This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago33 comments9 people in discussion
With this edit, Bfpage removed File:Genital Diversity.jpg as the lead image and replaced it with File:Pubic hair - Vulva unshaved.jpg, stating, "Med MOS guidelines encourage the use of one photo; shaved vulvas increase the risk of infection." With this edit (followup edit here), I reverted, stating, "Restored previous lead image. This was there after various disputes about what the lead image should be. These four images show the diversity of the vulva and make it so that people are less likely to edit war over the lead image."
Opinions? And maybe Bfpage doesn't mind pointing to what part of WP:MEDMOS encourages the use of one photo for the lead? Either way, File:Genital Diversity.jpg is one image. It's a combination of photos, sure, but it's still one image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unnshaven vulvas increase the risk of sexually transmitted infection, it is better to not illustrate an unshaven vulva since it is not typical anyway. The 'four images' are not of the entire vulva and do not represent the entire vulvar area. The newly inserted photo is more encyclopedic since it shows more vulvar structures. There is no section on genetic diversity and so the photo is not supported by medical content within the article. Best Regards,
..from MED MOS: "Full instructions are available on the page for each infobox. A suitable picture for the infobox is encouraged." A collage of four images probably is not what is meant by this guideline. Why not six or eight. I like the guideline since it standardizes infobox images. Best Regards,
As seen here, you reverted first, before making a case here, stating, "unshaven vulvas increase the risk of sexually transmitted infection; the 'four images' are not of the entire vulva and do not represent the entire vulvar area.; the newly inserted photo is more encyclopedic since it shows more vulvar structures." The "shaven vulva" argument is not a valid argument for removing the image. The fact of the matter is that more can be seen with it comes to the shaved vulva, and that many women have a shaved vulva. Representing that in the lead is diversity. Stating "it is better to not illustrate an unshaven vulva since it is not typical anyway" is a personal opinion. Are you willing to supply sources for that argument? Prioritizing an unshaved over a shaved vulva is a personal opinion. So is the claim that "the newly inserted photo is more encyclopedic." As for it showing "more vulvar structures," how so? I also do not see WP:MEDMOS discouraging a collage as a lead image. And as for there being no "section on genetic diversity," there actually is; it's the section you currently have titled "Blood supply", which is not an accurate heading for everything in that section. Furthermore, vulva diversity is not simply about genetic diversity. Before you significantly changed the article, the section looked like this and this section also showed vulva diversity. IdreamofJeanie thanked me for reverting you. So I'm not the only one who disagrees with your image change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I must agree with flyer, the diversity picture not only illustrates the degree of natural variation, but the inclusion of shaven vuvlas more clearly depicts the structures present. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
...regarding pubic shaving, Psychology Today indicates that it is a minority practice. ...regarding the 'more clearly depict[ing] the structures present' in the collage, these are the structures missing but appear in the photo I inserted: clitoral glans, the vaginal orifice, the vulval vestibule, the pudendal cleft. the frenulum labiorum pudendi, and the perineum. What is the issue? A more encyclopedic image or one showing diversity. Isn't diversity in anatomical structures like saying the sky is blue? Is it not a given that there is diversity. There is another photo of diversity in the article further down. Does the article need two 'collages' of vulvar diversity? Best Regards.
...as for the section that appears after "Blood supply"; that content was in the article before I began my editing binge and I don't know where it came from. It is unreferenced and I am still looking for sources to support the content and have not located sources for that section yet. Are you able to help out with the article and find references that are missing? That would be so helpful and help make the article better. I could also use some assistance with refining the wikilinks because I know that I got some wrong. If we worked together, the article could probably be improved in a short time. Thanks for at least pointing out some of the errors. Best Regards,
Yes, the collages are perfectly encyclopedic. Arbitrarily labeling this one image as "more encyclopedic" seems kind silly, at best, and regardless of how common or uncommon the shaving practice is, this is not something where common sense ("blue sky") issues can be taken for granted, as has already been discussed here previously. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
When you're talking about basic anatomy, then images showing "natural" body parts (that is, body parts unaffected by cultural practices such as shaving, piercing, or tattooing) are more "encyclopedic" in the sense that they are more broadly applicable to all cultures and all points in history. It is the same basic reason that most articles about animals (e.g., Tiger) lead with images of plain adults in a natural setting (when available, of course), and not, say, circus animals or even animals in zoos. This is "encyclopedic" in the same sense as several of its synonyms, including broad-gauged, global, inclusive, and universal.
