This is an archive of past discussions about Vulva. 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.
I don't agree with this edit. I think a more workmanlike contribution would have been to add {cn} tags. But looking at the images, and the one on the right with the phallus, it seems obvious enough to me. I've tried googling the information from the image page including the museum names and so on, and find that the images appear to be catalogued as 'vulva' images, but it's hard to say because they are also 'restricted', so you can't check that you have the right image. (Whether they are restricted due to copyright or supposed obscenity is not clear). No doubt the dig, or whatever research uncovered them, is written up somewhere (though probably in French). How do you call an archaeology expert here to the page to rid us of these turbulent 'possibles'? --Nigelj (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
An archaeology expert would, or at least should, make it clear that there is no way to be certain about these images. With almost all of these sorts of images there is considerable debate about what they were meant to represent, and without written records or a time machine we can never know. A fact tag would be useless. Please see this YouTube video by someone which challenges this interpretation.[1] The researcher here is just an undergraduate so not a source we can use.[2] But she does show these two images. By the way, we should also replace "rupestrian" with cave art I think. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I assume that you are familiar with WP:FRINGE? Even the young lady in the video admits that her personal views are insufficient to challenge the professors. "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." If this is the extent of the significance of your view, I don't think it deserves coverage. Your arguments about time machines being necessary for archaeological knowledge to exist may be of interest in an article about the nature of knowledge or the philosophy of science, but again, we normally report views in proportion to their prominence in scholarship, and most archaeologists are not waiting for time machines before writing papers and text books on their subject. Or if they are, let's see the citations, not undergraduates getting a few laughs about "No sex please". --Nigelj (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Please add to this paragraph:{The labia minora are two soft folds of skin within the labia majora. While labia minora translates as "minor (or small) lips", often the "minora" are of considerable size, and may protrude outside the "majora". Much of the variation among vulvas lies in the significant differences in the size, shape, and color of the labia minora.}According to a study(Ref:BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
May 2005, Vol. 112, pp. 643–646)width of labia minora,after clitoral length,is the second most variable part of vulva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collaborator2014 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
How are these pictures offensive? They're not vulgar or pornagraphic. You don't have a right to not be offended as an individual.--207.118.105.246 (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored; but it does abide by the rule of Common Decency, and Alternatives by consensus should be sought in favour offensive images. Personally, I've never understood why diagrams are not simply used, as a physical photo is clearly gratuitous. The manner in which people fervently and aggressively defend their inclusion indicates that they want physical photos to be there simply for the offence/shock factor.
Articles that are not about sexually explicit parts of the human body mysteriously manage to get by without half a dozen user-contributed images. Wikipedia should not be catering to amateur exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are photos gratuitous? That labial operation is well illustrated by the photos. Unless you get specific, I don't think we have much to discuss here. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see a "diagram" that does half as good a job of conveying what a vulva really looks like as a photograph does. If a truly representative diagram were created, it'd be just as offensive as a photo, wouldn't it? PowersT12:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. You are making a baseless assertion that a diagram or a drawing is inadequate. That simply is not true. This issue between a photo and an illustration is not a matter of clarity but of taste. You obviously want a photo to be there. That's it. The person at the start of this paragraph is absolutely spot on that the photos (that are on Wikipedia - not necessarily all photos of vulva) are offensive. I do believe it is theoretically possible to have a less offensive photo of a vulva. I'm not a photo expert but I'm pretty sure that there exists more photographs out there that are better suited for an encyclopedia than all the overwhelmingly glossy smutty pics that are constantly uploaded by pervert Wikipedians. Loginnigol (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one, the people who are posting pictures like these and the video on the ejaculation page are clearly just exhibitionists getting off to the fact that thousands of strangers are viewing their genitals every day, and it's genuinely depressing to see that two years later, nothing has been done to fix this problem. Master Deusoma (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Most boys know what their penis looks like and often during urination, showering after sports etc they see other boys penises and they compare and as a result know that some are similar to theirs and some are different. Women don't as a general rule see another woman's vulva and therefore have no way of knowing if theirs is normal. Photographs show us that they are the same and yet different and that my vulva is "normal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2014 92.21.233.127 (talk) 15:53, 1 November
