Talk:Thigh gap

Images

Surely neither of the images here should be here, as neither of the images have the knees touching. Thanks, Matty.007 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That really is the definition of a thigh gap - where the knees are not touching.--Launchballer 22:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

No it's not - "and the left and right knees touching each other".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with sourcing

There are some health-related claims in this article that are not adequately sourced. As this article is related to extreme dieting, it is important that we are using reliable sources appropriate for health-related content per WP:MEDRS. First off, a reliable source is needed for claims that thigh gaps are due to genetics. Womenfitness.net is not a reliable source for this purpose. If a suitable source is not available, the claim should be removed or reworded. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I know this isn't a huge deal or anything, but this article clearly doesn't have a NPOV. This makes it sound like thigh gaps are the devil and anybody who aspires to be skinny is superficial and doesn't really care about their health. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread your thoughts about how "thigh gaps" are bad for young people's self image or whatever. Also the sources should not be presented as fact, but as opinions. 74.89.110.34 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gobōnobō makes a fair point that this article needs to be as accurate as possible. If an opinion is widely expressed then it should be described as an opinion. I guess it was optimistic to expect this article not to court a bit of interest and disagreement. I'd be inclined to remove the information sourced to a random women's fitness website (which seems to be Gobono's only reason for tagging the article) - after all, there are plenty of journalistic news sources to plumb. Sionk (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, I added that source after I was told a journalistic news source - The Times of India - wasn't good enough per WP:MEDRS by Gobonobo. Over this weekend, I am going to my local library and seeing if I can find something offline.--Launchballer 13:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like its a syndicated article from the Mumbai Mirror. I've no reason to doubt the Mumbai Mirror isn't a reputable journalistic source and Gitanjali Chandrasekharan a professional reporter, and she quotes advice from trained medical professionals. You just need to make sure you don't generalise or synthesise your own conclusions from the article.

For example, the interviewed medical experts agree that Indian women generally have an endomorphic body type, so not genetically disposed to having a thigh gap. I think the article is a fair source to confirm the opinion that many women aren't naturally disposed to achieving a thigh gap.

I think we already have the sources available to make a decent trustworthy article ...but definitely ditch Womenfitness.net. Sionk (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still many problems with the language and sourcing for this article. YouTube and Twitter are being used as sources here and there are additionally BLP concerns for the women who are unduely singled out in the 'opinions' section. The basic definition of a thigh gap here is even questionable, as it seems to be sourced to the conjecture of a sole journalist, Gitanjali Chandrasekharan. Her Mumbai Mirror article is also being referred to as "According to The Times of India", which isn't really accurate, seeing as the Times just reposted her article. The phrase "appears in young women who have very thin thighs and are very skinny", supported by the Daily Mail/AP source doesn't say anything of the sort. I've looked for WP:MEDRS sources for this article and there really doesn't seem to have been much scholarly reporting on thigh gaps. I don't have access to Sarah Brewer's The Human Body: A Visual Guide to Human Anatomy source, but would like to know what she specifically is saying about thigh gaps. I see that much of the more questionable phrasing is now being sourced to this one offline source, so I'll see if I can track it down for my own edification. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is of little use to you, but I read those facts in a copy obtained from Sutton High Street library. If you are planning a visit to the UK, why not pay it a visit?
The reason for the sourcing issues is because the sentences are forever being reworded. The facts themselves are sourced; if you annotate which bits require rewording, I'll amend them.--Launchballer 23:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't get Gobonobo's comment that women's opinions are "unduely singled out". It sounds like your saying you'd only believe the coverage if they were written by men! From what I can judge, the coverage has largely been by women jounrnalists, it's not "undue" to report what they say. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the bit about someone making a Twitter account for Cara Delevingne's thigh gap. Not disputing that it happened, but that bit of ephemera seems WP:UNDUE to me. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 01:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The fan-created Twitter accounts are referred to in the Grazia interview, so the fact is supported by a secondary source. maybe a little bit trivial but it illustrates the obsession by certain people with female body image, so serves a purpose. Sionk (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the 'drive-by' POV tagging of the article. The tagger left no explanation and it seems here that many of the issues have been resolved by sensible editing and discussion. Sionk (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mind the gap

The article begins "In humans..." but talks only about women and girls. What about the other half of the species? Jonathunder (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

