that article's lead in top shape. This is because, like I noted above, the body of the article lets us know how the lead is best formatted. Then again, since what will be in the Vagina article is pretty much what is there now, except for the tweaks and expansions that will follow, working on the lead now would not be significantly different than working on it later. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, for the most part the introduction has some jumpy grammar and it seems amateurish to me. I think that use use of the word urogenial is appropriate, but if someone would like to rewrite it without that word then I would not worry about it too much. I think that many improvements could be made. Nothing scientific in the introduction is controversial, so I think that the in-line references could be removed into the main body of the article, and this would make re-writing the introduction easier. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

For those wanting to know what Snowmanradio means by "urogenital," see the #Genital vs. urogenital section above, where I and others have disagreed with his decision to use "urogenital." As for references in the lead, WP:MOSMED, which the guideline for formatting anatomy articles is a part of, is currently having a debate about whether or not to include references in the lead; the WP:Consensus there so far is to include references in the lead of medical articles. Anatomy is surely an aspect of the medical field. And the cultural aspects currently in the lead of the Vagina article clearly need referencing, no matter how they are formatted; if they did not, FloNight would not have removed them as unreferenced, especially since FloNight took part in the aforementioned WP:MOSMED references discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Although not an absolute requirement by MOSMED, using references in the lead of health related articles is all kinds of goodness. :-) The content is much more useful as a standalone overview if it is referenced. Plus in general, it is much easier to keep track of references if they are cited in close proximity to the content. (For everything from sorting out copyright violations to keeping content updated from the most current version of a reference.) So, I strongly encourage the use of references in health related articles that are being re-written to get them in tip top shape. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)