That's a rather feeble premise to argue showing an excessive number of photos prominently showing 24 different women's vaginas, compared to one human male penis 3/4 of the way down the page on the equivalent article for male genitalia. This demonstrates the overwhelming male bias in editorial content on Wikipedia. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The article isn't showing vaginas, it's showing vulvas. This is an important distinction that must be considered in an encyclopedic discussion. A more meaningful comparison might be human penis, which includes several images, including in the lead. While there is indeed a male bias in editing Wikipedia, it seems like showing a diversity of images, rather than implying that all vulvas are similar, is a good thing. In the past there has been a lot of debate about which images to use (how much pubic hair, skin color, etc.) and the result has been to include multiple images. The images could definitely stand to be more diverse; they are still mostly white, mostly relatively young, mostly skinny, and piercing seems to be over-represented, but the article has to work with what's both encyclopedic, and available in commons. I agree that the "showering after sports" bit is not useful, though, because neither article should assume that the reader has prior familiarity with such things. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Grayfell. But I do acknowledge here that 2014 92.21.233.127 is correct about girls/women not being as familiar with their genitalia as boys/men are familiar with their own; this is addressed in the Vagina article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for one less shaved vulva pic in the lede gallery
What is the estimated percentage of women who shave their vulva? One 2009 study says 50% of 18-25 year old women shave their pubic hair (another study says 88% shave, but it had a small sample size, and the sample all came from a university hospital).[1]So if we go with the more reliable 50% figure for 18-25 year old women, what is the shaving rate for women aged 26-106? Even if this group had a shaving rate of 50%, too, (which I doubt, given that shaving is more of a young people's trend), then that would suggest that two of the four lede gallery photos should be shaven. Having three of four lede gallery photos be shaven gives the reader the impression that most women shave their vulvas.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess I agree in theory, but I'm not sure. Since the image is about showing a wide variety, rather then showing a proportional sample, over-representing one group isn't necessarily all that bad. Pubic hair can also conceal other details, which makes it potentially less useful for illustration purposes. One thing the current lede image has going for it is that the pictures are all photographically very similar, which is helps underscore that it's about anatomical variation. Replacing some of those images, or added to it, might be difficult for that reason. Grayfell (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the lead image; from what I see, two of the images have the vulva completely shaved, one has the vulva partially shaved (unless we are supposed to believe that the woman barely grew any pubic hair), and the other one has a woman with full pubic hair. Although a woman having a shaved pubic area, in one way or another, is very common these days (which some sources have attributed to women competing with female pornographic stars because it's so common for men these days to watch pornography and come to think of what they see in pornography as the norm and/or more desirable), I understand OnBeyondZebrax's point about subtracting one of the shaved vulva images and adding another one with full pubic hair. But at the same time, I understand what Grayfell means about a shaved vulva showing the anatomy better. Flyer22 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Major editing needed
There is a large quantity of unreferenced material in the article. Since it is concerning anatomy and medical procedures, the references should meet MEDRS and the MOS for medical and health articles. Best Regards,
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."
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 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
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)
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
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))
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)
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
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)
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
Section that says 'vagina' and 'vulva' are sometimes used interchangeably
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)
I have included references to the worship at the Black Stone as a female fertility symbol. As requested the references were removed from the lede. Cpsoper (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019
This edit request to Vulva has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Greetings
i have to bring this to your attention that in this article some one has inserted the Picture of kaaba( The Holy Place for Muslims) in this Wikipedia page. Scroll down and you will find it. Its quite disrespectful for our Muslim community. That a picture from Our holy place has been added into this. Because this picture has no place in this article. its present under the religion and art (5.4) sub heading. Image subtitle (The Black Stone is seen through a portal in the Kaaba).Please remove it from this page as soon as possible. FarooqOmer09 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The reasoning for the request holds no merit, however, upon looking at the sources, they're of somewhat questionable quality. I'll reopen this and let someone more familiar with the article decide. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the sources are speculative. Apparently no one knows what the Black Stone originally looked like and the silver frame is of more recent origin. The image creates more visual support than the sources seem to warrant, especially for a casual reader who doesn't check the sources. Some oval windows are just windows. I removed the image accordingly. It is still available in the Black Stone article. The ref in the image caption gave no support for the image's use in this article, but I moved that ref to the body text since it is useful and available on line. If anyone disagrees with the image removal we can discuss it here.