Jump to content

Talk:Thigh gap

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.101.239.4 (talk) at 15:02, 15 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How can it be self-published if it was published by Amazon?--Launchballer 09:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And according to that URL the publisher is FeminineContour Publishing.--Launchballer 12:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Sex differences in human physiology

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

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)[reply]

Media comments

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Poor writing, false citations

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)[reply]

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

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". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.107.110 (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Damn

I just saw a thigh gap that looks like it could accommodate a tennis ball if not a baseball. The treats! magazine Issue 5 cover featuring a model named Xenia, who I believe to be Xenia Deli (the other Xenias listed at the Fashion Model Directory are Xenia Tchoumitcheva, Xenia Markova, Xenia Siamas, and Xenia Micsanschi), has a pullout triptych that can be seen here. Does it get any bigger than that?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if she starved herself to the bone. That gap is clearly caused by a genetic disposition. They do get bigger than that.--Launchballer 08:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been more prominently displayed thigh gaps in still pictures than on the cover of this up and coming erotic magazine? Stephanie Seymour in the "November Rain" music video is pretty prominent, but she is moving.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I read the page more closely, is this example a true thigh gap (we don't actually see the knees touching)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous comment

I'm not familiar with Times of India. I'm sure it's a reputable source. But it's weird that the Times of India is the news source of record for the western teenage girls phenomenon of thigh gaps. that's all I came here to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.245.126 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of eating disorders

We say The thigh gap has been criticized as a mostly unachievable and physically unnatural body shape and a cause of eating disorders. I am not sure how best to re-word it but that is plain wrong: the gap might be a product of eating disorders but it certainly isn't a cause. What is meant is something like "... and attempts to achieve it may give rise to eating disorders" (but that puts two "achieve" words in one sentence and I hate repetition). - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced. [1], [2]. I'll see if I can find better sources now that there's been more time since this craze emerged. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Here are some more sources. Do any of these help?
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying that it is sourced. You are missing my point: it is our phrasing that is awry. Stand back and read the sentence, which in short form is "The thigh gap has been criticized as a ... cause of eating disorders". It isn't: the concept/desire for the thigh gap might be, but the gap itself is at best a consequence, not a cause. Basically, this is an issue about the English language, not the sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. Having a thigh gap certainly does not logically cause an eating disorder. The source describes thigh gap as a "craze" so I tweaked the sentence so it's saying the thigh gap craze has been criticized as a cause of eating disorders.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a brilliant solution, and I thank you for it. Sometimes I can see a problem but not a way round it. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I might say "the desire for a thigh gap ..." rather than "craze". I know it is in the source but, hey, crazes come and go. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Ah, I see now. "Desire for" or even "beauty trend" would work. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist intro

A thigh gap is a space between the inner thighs of women when standing upright with knees touching

Why do we need to specify gender? Who's to say the term couldn't be used for men? Even though the phenomenon is probably rarer. Ranze (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this topic is that it is a medical topic that hasn't been discussed by medical people - instead by the media. The sources are not there to post the truth of the matter which as far as I can tell is that men can't have the thigh gap due to a smaller pubic angle; more than 100 in females and less than 90 in men.--Launchballer 18:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any sources mention men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the only thing that matters, because this is in fact a cultural topic and not a medical one. – Smyth\talk 13:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's not a medical topic. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring by adding non-free image to the article

Please stop adding a non-free image to the article. The image is non-free and fails WP:FUR because its use must be minimal and it is already been used in the actual album article. Further, its relevance here is based solely on WP:OR and there is no sourced commentary attesting to the relevance of the image to this article. The edit-warring to add this copyvio image to this article must stop. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India

