From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Fashion (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007-03-18 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Night Flower?[edit]

This article mentions "In current times have become popular in Japan as "night flowers". There is no citation for this, and I can't find a single Japanese source backing it up. Most of the English sources seem to cite information that I wouldn't call "current", one such site claiming that they sell more during bridal months, when the average age of first marriage in Japan is 27 for women. Another source claims Komachi Hair Company makes them, but their Japanese site has no mention of them at all. Shouldn't this be either backed up or removed? Or at least re-phrased to not say "popular" which is misleading at best? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


There was recently a reference to "merkin" on ESPN College Football Gameday (9/16/06) from the USC campus. A sign in the crowd referenced "finding Corby's merkin". Is this a reference to Lee Corso?

I have added the reference to the relevant Wikipedia article. However, I don't assume that this is the same term. Most of the occasions I hear it, it involves a parody of the American (cowboy?) accent. It is often pronounced more like murrk'n, and that is quite different from how merkin would be pronounced locally. In the same way that President Bush accent is parodied as if he is demanding a 'War on tourism'. It is merely an exaggeration of how the American accent deals with vowels, particularly dropping those that follow the letter 'r'. There are, of course, some people that do connect it with the word for pubic wig. But I would not assume that all do. Bobblewik  (talk) 15:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time convincing me that it is meant "all in good fun" with no derogatory connotations, whether the connection is made or not. The great majority of Americans do not pronounce the word in any way remotely resembling "Merkin" (and, in fact, would be offended if you suggested that they did, as it sounds at least vaguely uneducated to many American ears). --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 15:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was not attempting to convince you that it is all in good fun. As I said in the second last sentence, it is derogatory when connected with a pubic wig. That is the intent of some people. However, I was merely suggesting that it may be a secondary connection. It is now being documented as a primary connection, particularly because this is a written medium where the spelling of the slang term for American has been made equal to the spelling of the word for pubic wig. Slang terms exist more in spoken form, so it is not always easy to analyse.
Rightly or wrongly, people stereotype accents incorrectly. The stereotypes do not always sound reasonable to those being stereotyped. For example, some Scottish people are offended or amused by the stereotype Scottish accent attempted by 'Scotty' in Star Trek. When British people stereotype the American accent saying the word 'American', they will drop the letters 'a', 'i' and 'a'. This produces 'mercn'. The British accent version of 'American has the 'e' sounding something like 'pet', but this will be transformed into something that sounds like the 'u' in purple. So you have 'murcn'. It may be unreasonable of the British to do this, but that is what they do.
It is then a simple matter for this to be transformed by some people into the deliberately derogatory 'merkin' (which sounds slightly different in a British accent). I am, however, merely speculating. It could be that it has arisen by some other mechanism of which I am unaware. Bobblewik  (talk) 16:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it should be pointed out that Brits pronounce "merkin" refering to Americans, and "merkin" meaning pubic wig in ENTIRELY different ways... I think the popular spelling of the former is an unfortunate coincidence... Indeed, I've seen it as "muhrkehn", "murrkin" and others. The joke isn't in relating Yanks to genital syrups (rhyming slang, chaps), but instead probably has roots in the laidback drawl popularised by Westerns.
As stated below, the OED says "alteration of American, (prob. after U.S. pronunciation), perh. punningly after MERKIN n.". So they suggest there is perhaps a punning connection to the other meaning, rather than just a coincidence. Bluewave 19:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Some evidence on Merkin and American[edit]

Using Google, I've found a few references to "Merkin" as a slang term for an American:

"Then "merkin" was coined afresh to mean "an American", because it

sounds a bit like the half-swallowed pronunciation of "American" by some Americans, particularly President Lyndon Johnson; and the fact that it had a "naughty" meaning didn't hurt. Punning use of the

word dates back to at least the early 1960s."[1]

References in popular culture include the name of the American President in Dr. Strangelove.