--agr (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The Black Stone is a revered relic for Muslims. It does not fit into this article. Its like putting any random pic in the midst of your article. That's not a good practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FarooqOmer09 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding this, this, this and this (followup note here), I felt that I should just go ahead and bring this to the talk page for documentation. For the lead, Pyxis Solitary changed "mons pubis" to "mons veneris," and I understand why. Pyxis Solitary stated, "In females the area is called mons veneris. See George Milbry Gould, An Illustrated Dictionary of Medicine, Biology and Allied Sciences, pp 778-779 ('Mons')." Making a dummy edit, I stated, "Whether we call it the 'mons pubis' or the 'mon veneris,' the term 'mons pubis' is mainly associated with females. This was discussed at Talk:Mons pubis#Missing the male mons. The term 'mon veneris' is not used as often." Here is a permalink for that discussion. Pyxis Solitary replied (with a dummy edit), "It may not be as pronounced but males have a mons pubis. Since this is the vulva article, it's important in the interest of education to inform readers that the female mons is called mons veneris & info is supported with an authoritative source." But the article already informed readers of this; we can see this in the Mon pubis section that Pyxis Solitary edited. It's just that "mons veneris" was not in the lead. In that section, Pyxis Solitary removed "sometimes" with regard to "sometimes used," but "sometimes used" is more accurate. I replied (with another dummy edit), "I understand why you added it it, but, like I stated, males usually are not described or categorized as having a mons pubis. This is clear from various anatomy sources. It's why there is currently nothing in the Mon pubis article about males. It's why I and other anatomy editors feel no need to state 'mons veneris.' "
When one Googles "mons pubis," they will see that it is discussed almost exclusively in the context of girls and women. For example, what this "Neurology of Sexual and Bladder Disorders, Alessandra Graziottin, Dania Gambini, in Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 2015" book source on ScienceDirect states is what I typically see in sources about or simply discussing the mons pubis. It states, "The mons pubis is an inverted triangular area of fatty tissue, covered by hair-bearing skin lying on top of the pubic bone; it extends from the pubic hairline (the base of the triangle) to the glands of clitoris inferiorly (Standring, 2008)." We can see that all other uses of "mon pubis" on the ScienceDirect entry is in reference to the female genitalia. If we look at the entry about the mons pubis on the Encyclopædia Britannica, it displays a picture of the female genitalia to educate readers on what the mons pubis is. It's because of all of this that I don't see the need to state "mons veneris" in the lead. "Mon pubis" is the far more commonly used term and is usually used in reference to girls and women. If we are to state "mons veneris" in the lead, I feel that we should state "mon pubis (or mons veneris)." But I'm not going to strongly oppose Pyxis Solitary's change. I'll leave a note about this at WP:Anatomy (so that one or more anatomy editors may weigh in here), and leave it at that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I get it. I get ya. But the key word in "When one Googles "mons pubis," they will see that it is discussed almost exclusively in the context of girls and women." is almost. I'm a stickler for facts. In regards to medical and scientific information, readers need to know the facts because generalizations and for granted statements are not a quality standard. Heck, I didn't know what a "mons veneris" was until a few days ago (and I've been mons pubising for a very long time). Pyxis Solitary(yak)02:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, we're both sticklers for facts. I'm also thinking of WP:Due weight in this case. Presenting anatomical text as it's usually presented in anatomical texts -- which, in this case, means simply stating "mons pubis" -- is factual and of quality standard. Using "mons pubis" instead of "mons veneris" is done in various (and most) quality anatomy and biology books, and in other references. We aren't doing anything that anatomical texts don't usually do. And, as we both know, Wikipedia is about following the literature rather than leading the literature. Regarding "almost exclusively," "mons pubis" is usually discussed exclusively with regard to girls and women. For someone to see "both sexes" in this case, they will typically need to search "mon pubis both sexes." Even when looking at the Merriam-Webster source noted in the aforementioned discussion, it states, "a rounded eminence of fatty tissue on the pubic symphysis especially of the human female." One can say that the source implies the inclusion of males, but it certainly doesn't mention them. The term "mons veneris" is not commonly used. Because of all of this, I've gone ahead and changed the lead to "mon pubis (or mons veneris)." Are you okay with that as a compromise? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
F22, the medical dictionary source I provided illustrates the female genital anatomy and describes the area as "mons veneris". I don't have a problem with your lead edit. (The mons sourcing glass is neither half empty, nor half full.) Pyxis Solitary(yak)04:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
And to be clearer, MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES states, "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members." That line is specifically about articles about groups or similarly large human populations. This article is not about a group of people or a large human population. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
In response to the reversion of my bold edit, I'll repeat my edit summary: I prefer the new image because it focuses on the anatomy of a single vulva rather than illustrating the diversity of vulvas, in addition to MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. The closer S Marshall referenced Regular haircut as an example of an article that MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES may apply to, [4] so I felt it may apply here too. I am unfamiliar with what User:Meters has stated. Regardless, I believe a single vulva better illustrates the topic, wouldn't you agree? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The lede image in this article is not within the scope of the 2016 discussion about ethnic galleries. A Brazilian wax isn't a haircut.—S MarshallT/C22:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The basis for this proposal is not MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. While I did cite that guideline, my rationale is that this image better illustrates the topic by showing the anatomy of one vulva, whereas the collage illustrates diversity among women. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
That can be done in the body of the article. Comprehensiveness is not what makes an image most illustrative of the topic. The topic is "vulva" not "vulva diversity". Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Keep the collage one. It has all the info the image of a single vulva has in addition to info on variation. I see no substantial reason to change it. EvergreenFir(talk)15:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