I actually wonder whether it would be better to move the photos down (into a section that discusses diversity), and to lead with a drawing. A good anatomical drawing is actually more educational (because it is more typical than any one human's body can be – there's a reason that medical textbooks contain so many expensively created diagrams) and more typical of encyclopedic practice (e.g., the first choice for almost every traditionally published encyclopedia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I would say that {U|WhatamIdoing} is proposing a reasonable compromise I would certainly go along with it. Does the article benefit from 40 individual images of a partial view of the vulva, arranged as two collages? One image that shows all of the external structures of the vulva is sufficient. None of the 40 images illustrate the other vulvar structures: clitoral glans, urinary meatus, vaginal orifice, hymen, vulval vestibule, pudental cleft, frenulum labiorum pudendi , corpus canervosum, perineum, and anus. The image I inserted was an improvement to the article. Removing the image demonstrating more of the structures of the vulva provides more information to the reader and possible clinician. Inserting the image with fewer of the structures showing makes the article less encyclopedic and is the same as removing information from the article. As for genetic diversity for the anatomical structure you would need to actually show the locations on the chromosomes or the differences in the coding of the nucleic acids to demonstrate genetic diversity.
I also agree that a separate section could be written describing the genetic variations would be appropriate and address the concerns that diversity be addressed as an observation and issue.Best Regards,
Vulvas are anatomy, but this is anatomy with a huge amount of cultural, social, and even political relevance, and also with a huge amount of ignorance at an astonishingly basic level. You're talking about specific structures, which are of course important, but just I cannot image that a technical illustration is going to be as effective at addressing the confusion between vulva and vagina, which is common even among educated adults. This is an anatomy article, but it's not just an anatomy article. While I can see that comparing woman to circus animals was not something specifically intended as disrespectful, that's still a dreadful argument to make. Humans are not wild animals, and cultural practices should not be discounted. We are all products of our different cultures and histories, and it's important to reflect that. Tigers don't read, but human beings, some with vulvas, do read this article. Accounting for different perspectives, practices, and norms is vitally important not just from an anatomical perspective, but also from a psychological and cultural one, as well. There are a lot of unnecessary photos of sexual anatomy on Wikipedia, but we need to make sure that if we remove any of it, we're doing it for the right reasons. That there are so many (sometimes gratuitous) photos is a reflection of the cultural significance of these otherwise very private body parts. In this case, removing the photos and replacing them with illustrations is sending a specific cultural message, and we can't pretend otherwise. No matter how scientifically pure the motives might be, this would still be indistinguishable in practice from censorship. Looking at a photo of a vulva in an encyclopedia article about vulvas is not some arcane, unusual anomaly or perversion, it's part of the article's purpose, and we should think twice about sending the message, inadvertently or not, that it's taboo. That so many other Wikipedia articles use photos is telling. Nobody bothers to bring this up over and over and over again with human nose or elbow (have they?). If we can illustrate with a photo, that should be a first choice, and in this case, we should also acknowledge that both cultural and privacy issues mean that the diversity of appearances cannot be taken for granted. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Bfpage, why, in your "01:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)" post above and in this edit, are you referring to the anus as a vulva structure or as being part of the vulva area? Where are you coming from on the literature when you state that? I ask because I want to be clear on how you are defining the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the outdent, I wasn't sure how to do that. Here are the references you have requested:[1][2][3] I've been enjoying the holidays, my daughter's bridal shower and a Wikipedia conference at the University of Pittsburgh and have been delayed in responding to your questions. Best Regards,
^Graaff, Kent (1989). Concepts of human anatomy and physiology. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers. ISBN0697056759.
^Baggish, Michael (2016). Atlas of pelvic anatomy and gynecologic surgery. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. ISBN9780323225526.