Some more links:

The term seems to have experienced the most popularity on Usenet, which would explain why some modern Internet users have never heard of it. Can I put it back in the article now? -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The OED entry on "Merkin" states that it is U.S. Slang for an American or American English. As etymology, it gives "alteration of American, (prob. after U.S. pronunciation), perh. punningly after MERKIN n.". It then lists several uses of the word from 1990 to 1999, including usenet articles and a number of U.S. newspaper articles. I can send the whole article to anyone who provides me with their email address. AxelBoldt 19:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That's why I added a copy of the key points from the OED on 28 Jan! Bluewave 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The way the section is written:

In Europe, "Merkin" has also been used as a colloquial term for an American since the 1960s. The OED reports that the term has become common internet slang for Americans or American English.

Does not jibe with the cites. Please rewrite it before putting it back in. ----evrik (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now archived Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#World Wide Words or Pratchett newsgroups FAQ

I came upon this article via the reliable sources noticeboard. I can confirm that the Oxford English Dictionary has an entry on Merkin as a reference to Americans, with the earliest recorded use in 1926. However, as it was stated there, and also at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections, there should not be trivia sections in articles. The entries in the section in the article are not in the scope of the article. If the subjects discussed have articles of their own, then they should be listed on the disambiguation page, not here. Because of this, I have removed the section, the contents of which are replicated below:

  • The term can be used in an obscene sense to refer to the vulva.[1]
  • The popular saltwater fly fishing lure, used primarily in targeting bonefish and permit, Del Brown's Merkin,[2] is also named after the artificial hairpiece. The Merkin fly pattern represents a crab, referencing the merkin's historical use for pubic lice (also colloquially known as crabs). Further, Del's Merkin is tied with a disc of fuzzy yarn, imitating the crab's shell, but also reminiscent of the fly's namesake.[3]

--Joshua Issac (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I could go either way. If it was an article about a word, the use of the word would be in scope, but it is not. Even so, these uses could be taken as trivia. Obviously, looking at the history of the article others have removed the slur use of the word before. People who think it should be here and people who do not are about equal. I take that as lack of consensus for inclusion. Obscure definitions should go on Wiktionary. Below is the last version for the slur use.
  • Internet slang for inhabitant of the United States of America.[5]

Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I support the removal of the trivia section completely. I'd already removed some very trivial uses that were mentioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture please[edit]

I've never seen one. Can anyone supply a photo? 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


How do they fasten merkins? Do they use some kind of glue that is kind to the skin or what?

2015-01-04 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

stage appareances?[edit]

I've removed this line "others have claimed that merkins were worn for nude stage appearances." If someone wants to readd this, please cite it. --mako (talkcontribs) 16:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Claimed"? It's still practiced to this day. Just saw the Le Femme show at the MGM Grand in Vegas tonight and all of the dancers were wearing merkins. Very strange considering some of the costumes didn't cover the merkins. Sort of odd in an era of extreme waxing.


Two quotes from the article:

"The first use of the word by an established author was in Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita (1955)." "In William Shakespeare's A Winter's Tale, Merkins are often mentioned."

I'm reasonably sure that Shakespeare pre-deates the 1950's. Can anyone confirm the Winters Tale reference, and then modify as appropriate?

I've removed both of these dodgy facts. Nabokov certainly wasn't the first and I could not find a merkin in the winter's tale. The only reference to merkin in shakespeare is "my Mistress wears his own hair" Hen V act 3 Sc 7 which according to Eric Partridge is supposed to mean merkin. meltBanana 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

European understatement[edit]

Perhaps this would more appropriately be British (at least stereotypically) understatement, to exclude, say, the Italians, who are not noted for such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crab (talkcontribs) 16:09, 20 February 2007

Other definitions[edit]

A vertical aerodynamic fin called the Merkin first saw its use in Formula One on the Williams FW22A (2000) (as named by Chief Aerodynamicist Geoff Willis), although this name was changed to the more common name of "Forward Guide Vane" after higher authorities found out its true meaning.