Why remove this source? The article (now located here) appears to contain everything it's cited for. – Smyth\talk 10:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article just makes a lot of statements without giving any support to the claims. This isn't fact-based researched journalism, but more the opinion of the author. As there is no evidence given for any of the claims the author makes, it is not worth citing in wikipedia, a fact-based opinion-free knowledge base. --Trickstar (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trickstar: I disagree completely. The article is one of the best researched of all the sources on this page, including quotations from both medical and cultural experts. By removing it you have left several important points, including the actual definition of the term, supported by either inferior sources or no sources at all. – Smyth\talk 13:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which excellent sources are you referring to? "cosmetic surgeons and gym trainers say "? Or "Fitness experts Mirror spoke to"? Or the celebrity fitness guru Leena Mogre? Or the bunch of other Indian experts nobody has ever heard of and do not deserve a wikipedia article because of their non-relevance? This is not a scientific article, but a local newspaper putting up some ideas together and finding some locals to support the claims, to fill the issue. And linking in wikipedia to it is just for google SEO. sorry, but no. --Trickstar (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trickstar: As discussed above, this is a cultural topic rather than a scientific one, and there's nothing wrong with using mainstream media coverage to support it. The source was not used to support any scientific assertions (in fact, I previously removed such a use myself [3]).

Furthermore, the manner in which you did this was sloppy and has clearly made the article worse:

  • You left a critical point unreferenced (the definition of the term).
  • You left another point unreferenced even though the point clearly came directly from the reference you removed. ("including the Tumblr sites Touching Thighs and No Thigh Gap")
  • You removed a reference which did support a point and left it supported by a much inferior one which only supported it by implication ("images of Cara Delevingne as an example of thigh gaps").

Your objections would apply at least as strongly to every other source on this page. Are you picking on this particular one because you believe there's some SEO going on? Where's your evidence for that? – Smyth\talk 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this photo