^Black, Martin (2008). Obstetric and gynecologic dermatology. Edinburgh: Mosby/Elsevier. ISBN978-0-7234-3445-0.
In this edit you have confidently elevated anus to the same level as other features of the vulva (did you mean human anus?). I wonder why those two articles fail to mention vulva. The first reference has a hidden comment saying "p 963", while there is no clue in the other two refs concerning the source of the information. Please fix that ASAP and quote some text from at least one reference to show the point being made. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Bfpage, it is unusual to classify the anus as part of the vulva or as part of the vulva area, and, per WP:Due weight, I would advise against you adding any such wording to this article or other articles. Also see what Johnuniq stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't consider an edit being something I elevate to certain levels and that statement confuses me. If three MEDRS sources include the anus as part of the vulva or vulvar region, am I not supposed to include the information? As for the page number as a hidden comment, that is a common way to reference pages in the content I write and I have never encountered a problem with this before. As for the other two medical book references, they have no page numbers-this is becoming more common as more digital medical books are updated every year. These two books were made available to me by the University of Pittsburgh. I'm sorry if you are unfamiliar with the references, I don't know how to fix that. In these books, it is not unusual to consider the anus as part of the vulva. It may not be 'familiar' to us, but that doesn't mean that it isn't verifiable. Best Regards,
The issue is moot if you have stopped trying to add the text, but for the future it is quite reasonable for someone to ask for a clue to find text that is said to verify information, particularly contested information—see "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)" at WP:BURDEN. Page numbers should be displayed, not hidden. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
My current sources for the information include three hardcover anatomy textbooks, though I am uncertain at this point whether or not I included all three of them in the references in the section being questioned. As for the request for finding text that is behind a paywall, I do so with ascribing access to the information through the University of Pittsburgh. The url that I see at the top of my browser window is not the url of the information or source that another person would see if they were to look at the source from, well, another university or institution that would allow such access. Including the ISBN allows anyone who can, get access to the same online information that I have access to. These digital textbooks often do not have page numbers. I provide as much information as I can see in the source. A lot of times you can enter the ISBN on Amazon and purchase some of these medical books, but from what I can tell, they are incredibly expensive. As for displaying the page numbers, you are welcome to help me figure out how to do this with the referencing 'system' that I use. I have been asked this same question multiple times and this is the best response that I have come up with. If a text doesn't have a page number, I can't cite the page number. In addition, you don't like the way I cite page numbers when I do have them. Best Regards,
Bfpage, when I stated that "it is unusual to classify the anus as part of the vulva or as part of the vulva area," I was talking about the anatomical and medical literature. I was not talking about the matter among the general public or laypeople. And the WP:Due weight policy is clear that "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. [...] Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." I've searched the web and my personal anatomical books for valid references referring to the anus as being a part of the vulva, and I'm finding none. That should tell you something about how much of minority viewpoint it is to call the anus a part of the vulva. You state that the aforementioned sources cite the anus as being a part of the vulva, but I think you are misreading those sources. And even if you are not misreading them, listing the anus as part of the vulva is such a minority viewpoint that it should not be included in this article; the WP:Due weight policy is very clear about that. And that is why you were reverted by Iztwoz, with the following statement: "rm ref to anus which is not a genital organ as vulva is defined by." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of for why any valid sources would be listing the anus as part of the vulva is the perineum or some similar matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The vulva consists of 'things' that are not considered genital organs. Things like blood vessels, muscles, mucous membranes, hair, fat, nerves, lymphatics, connective tissue, sweat glands, microbiota...there are probably more. There are no editors that I have more respect for than Iztwoz. But he/she may have only made a mistake. I hate to bother her/him with talk page stuff, but if I have to revert, there will certainly be enough references to support even a minority opinion (I don't believe that the removal of the content was supported by anything except Iztowz's expert opinion. (I consider Iztowz to be an expert). Say, is there anything anyone likes about the article? Best Regards,
Bfpage, I reiterate that I believe that you are reading the sources incorrectly on this matter (the anus inclusion), and I've been very clear about why. And even if you are reading the sources correctly, the disputed content should not be in this article...and I've been very clear about why. Per my knowledge of vulva anatomy, what the general literature on it states, and how Iztwoz reverted you, I saw no mistake on Iztwoz's part in reverting you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there are many laypeople who would regard the anus as part of the vulva either. Like Flyer22 Reborn, I can find no reliable (or even unreliable) sources that describe it as such. What I can find are photos and drawings of the vulvar area, sometimes simply captioned "Vulva", that include the anus – a (poor) example from Commons at right. But that's just marking the anus to provide a guide to navigating the image: it's not saying the anus is a part of the vulva. Eric Pode lives (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Eric Pode lives I agree with you about the image, it would not be helpful neither does it establish notability. If we were to follow 'due weight' then there should be, at least, due weight - that gynecologists consider the anus to be part of the vulva. That is not the case at this point.