{2007-03-18 Automated pywikipediabot message }

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 17:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rock Hudson's not a woman. (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A lesbian's version of a Beard (companion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Medical/Chemotherapy Merkins[edit]

  • "A pubic wig for those of the female persuasion.Belinda, having undergone chemotherapy for the past couple months, resorted to wearing a merkin."
  • "Now, there are circumstances under which some people will go entirely bald down below; some lose body hair as they age, and others lose it because of illness or chemotherapy. In these cases, perhaps a merkin or a transplant isn't so nuttyóif you want hair there, then you should be able to have it. But we're inclined to counsel you to just go with the flow. Most of the population concerning itself with pubic primping is busy paring down the hair, not piling it on."
  • "Schimmel jokes about losing pubic hair and being approached by a pubic wig salesman. He displays a slide show that takes the audience from the first day of chemotherapy all the way to 128 pounds, no eyebrows, no eyelashes ... and then coming back from that."

k, thanx, looks like chemo types use merkins. Like I've heard said, a 60 year old doesn't look good bald down there. Ask D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources? Blogs aren't permissable, and that Schimmel quote is very vague. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NPR Interview --Datapharmer (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

When editing the popular culture section, someone entered (paraphrased here) that "Wikipedia does not need an exhaustive list of every mention of the merkin in popular culture!" I find this to be a contradiction, as many many articles have just such lists - for things that are far more commonly mentioned on television and in books than something as obscure as the merkin. Do others agree with this assessment, and that it is in fact okay for such a list of mentions in popular culture to be compiled? Or do others agree that such a list does not fit with the guidelines of wikipedia? Thanks. Spiral5800 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Just because other articles have it doesn't mean it belongs here. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm not going to push the issue, but no, the list doesn't belong here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tagging article[edit]

This is a difficult clothing item to imagine without actually seeing an image. And the design of a saltwater fishing fly which resembles it would appear to be entirely impossible without a photograph. So I'm tagging the talk page as needing images. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, User:Adrignola. I apologise that I was not sufficiently familiar with the present article to have caught that. After looking up their brief but colorful edit history I have tagged User talk:‎ with a level 1 warning regarding their habit of censoring articles.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Debra Lynne McCabe in Saw III[edit]

Should also mention McCabe's wearing of a merkin in this movie, since her contract forbade any "nude" scenes. (She played a naked woman being frozen to death, as one reviewer put it, "the most thankless role in any horror film", a "brave actress".) (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)captcrisis

A wig for the pudendum[edit]

What is the problem with the definition a wig for the pudendum? This is the definition in every dictionary I have ever used. I even use this word as a test of a good dictionary. Good dictionaries always have merkin and pudendum. (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but that is not the issue right now. You are edit warring. You do not have permission to force your version into any article. The long-standing consensus version (pubic wig) should remain until this issue is settled here. Pudendum is not used in the article at all. You would need multiple reliable sources. Per WP:BRD, when your edits are reverted, as they were, you must not restore them. You must discuss until a consensus has been reached. You are discussing now, but you have also restored again. That's three times and you were warned you could get blocked for doing so. Look at your talk page and read the edit summaries. I'm going to revert to the consensus version. If you restore your new version, you will be reported for edit warring and get blocked. You could be 100% correct, but you can still get blocked for edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Frankly, the change seems pretty reasonable to me. In a case like this, "multiple" sources may not even be required because the definition isn't really being disputed, just a noun is being changed. Both edits really mean the same thing. In any event, the Random House dictionary says "false hair for the female pudenda." Collins English Dictionary says "an artificial hairpiece for the pudendum; a pubic wig."[2] Both are found here [3] and both certainly qualify as reliable sources. I found an article about merkin use in films that also refes to it as being used to create a "fully forested pudenda" [4], so we can see a use outside of just dictionary form too. In fairness, I should also point out that BRD is an essay, so saying that an edit "must not" be reverted per that essay is a bit misleading. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • While pubic is the more common and recognizable word, it is inexact and improperly used in this case. The Pubis is the area of the lower abdomen surrounding the genitals. A merkin, as is made clear both in the picture in this article and in the usage section of this article, is generally used to cover the external genitals entirely, and not just the pubic region. This is why Collin's and Randomhouse have chosen to use pudendum in their definitions, because pudendum means the entire external genitals, and not just the pubic region above the genitals. If the merkin was simply a pubic wig, only covering the pubic region and not the genitals themselves, it could not be used in strip clubs to get around the laws against full nudity or by actors to get around MPAA rules concerning full nudity. If some dictionaries have chosen to use pubic in their definition, I suspect this is simply because pudendum is a less well known word than pubic, not because pubic is more correct. (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At least now we're talking. Edit warring is not allowed. While BRD is not binding, it is widely accepted by the community and is the only way to determine who has started an edit war. Admins routinely use it to determine whether to block and who to block. I used a 3RR warning tag to provide the warning, thus letting the IP know they were approaching the bright line (although one can be blocked for less than three reverts), and how to move forward, which is to follow BRD. Regardless of one's opinion about BRD, edit warring is still a blockable offense, especially when warned in the edit summary and user talk page.