They don't have them.--Launchballer 07:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Few women do; some men might if they also starve themselves. Jonathunder (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Erm, the offline source did say why but I have completely forgotten. Something about men having 80 degrees or less and women having 90 degrees or more - I'll check.--Launchballer 22:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It probably depends on the muscle tone and physique, like it does for women ...who are humans BTW ;) Sionk (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If the offline source is The Human Body, please see the section below. That book doesn't even mention thigh gaps. It does briefly mention that the "pubic angle is greater than 100 degrees in a female; in the male, it is 90 degrees or less". I suppose that could potentially be one factor that could contribute to a thigh gap, but it in no way means that men don't/can't have thigh gaps. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Misattributed source

I found a copy of:

• Brewer, Sarah. The Human Body: A Visual Guide to Human Anatomy. Quercus Science. ISBN 978-0-85738-847-6.

I couldn't find a single reference to thigh gaps in this visual anatomy book. Yet, this book is being used in the article to source that thigh gaps are "caused primarily by genetics and appears in young women who have very thin thighs and are very skinny". It is also being used to source the basic definition of the gap as occurring when "standing with the back upright and the left and right knees touching each other". That particular definition seemed to have been derived from the "Do you have one?" section of the Chandrasekharan article. But when the source was questioned, it was just attributed to the offline source. I propose we scrap the Human Body references and find alternative sources. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This book disagrees with a few points in this article but it goes into a supreme amount of detail.--Launchballer 09:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's an e-book issued for Kindle (and probably self-published) so I'd be inclined to put less authority on that one, to be honest. Sionk (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

How can it be self-published if it was published by Amazon?--Launchballer 09:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazon are selling it, not publishing it. Sorry, I forgot to add the url when I made my last comment. Sionk (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And according to that URL the publisher is FeminineContour Publishing.--Launchballer 12:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem confused about what self-publishing is and how it works. As long as you're not using Amazon's ISBN numbers, when you go to sell a Kindle e-book on Amazon, you can choose whatever name you want for the "publisher." FeminineCountour Publishing is not a real company. Google it and you'll see that it's also the name used on SmashWords, a self-publishing platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Balance

The article begins with a definition of an anatomical term: "In humans, a thigh gap is a gap between the thighs when standing upright with both feet touching." It's being argued, however, that this article isn't really about anatomy and we should avoid any coverage of biological or medical aspects, only social ones. That's unbalanced. There are sources on the scientific perspective. Physicans do discuss this. We need better coverage of that. Jonathunder (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"attain thigh gaps" ... what? This is an attainment? That is not what tyhe more sensible sources say. What message is being sent here? There is no "attain"-ment. Can we rephrase please Victuallers (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Me and Orlady have collectively amended that.--Launchballer 22:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As of now, based on sources, the notion of thigh gap is a cultural phenomenon. It is real but not biologically based that we know of. After going through the article, I think it captures pretty well the current state of this cultural phenomenon. I believe that a balance tag is not needed, so I will remove it. If you have reason to think my reasoning is wrong, revert and let's discuss it some more. I am One of Many (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly non-free image?

The image description page says that it came from Flickr, but this image looks an awful lot like the images that were made by and for the ShopBop website. I was a freelance image processor for ShopBop in the 2010-2012 range, and my daily routine while in that position was to edit and retouch images that used this exact photo style to show what pants looked like on-model. ShopBop has an in-house studio with photographers that are ShopBop employees, and as far as I know, everything that is shot in-house is considered "work for hire" which means that the copyright is owned by ShopBop; the freelance contract that I signed before I started as an image processor clearly stated that ShopBop owned the copyrights on the images that I was to retouch for them. The profile of the user who posted this image on Flickr says that he is in Ireland; ShopBop is located in Madison, WI, where I am located. While I was freelancing at ShopBop, there was only one image processor who was not on-site, and that person was located in the US. Slambo (Speak) 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So not only was it a nonfree image, which is why it was deleted, it was quite probably photoshopped. The woman didn't actually look like that. How surprising. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My impression of that image was that, if it wasn't photoshopped, the woman was bow-legged. I don't know about you, but when I stand with my feet together, my knees touch.