That's not how WP:Due weight works. If you read it, read it again. It is very clear that such a tiny minority as this should not be included. Furthermore, as already stated on this talk page, there is much doubt that the sources you cited even include the anus as part of the vulva. What Eric Pode lives stated above gives indication that you might have misread the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Bfpage What is your reasoning for wanting to insist on including such an outweighed minority opinion? Generally when something like your suggestion is acceptable it is just tagged on as a few sources include etc etc --Iztwoz (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Iztwoz I don't insist on anything. We are all working together to improve this article. I don't have an opinion, minority or otherwise. I don't understand what you mean by 'tagging on as a few sources include etc etc'. Best Regards,
Adding confusion to the article is not an improvement imo. and tagging on ......at the end of a generally accepted item....is added..."A few (or some) sources include (in this case) the anus" --Iztwoz (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree. The vulva does not include the anus. This is a generally understood fact, including by gynaecolgists, who distinguish like others between the genital organs and the gastrointestinal tract. I do not think that is a "minority opinion" as stated, I think in fact it is an opinion not held outside of this talk page at all. The three sources provided are impossible to verify because no page numbers are provided. I think there's a fair amount of consensus on this talk page that the vulva doesn't include the anus. So how about we focus on some other area? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Intro
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The intro of this article could use some attention. The last sentence seems out of place. It is not a summary of material that appears elsewhere in this article and perhaps belongs in the Vagina article. A sentence on the wide range of normal appearance might be appropriate, since misconceptions seems to be a matter of current public health concern. see e.g. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/increase-in-teenage-genital-surgery-prompts-guidelines-for-doctors/. Pubic hair might also be discussed in the intro. This article is highly trafficked and may be the first source of information for young people, who could get the impression that lack of hair is the norm given the images presently included. --agr (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi agr I couldn't agree more with the inadequate lead - but the page is a C class and there is a fair amount of work still needed. The lead should mention all items covered in text which includes the last sentence - it will probably look better with a more complete lead. Your point about misconceptions of normal appearance is covered in the article and needs to be mentioned in the lead. I'll see if the ref you gave could be added. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
For future reference, this is what the lead looked like at the time that ArnoldReinhold (agr) made the above comment. As for the "The vulva needs only simple washing to assure good vulvovaginal health, without the need for douching." sentence, the Vagina article notes in its Clinical significance section that "The vagina is self-cleansing and therefore usually does not need special hygiene. Doctors generally discourage the practice of douching for maintaining vulvovaginal health.", but I don't think that aspect is lead material for that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
And, yes, douching is a vaginal topic. But when it comes to the vulva, washing it is important. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Vulvas are not gendered
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Having a vulva does not necessarily mean you are a woman/female. Intersex people, nonbinary people, and men, can all have vulvas. I suggest rewording the first sentence of this article because it is passively transphobic, as well as to avoid causing confusion. Rowanfaerie (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Rowanfaerie, I changed the text from "external genital organs of a woman" to "external female sex organs" since girls have vulvas too, and because I was considering your statement. Even though I understand what you are stating, we shouldn't leave "female" out of the lead since the vulva is identified as a female sex organ in anatomical and medical sources and the vast majority of other sources. It is identified as an aspect of the female reproductive system, and the lead should be clear about that. For a similar concern, see Talk:Human penis/Archive 2#Rewrite the first sentence for what I stated before on this type of matter; click on the more extensive discussion that I pointed to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Homologue link
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This edit request to Vulva has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change ((homologue))s to ((Homology (biology)|homologues))
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Isn't the sentence beginning, 'As the vulva is the gateway to the uterus' overly poetic for an article on anatomy? It's also misleading, because the vulva includes more than just the vagina.--Jcvamp (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree and changed. --Iztwoz (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Merge. Lamilli (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Done