If it didn't primarily refer to the female vulva (as your dictionary indicates) and entrance to the female sexual organs themselves, I would have no problem with the word pudendum (which correctly redirects to the female vulva because males don't have a vulva Face-wink.svg). Pubic and pudenda are not exact synonyms.

Pubic wig is gender neutral and applies to both men and women, and they are used by both male and female actors, and pudendum would not work for a male. In English pubic wig, which is far more widely used (including Kate Winslet's quote), just sounds better to me. A merkin essentially substitutes for "pubic hair" (2,440,000 results), not "pudendal hair" (1,300 results), an expression one rarely hears. In fact, pubic hair surrounds the pudenda. The frequency of common usage is so overwhelming that pubic hair wins hands down, and sometimes we do use Google search results to make such decisions.

Another more banal reason why this attempt was initially rejected is that it violates WP:LEAD. The lead should not contain any information not already contained in the body of the article, and it should summarize the article, which exclusively uses the words pubic wig.

Maybe those are reasons why the article only uses that term "pubic wig". If you still don't agree, then follow our dispute resolution process, usually starting with a request for comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoa. Wait a second. I see no discussion about this issue previously, so acting like it is "consensus" just because it was in the article is not valid. Just because you disagree, the next step isn't a RFC. You've made a single response to two editors that disagree with you. We're not to RfC territory yet. Counting Ghits isn't exactly the right method here either. Yes, "pubic wig" is more commonly used, but that doesn't make the other term incorrect. And why did you use that particular phrase any way? And would either of you like to explain why we're not even discussing including both terms? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course we're not at RfC yet, but we're dealing with a newbie who needs to know about the DR process. After discussion, if they still aren't satisfied, they can go there, but we're still discussing, and that's fine.
Instead of "consensus", maybe "default" (previous version) would be a better word, and we usually restore the default version until a consensus has formed to make a disputed change.
Adding the term pudendum might be okay, if a suggested wording can use it properly. The problem is that it primarily refers to female anatomy, rarely never to male. So let's discuss the term in light of a suggested use in the article. Discussing the word in isolation is a waste of time. Let's see suggested wording for how to use a [nearly] exclusively female term in an article that applies to both males and females. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) (tweaked per comments below)