It has occurred to me that the Barbie Doll might be used to illustrate a thigh gap, but it appears (from photos like the one on the right) that her feet don't touch. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, Barbie is covered by all kinds of copyrights. Jonathunder (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sex differences in human physiology

What should I do about the contents of this edit?--Launchballer 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the femurs are more angled in women, but because there are also sex differences in bodyfat levels and distribution it does not necessarily follow that women are more likely to have a thigh gap. I will add a citation needed tag. – Smyth\^talk 21:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Media comments

Why are all these non-notable sources being used? 192.12.88.229 (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What makes those sources unreliable?--Launchballer 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And those are the sources for this particular subject. Until Oxford University publish a book on the subject they will have to do. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I never heard of any of these sources, lol. Sacramento Bee? And the section seems to be an extension of the previous section. Just combine them. And I think you can use better sources like Fox, NBC, NYT, WSJ, etc. 2600:1001:B014:9A1E:159E:D7D0:E323:141F (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at list of top newpapers, news networks, researchers, etc. 2600:1001:B014:9A1E:159E:D7D0:E323:141F (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Kelly Richardson (Who the heck is this? Why is a quote from a random blogger being used?) is taken out of context because the Wikipedia article omits "for most people". Quote shouldn't be used anyways. 2600:1001:B014:9A1E:159E:D7D0:E323:141F (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well that short section starts "The thigh gap has also spawned opinions from newspapers" which I think makes it clear that it just a round-up of opinions. Each of the seven is treated fairly briefly. Changed the quote to "for most people it is next to impossible to attain" as you suggest. Do you have alternative and better sources, perhaps some that say a thigh gap may be obtained easily or healthily? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Changes

Found a spelling error in the "Backlash" section of this Wikipage so I corrected the mistake to the correct version of counselors. I added a link to the body image Wikipage. I would suggest that this page is further developed with additional information. It is pretty basic and would be further along if there was additional information on associated health risks that come along with have a big thigh gap. I have heard in the past that a big thigh gap can make it more difficult for women to have children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleonor.thomas (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eleonor.thomas, than you for your corrections in the article. You are correct that the article needs expansion and probably along the lines you suggest. The problem is that everything we add much be reliably sourced and, as far as I know, reliable sources about health risks are few and far between. If you find any, feel free to incorporate the information you find with sources into the article. Best wishes editing. I am One of Many (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Societal Pressure

There is little doubt that this section could be relevant to "Thigh gap", but the connection appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. I think it can be left in for now, but we need a source that connects the desire to attain a thigh gap with eating disorder issues. I am One of Many (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it. One source and may not be neutral. The Thigh Gap seemed to have been shoe-horned into the middle of a general piece about social pressures. I have suggested it is more appropriate to one of the linked articles, though I am not against something of that kind. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Poor writing, false citations

Minor language quibble: it is not possible to have anything less than "both knees touching" -- that is, if one is touching, it is touching the other. Suggest removing "both".

What is wrong with you guys? Hope it is just this article and not widespread among Wikipedia, but I have my doubts. 70.192.94.44 (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope you will improve the article with your excellent writing, but I have my doubts. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not neutral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute The introduction is slanted against this topic, framing it as being an impossible unhealthy body standard. Also, I'm not sure "The Times of India" is an appropriate source. If we can't find a source from an American or European source, one with higher and enforced standards for making verifiable health claims, then this probably shouldn't be at the top of this article. Eidlyn (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the sources we have do indicate that it is a (nearly) impossible unhealthy body standard so it is not surprising the article reads that way. If you can add reliable sources for the contrary view, please do so. I can't agree that The Times of India is an inherently unreliable source just because it is not published in the west, but I completely agree that better sources would be desirable throughout the article. Please add some. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream news sources are not a good source of health information in any country. But as I think someone mentioned before, this article is not so much about a health subject as a cultural one. – Smyth\^talk 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article has many problems, which is evident by the other discussions on this talk page. 2600:1001:B019:42B6:21A6:6A0C:19E2:68DA (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit to the article by Philafrenzy because it exacerbated the problems with the article, including fake citations. 2600:1001:B019:42B6:21A6:6A0C:19E2:68DA (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make any further unconstructive edits. I am One of Many (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read the part about fake citations, a problem that has been mentioned several times throughout this talk page? 2600:1001:B019:42B6:21A6:6A0C:19E2:68DA (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the quality of the sources, it is unacceptable to have content fake content that is not in the sources referenced. I hope the incorrect citations are due to honest mistakes and not people trying to make stuff up. 2600:1001:B019:42B6:21A6:6A0C:19E2:68DA (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please list here the errors that you believe are in the article so that we may address them one by one. Be specific. This is a contentious topic and that is the best way to achieve a consensus on what should be in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not have consensus and you are incorrect about the sources. Do not revert again without consensus or you will be engaged in edit warring. I am One of Many (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Origins

Philafrenzy, I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary to delete my addition. The current Origins section claims that the "gap" gained notoriety after the 2012 Victoria's Secret show, but the source is a single Huffington Post article, in which the author cites one Tumblr page as sufficient evidence that the "gap" has gained sufficient notoriety to become a "new trend". If one Tumblr page is sufficient, I fail to see how The Chive doesn't qualify as a legitimate example of the "gap" gaining popularity as well.