It is inconsistent with other anatomy articles, such as Breast, Navel, Foot, Neck. If the collage is to be kept, can we have a proper rationale as to why a collage better illustrates the topic than a single image? I wouldn't expect to see that as the lead image in an encyclopedia. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES is clearly not applicable. If your rationale for the change is not MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES then don't confuse the issue by mentioning it in your edit summary. As for whether we should use a gallery or a single image, the article has had a gallery for years. You made a bold change to a single image, it was undone, and subsequent discussion has resulted in no other support for a change to a single image. WP:BRD is being followed and consensus so far is to leave it alone. Meters (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, Meters. The general consensus of NOETHNICGALLERIES does apply to this article and the montage should be removed. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Possibly because of the generally unseen variation here. And more readily informative in the prominence of the infobox.? --Iztwoz (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
A collage is helpful on this article and Labia because young women in particular seem to think they all must look a certain way, and if they don't, they're abnormal and need cosmetic surgery. A collage shows that there is a wide variation. SarahSV(talk)04:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
We must be living on different planets. In what way do these Eurocentric images, lacking a single female of Black African or south/southeast Asian pigmentation, represent human variation? I assure you colorism is a much more widespread oppression than vulvaism. - Hunan201p (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
AB
I would suggest replacing the existing collage (A) with the very similar collage (B), which reflects a greater variance in shape, symmetry and size of the labia minora. --Buster Baxter (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The upper left is the only example of a vulva without visible labia minora in that position. The middle one in the upper row is the only vulva of a woman of color.--Buster Baxter (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Buster Baxter, "greater variance in shape"? Eh? Anyway, I prefer to retain the current collage since it shows variety not only in shape, but also grooming and/or pubic hair length or style preferences. Better to have more images showing hair than just one showing an abundance of hair and another with barely any hair. We've gotten complaints about mainly showing shaved vulvas. Also, the piercings are not representative. Having an image with just one piercing, like the current collage does, is fine. But having two or more images of pierced vulvas in the collage? Nah. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I propose the removal of montages from this article, as every one of them shown so far are racially biased and promote colorism/lookism. The pigmentation displayed on the montage(s) represents less than 1/4th of the world's population, and is heavily Eurocentric, with a disproportionate number of images that appear to belong to European females, despite European females being less than 5% of the world's population. Notably, not a single image on the montage is ostensibly black African. How's that for standards? - Hunan201p (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and I feel that a gallery creates an expectation of representation which just leads to conflict. A single example would not need to represent everyone. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
An illustrated image seems like the best solution here. We do not have any vulva montages that reflect racial diversity (the vast majority of women on Earth are nonwhite). But if we created an image with adequate racial diversity, that might also limit vulva diversity, or give the impression of a vulva type being associated with one race. It is unrealistic to portray all the diversity of vulvas with a montage. A generalized illustration for the lead image, preferably with neutral coloring, seems like the best solution. The rest of the images in the article can reflect a balanced variety of actual people and artistic depictions. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Less than 1/4th of the world's population? Are you aware of the world's population usually having a darker pigmentation than the images in the collage? I'm not. All so-called races can have the different pigmentation seen in the lead collage. If we want to get it across that one of the images is of a black woman's vulva, we could choose such an image with very dark pigmentation in mind if there were a good image for it on WP:Commons. We could put together a different collage. But let's not act as though all black women are of the same pigmentation. And either way, we aren't going to remove an image showing different types of vulvas, which is very educational, simply because you don't approve of the presented skin colors. Also, the image at the left-hand, bottom corner of the lead collage is ambiguous to me when it comes to ethnicity. Not that they all aren't. How do we know that the woman whose vulva is shown there is not black? How does one judge the ethnicities of vulvas? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not trying to determine the ethnicity of a vulva, but simply its darkness. That is easily measured by comparing areas of the skin to images of women from Africa, South Asia, Indonesia, etc. Please note that African Americans in the Anglophone world are often of admixed ancestry and may be substantially North-West European. What I am proposing here is that this gallery is colorist and doesn't reflect the diversity of humanity on a global scale. - Hunan201p (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would support that over this travesty montage where the only possibly nonwhite woman is probably a biracial white woman (or is it a white woman who had spent some time in a hot tub or a sauna?) - Hunan201p (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Biracial white woman? Anyway, as you surely know, many African American women with European/white admixed ancestry are dark-skinned. There are also light-skinned black African women. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The darkest depiction on both montages is probably 75% lighter than the lighest unadmixed black African woman. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Bfpage |leave a message 02:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Done
Not done
Already done Masum Reza📞 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