First of all, I thought the whole damn point of wikipedia was that anyone one could edit it, and I didn't realize I needed to go through its self appoint gate keepers because I am some "newbie." You made the first revert, and didn't say a thing here before reverting my edit twice, so from my perspective you are the edit warrior. I didn't see the need to use BRD in an article with few editors, while making what seems to me to be an insignificant and uncontroversial edit. Plus after reading those essays on BRD and reverts, it seems to me that the ethos is when in doubt edit, and revert only when necessary. You made the first revert, and as far as I am concerned, the onus is on you to start a discussion before you revert my edit, which was small and reasonable.
Furthermore, from [5], pudendum is not exclusively used to refer to female genitalia. It is used for both male and female external genitalia, but is simply more often used to refer to female genitalia. This makes it even more appropriate because a merkin is more often used by women, and the definition of merkin in some dictionaries [6] refers to it exclusively as a wig for the female pudenda (also they wouldn't have to say female if pudenda wasn't gender neutral). You are simply wrong on the point of gender neutrality.
The adjective form pudendal is almost never used, so of course pudendal hair doesn't have many hits.
In addition, as I said before, the most common use of a merkin is NOT as a replacement for pubic hair. It is used most often to cover the genitals from view, whether to hide signs of disease or to hide the genitals to conform to rules banning full-frontal nudity in movies and strip clubs. To cover pudenda in strips clubs and on movie sets is where merkins are most often used today, and the use of a merkin as a substitute for pubic hair is a secondary, less common, use. Even the picture in the article shows a clear example of how a merkin is usually used, as a covering for the pudendum, not as a replacement for pubic hair. A wig for the pudendum is therefore the more accurate definition as a merkin is most often used to cover the pudendum, not as a replacement for pubic hair. Saying a merkin is a pubic wig is misleading because it leads the reader to believe that the its primary use is as a replacement for pubic hair, which it is not.
As far as I am concerned, you made the first revert, the only only other person discussing this here agrees mine was reasonable edit, and the onus is on you to start the dispute resolution if you disagree. (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course I made the first revert of your bold edit. Yours was the B in BRD, and mine was the R. Now we are at D. BRD is not spelled BRRRD. The onus is on you to make a case for not keeping the default version, but if you persist, I will start an RfC before allowing this change. Let's hope that isn't necessary. On the slim chance your version wins an RfC, I will of course bow to that decision.
You made what you considered "an insignificant and uncontroversial edit," but when you got reverted, that signalled that others did not consider it to be "insignificant and uncontroversial." Now you know how things work here. We edit collaboratively. Many people have this article on their watchlists. Some may comment, and some may not notice. With the nearly 17,000 items on my watchlist, and over 40,000 edits, it's a miracle I even noticed. This isn't a place which you can treat as your own website. Whatever is created here gets edited by anyone. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • We need to clear up a factual issue first. Websters DOES say is is not exclusive to females, as does Oxford and MacMillan. More common? I won't argue that. But saying it is only female is factually incorrect. Our own Wiktionary (and yes, I know we can't use it as a source) says it can apply to either. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What you say ("Websters DOES say is is not exclusive to females,") is not correct. It says "especially the external genitals of a woman." There is a fundamental difference between "not exclusive" (your words, not any dictionary) and "especially". You might think that's a technical difference, and it is in a very strict sense, but the meaning is totally different. We should stick to the meaning. (On that technical basis I'll revise my wording above.)

Here are a few dictionary defs:

  • "the external genital organs of a human being; especially the external genitals of a woman : vulva—usually used in plural." [7]
  • "An external genital organ in a human; especially a woman’s vulva." [8]
  • "(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Anatomy) (often plural) the human external genital organs collectively, esp of a female" [9]
  • "Anatomy. the external genital organs, especially those of the female; vulva." [10]

Strictly speaking, it can apply to both sexes, but not normally. It would be a relatively rare occurrence to find an example applied to a male, compared to applied to a woman. We should use the typical definition.

Definitions usually note that it applies "especially to females" and to the vulva, not the larger pubic area, which is what a pubic wig covers. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't incorrect. Websters does say it can apply to both. It says "human being", then says USUALLY the female. It's not original research to realize what it says.....both. In any case, you finally accept the fact that the term does not apply solely to women, so we can eliminate the notion that is can only apply to women as one of your arguments against it. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously. That's what I said. Since it applies "especially to females", then pudenda is "especially" meant to refer to women, but since we need a term which applies equally to men and women, pubic is the better choice. It is gender neutral. Do you have some other suggestion for how we could incorporate that expression as an addition to the article? We could discuss that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Pubic is not the better choice because it leads to exactly the misreading that you yourself made of this article, namely that the primary purpose of a merkin is as a replacement for pubic hair. That is not its primary purpose, it is used to cover pudenda. This misreading is exactly what I am trying to avoid by using pudendum.
As far as I can see your are just being stubborn on the gender neutrality issue, and have no argument. Both Collins and Random house use pudendum in their definitions of merkin, so it is clearly not an inappropriate word to use when defining merkin. Particularly because merkins are more commonly used by women. It is a gender neutral term, usage does not change this, and I am with Niteshift36 in saying that we can eliminate this as an argument against it.
If you have some other argument against the edit, then we can discuss that, but otherwise it seems that a majority consensus has been reached in favor of it. I can change the rest of the article so pubic wig isn't used in the rest of the article either. If you have a problem with this, file a dispute before you revert any changes. Revert wars are not allowed. (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
We have not come to an agreement and seem to be at an impasse. Since consensus is not a simple majority vote, especially when so few editors have expressed their views, I am, according to BRD, going to restore the default version. You have made your Bold edit, I have Reverted, and now Discussion will continue. Any attempt to force your change of the longstanding default version will be considered a resumption of your edit warring, as explained to you several times. Since we apparently need wider community input, I will also file an RfC to determine what should happen. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: "Pubic wig" or "a wig for the pudendum"?[edit]