The Chive started making "Mind the Gap" posts in March of 2011, long before the December '12 Victoria's Secret fashion show. In March of '11, The Chive was averaging over 1 million page views per day, which would point to those posts gaining the "gap" plenty of popularity. Further, the branding of that category of posts into a T-shirt would indicate that it was successful enough to warrant such production. Judging by the current popularity of that website, and the fact that "Mind the Gap Mondays" are still one of its most popular recurring posts, I believe omitting The Chive as one of the sources popularizing the phenomenon is a mistake. By the time that HuffPost article was written, The Chive had made over 70 "Mind the Gap" posts, and was averaging over 3 million page views per day. I fail to understand how a single HuffPost article gives a cultural phenomenon more notoriety than that.

Perhaps if I likened the "gap" to a meme (which by definition it is) it would be easier to see my point of view. Let's say we were to write a Wikipedia page about a certain meme, say "Bad Luck Brian", "Overly Attached Girlfriend", or the "Y U NO..." rage-face guy. On that page we included a section on its origin. We'd trace the meme as far back as we could, attempting to find the original post, and along the way, noting sources and points in time at which the meme gained or lost popularity. To compare this example to the "gap": even if the HuffPost article was one of those points/sources that gained the "gap" popularity along the way, to omit The Chive as a significant source of popularity-gain would be irresponsible. It would not only present inaccurate and insufficient information to those reading the page, but also snub The Chive from receiving credit for recognizing the "gap" and sharing content regarding it

Therefore, rather than simply re-adding my edit to the page, I'm posting this topic on the talk page in an attempt to at least hear your argument (among others) as to why my edit was removed.

Powell.410 (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for Philafrenzy (who should have explained his reversion!), but your edit was what Wikipedia policy refers to as original research. You wrote that The Chive was the "first occurrence" of the concept, but you provide no source to back up that assertion. What you actually meant was that it was the first occurrence that you personally were able to find, but since you are no recognized authority on the subject, that fact is meaningless. Journalists who make a living writing about cultural trends are recognized authorities, and that's why the article is based on their research, not ours. That's not to say that they're always 100% reliable, because they're obviously not, but they're the best we have. – Smyth\^talk 10:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Philafrenzy is a girl. Don't worry, I've made that mistake before now. --Launchballer 10:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• I would also guess the Chive-attribution edit was removed due to lack of reliable sourcing for that origin theory. Indeed, the urban dictionary entry on "thigh gap" dates to 2009, so if we were doing "original research" I'd suspect the Chive was only one of possibly a number of lad sites that helped spread the concept. If there is reliable sourcing that the Chive helped popularize and spread the concept, then it probably merits a mention in the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier and also for not explaining my revert properly. Thank you Powell.410 for taking the trouble to explain your position so clearly. The reasons why I reverted the edit were indeed those already guessed at above. I did view the linked page and I note that it refers to a "gap" not a "thigh gap". I have just reviewed the page and other linked pages again and do not see any mention of the term "thigh gap". I think the posts on the Chive are referring to another kind of gap which is crudely pointed out by a diagram on one image which also has the charming wording "VAG GAP YAY OR NAY?". I note also the fact that the women pictured do not appear even to demonstrate the phenomenon as described in our article and other sources. Contrast the pictures here for instance: http://thighgaplove.tumblr.com/ which was the page originally linked by Huffington Post. I think you could say that that the images posted on the Chive are posted by men with a clear sexual dimension while the images posted on the tumblr page and similar "thinspiration" pages are posted by women whose motives are quite different. I agree that ideas like this develop as neologisms that take time to be noticed in mainstream sources but it is those sources that we use to write our articles. There may well be an earlier use of the term thigh gap in a reliable source that we have yet to find and if we do find it we should use it but until then we should probably stick with the Huff Post. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Also note that The Chive is a WordPress site, thus unreliable.--Launchballer 00:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)