A woman with a thigh gap

A neutral photo would be fine, but this photo is obviously trying to glamorize the usually unhealthy "ideal." Thus it is very POV. If you disagree, consider a photo from a famine zone - there will likely be a thigh gap, but including the photo in the article would be making an editorial comment that is inappropriate here. It works the other way around with this photo. It is overtly saying "this is something desirable". It's POV. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is dumb. There is no "thigh gap in a famine zone", the very nature of the subject matter is beauty and attractiveness. A picture such as you suggest, that would be a slanted POV. TheValeyard (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely not recommending a thigh-gap-in-a-famine-zone photo because it would be POV, pushing one of two points of view on this matter. But I see the basic idea of a thigh-gap as being a physical characteristic that some people have. And there definitely are thigh gaps in famine zones. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in question is POV as well. Let's see if we can find a more neutral illustration or something. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So far we have WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which do not override an image that has illustrated the article for over 3 years now. This is what a "thigh gap" is, it is simply illustrating the subject matter, which is an unhealthy standard of beauty and fitness in Western society. There's nothing titillating about it, so kindly keep your "male gaze" comments to yourself. TheValeyard (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing titillating? Lol ok. You're arguing BRD, that's fine. But like many sexuality related articles on WP, there's a noticable abundance of women's bodies in display. A more neutral illustration would be better. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure many people find the photo titillating. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's...a woman's legs. Not sexy, not suggestive, not provocatively posed or exposed. To a Puritan or a Southern Baptist, sure, they'd likely think it is scandalous, but we're not paying lip service to that sort of extreme censorship. TheValeyard (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Evergreen. The article does the project no credit, and the picture is an embarrassment. MarkBernstein (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this photo may be more anatomical and more clearly depict the gap
I would suggest the picture to the left would be an improvement over the one to the right. Jonathunder (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an improvement, but it still says to me "this is a photo of an underfed, underaged model wearing very little clothing and you're supposed to be attracted to it." Better no photo than either of these two. I've looked through several related categories on Commons and haven't seen a good neutral photo of the physical characteristic. Maybe a medical photo would work, but that might convey the POV "this is weird." Probably the most neutral photo would be a street photo showing how a thigh gap appears in real life. That would be pretty hard to get. Perhaps we could write to NOW magazine and ask them to provide a thigh-gap photo, i.e. a professional shot that does not objectify anybody but shows the physical characteristic. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thigh gap is "a space between the inner thighs of some women when standing upright with knees touching." (quoted from the article lead). Thus the current picture (right above) is a better illustration than the suggested alternative in which the subject's knees were fairly clearly not touching (the picture does not quite show the knees). The current picture also avoids unnecessary exposed midriff skin since the subject is wearing a dress. It seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable illustration and is in no way a gratuitous portrayal of someone's body. --Mirokado (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not outright opposed to the new image presented, but, whatever that white artifact in the background is is a bit off-putting. Like a it's a spacer or a marker for the woman's legs. Bad luck in the photography I guess. I'm all for a reasonable discussion about image alternates, but saw no justifiable reason to strip the article of an image outright. TheValeyard (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The picture has been removed by 3 separate editors. The consensus is clearly against retaining this picture in the article. One thing is certain: No more edit-warring restoring it. Dr. K. 01:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing certain here is that "censorship because I don't like it" is not a valid reason to delete content that has been in an article for years. TheValeyard (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with censorship and consensus can can change, as it apparently has. However, it does appear that it does have to do with you edit-warring against consensus and against three experienced editors to add your POV into the article. I advise you to reconsider your approach in this collaborative project. Dr. K. 02:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I too find this argument to be a bit silly. Any article is improved with an image and as long as there's nothing inherently wrong with the image itself, like copyright issues or something egregious, having an image-less article is uncalled-for. Substitute something else like the alternate suggested above, maybe I'll do that now instead, or look for another one in the wikicommons. But a lot of this does smack of some kind of censorship. ValarianB (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies: Sorry but I too find this argument to be a bit silly., Sorry, but that is dumb., to me and to Smallbones, show your propensity for insults. I remind you of our core policy of civility. Your continuous edit-warring against three experienced editors shows your propensity for forcibly imposing your POV and your lack of understanding of WP:3RR, despite having received multiple warnings. Combining POV, with edit-warring and insults, to get your way in a collaborative editing environment, is not collaborative at all, and it will probably lead to sanctions, especially if continued. I repeat what I replied to you above: This has nothing to do with censorship but with the consensus that the picture you are edit-warring into the article glamorises the thigh gap. Using a glamour model, dressed in a frilly, flowing white dress is a blatant attempt at glamourising the thigh gap, despite two-thirds of the article criticising the concept. The main image of an article is supposed to encapsulate the idea of the whole article, not just the minority portion that considers the thigh gap to be glamourous. There has been no consensus on this talkpage as to the type of image that can be used for this article. Now you unilaterally decided to add the alternate image, although there has been no consensus for including it and the discussion is still ongoing. My final piece of advice is WP:3RRNO. The link lists the possible exemptions from the 3 revert rule. These exemptions do not list WP:CENSOR as one of the acceptable exemptions. You are edit-warring at your own risk. Dr. K. 15:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, you're mixing up people with a "V" in their name up, first off. Second, my use of "silly" would not be considered an insult by any sane or reasonable reading of the word. That's, again, silly. Third, I replaced the old image with the suggested one to see how that goes. We're not "glamorizing" the thigh gap by showing a woman's exposed legs, any more than we'd be promoting terrorism by showing a picture of a terrorist act in a similar page. An image is descriptive, informing the reader visually of what the subject matter is. I could see the objection if we have an image of a half-naked pornstar with a thigh gap, as that would be needlessly tantalizing, bordering on advertising for the pornstar. These two images are quite benign. ValarianB (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the road recently, so using the cellphone is not a good idea when you have to reply to an increasingly complex thread. I struck my reply above, since indeed I did not see that you were a new user. As far as your continuing use of insulting adjectives, now added upon by "sane", I advise you to cut it out. It's a very bad habit to address these type of insults toward your fellow editors, especially if you want to collaborate with them. If you want to play with semantics, you are free to do so, but count me out. Dr. K. 16:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a measure of good faith, I have removed the image for now, but I think it is a mistake to have nothing there. So perhaps we could search for alternates and have a wider discussion, perhaps a request for comment. ValarianB (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's constructive and shows respect for the consensus-driven editing model. If the adjectives were also dropped, it would be perfect. Dr. K. 16:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is still quite silly and absolutely, unequivocally censorship, but whatever. Hold a debate. TheValeyard (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is somewhat pointless. The swimsuit picture is not an improvement because it conflicts with our description. My only objection to the previous picture is the wedding dress: a picture without ceremonial clothing would be better. Clothed legs (pants, tights) would be fine as well. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I searched https://commons.wikimedia.org unsuccessfully for a picture more appropriate than the wedding dress picture. My inexperience with media hosting and commons' user interface may be to blame. James J. Lambden 🇺🇸 (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a more appropriate picture probably... Sure people will still disagree about it but to give more options — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wedding dress picture displays the meaning of thigh gap best and in no way glamourizes it. I think it should be put back. 59.101.239.4 (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thigh_gap&oldid=785809995"