Non-Admin Closure: Clear consensus is for keeping the current wording of pubic wig. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the wording be changed from "pubic wig" to "a wig for the pudendum"?

I obviously, as evidenced in the thread above, favor keeping the long-standing wording of "pubic wig" as the main description for the following reasons: that's what our sources say, it is the most common term, and the problematic fact that dictionaries define pudendum as applying "especially to females." Because merkins are used by both men and women, and the word pudendum is almost never applied to males, we should choose to keep the gender neutral expression "pubic wig".

I am not averse to adding mention that the wording "a wig for the pudendum" exists, pending finding RS to that effect, but, for the reasons expressed above (also in the previous thread), believe "pubic wig" should be the more commonly used term in this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Example !votes
  • Keep current wording of "pubic wig".
  • Change to "a wig for the pudendum".
Start survey
  • Keep current wording of "pubic wig". -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep current wording of "pubic wig". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep current wording of "pubic wig". --- Rosemary Cheese (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Incorporate both. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep current wording. Maybe this is displaying my lack of education on the subject, but my first reaction to this RfC was "what is a pudendum?" I don't think we can expect all (or even most) of our readers to understand this term straight away. The manual of style says that we should prefer plain English, so I think this points towards using "pubic wig", as it is the term that most readers will understand. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep as "pubic wig". The current wording is clear and accurate. Proposed wording "a wig for the pudendum" is unnecessarily verbose, inaccurate (it implies the female pubic region whereas "merkin" applies to the male pubic region as well), and "pubic" is probably better understood by more readers than the more technical term "pudendum". There is no need to change this and it would be redundant to refer to both terms. Keep it simple. sroc 💬 07:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Ender and Peter 03:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Pubic Wig. As written, the reader will quickly understand what a Merkin is as they follow the article. More readers will understand 'Pubic area' more readily than "pudendum". I'd only include "pudendum" in a technical article, with many specialist terms that would require more explanation (e.g.range of medical prosthethus including wig making).--Andrea edits (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep Pubic wig. In addition to issues of relative obscurity of the term 'pudendum', it is in my opinion a non-NPOV term, as it literally means (in Latin) "a thing to be ashamed of", and that's a very specific cultural bias regarding the genitals that it does not behoove a fact-based encyclopedia to perpetuate. Ijon (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • keep pubic wig MarioNovi (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Keep threaded discussions here, not above. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Niteshift36, you suggest we incorporate both, and I tend to agree. Do you have an idea how we could do this, using RS? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I've always known that word to apply to female anatomy and yes, the dictionaries I'm also looking at back that up. I don't see why "pudendum" needs to be used if "pubic area" points to the same location on any human. Ender and Peter 03:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Since we've shown a number of reputable dictionaries show that the term is not exclusive to women (I'd like to know which one you have that says it is), why should the term be excluded? Would it really hurt the article to put "or pudendum" in parenthesis? Or something similar? Is it worth all this commotion because the word was being incorrectly defined in the first place? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ Murray, J. A. H., et al. (eds.) A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: [1st] Supplement (1933) — Merkin
  2. ^ Brown, D. (2008) Fly Fishing For Bonefish; pp. 246,340
  3. ^ The Merkin Crab by Dr. Ed Southwick
  4. ^ "merkin - The Maven's Word of the Day". Random House. 1998-06-26. Archived from the original on 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2014-07-14. 
  5. ^ Quinion, Michael B. (2 January 1996). "My fellow Merkins". World Wide Words. Retrieved 8 May 2014.