Edit revert
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Re edit revert of Nigelj - 1) it's not good to have a stand alone sentence in the lead. 2) lead needs to cover material that is in text 3) it doesn't read that its purely reproductive --Iztwoz (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Revert in the 'Attitudes' -Section
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I don't really understand the reason for this change, please explain yourself. If it would better it as a subsection under Society/Culture...why not just put it there instead of deleting? Plus, I don't see how my use of primary sources would be against Wiki-policy.--Bus Bax (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I explained myself when reverting your edits, including here. I stated, "Revert random quotes, with no WP:In-text attribution, and other changes." and "WP:Primary source studies. Plus, edits included WP:Synthesis and WP:Editorializing." Did you take the time to look at the links I pointed to in order to better understand why I reverted you? Why do you think the quotes are good idea? Even with in-text attribution, which I see you actually did provide within the quote templates, why should those people get a mouthpiece in the article, and especially in blockquote form? The blockquotes are WP:Undue weight. With regard to the string of studies, we are not supposed to build articles that way. Read WP:Primary source for why. You can't string together all of these primary source studies to draw conclusions. It being easy to give undue weight to individual studies, which can conflict with each other, is why WP:Secondary and WP:Tertiary sources are preferred. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to take into account the points you've made.--Bus Bax (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
It's better, but I reverted (followup note here) pending further discussion. I see some of the content as being okay to include, but stuff like "Therefore, several scientific studies in countries as diverse as the United States" is still editorializing. Since you want to place the material in the "Society and culture" section, WP:MEDRS expectations are somewhat relaxed. Iztwoz, what are your thoughts on the matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Paragraph openings like the following are not acceptable either:
"The steep increase in demand for cosmetic genital surgery is accompanied by..."
"Both men and women have a strong preference for removal of pubic hair..."
These are highly questionable POV statements snuck in before the cited content begins. Are these American women? What age group? Race? Social class? These are certainly not the worldwide, global, established facts that they are stated as. The string of primary source (paywall) references does not impress. If there was a single secondary source that actually said anything like this, at least we could check the nationality, demographic etc. of the respondents. Not encyclopedic as it was, at all. --Nigelj (talk) 07:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
"highly questionable POV statements snuck in before the cited content begins" - all statements are backed by sources, I don't see your point. "Are these American women? What age group? Race? Social class?" - Well, different for different studies. The nationalities are referenced above. If you want details, look them up (or do you want me to state demographics for every single study?). "These are certainly not the worldwide, global, established facts that they are stated as." - Several studies from different continents. If this is not worldwide, I don't know what is! All studies you can find on PubMed/Scholar point in the same direction. These are published in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals. If you have anything that opposes these facts...bring it up. "The string of primary source (paywall) references does not impress." - Ever heard of Sci-Hub? --Bus Bax (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer's reverts. Perhaps one or two sentences could be added re the preference for vulvas with hair removed; and the indifference in general to the appearance by males, and more concern seen by the older age-group of women. But these would need to be fairly short and well sourced. The reverted edits did contain sweeping uncited statements that have to be interpreted as OR. Also the prose and grammar was not up to Good article status: "Mens in general..." I could go on but I'm on a break at the moment. I would have added the material but could not find an acceptable source. Also there was a fair amount of repetition from other sections. --Iztwoz (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
dead link in bibliography; resource found elsewhere
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Section that says 'vagina' and 'vulva' are sometimes used interchangeably
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can a citation be added to the phrase at the bottom of the lede that states the words 'vulva' and 'vagina' are sometimes used interchangeably? 184.71.106.130 (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
See the "Alternative terms" section. Also see WP:CITELEAD. Including citations in the lead is a case-by-case matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Bfpage |leave a message 02:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Done
