This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.
Would anyone else support the notion of removing the graphic photos on this page? I find that such is inappropriate for a website that is accessible to minors, as the photos appear to be quite pornographic in nature. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The images are anatomically factual and objective. WP:NOTCENSORED reads: "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content." --Zefr (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, the images were present during the Good Article review in June, so they were deemed appropriate then. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
That is not even mentioning the fact that people have tried getting them removed somewhat frequently for years now, but always fail/are overruled. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 05:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Umm....the definition of Pornography would disagree with your assertion, it states "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." I'm not an expert but I would assume an encyclopedia article on Vagina's might show one, I don't see anything that sexualized the images or was designed to stimulate erotic feelings. The mere fact that vaginas exist and there is a picture does not make it designed to be erotica... Just Saying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The anus was not necessary in the cover picture
No, you are wrong, Skai Kurana. This encyclopedia and this article have an educational function. Ignorance about the structures of the female reproductive and excretory systems is commonplace. It is our job as encyclopedia editors to provide that information, in ways that our readers can best understand. Cullen328Let's discuss it 08:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Should this be a redirect to this article or an article in its own right? If it should be a redirect, should (some of) the info that was on it before it was turned back into a redirect be added to this article? Jim Michael (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The vagina article has around 3 photographs of the human vagina, and one of them is a lead image. It has no photos of non-human animals.
The vulva article has lots of photographs of the human vulva, including a collage of human vulvas in the lead. It has no photos of non-human animals.
The penis article has one photograph of a human penis, and it's buried towards the bottom of the article. It has many photos of non-human penises. The lead image is an elephant penis.
Unlike for vulva or vagina, there is a separate article just for the human penis, that does contain several human photos.
This raises a couple of questions: 1. Should the vagina and vulva articles place more emphasis on non-human animals? 2. Should there be a separate "human vagina" and/or "human vulva" article? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
We have been over the non-human animal matter; see Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric and Talk:Vagina/GA1 (the part about non-human animals). Talk:Vagina/GA1 has a bunch of strike-throughs; so reading that will not be a smooth read. This article is mostly about humans because, like the "Other animals" section in the article states, "A lack of research on the vagina and other female genitalia, especially for different animals, has stifled knowledge on female sexual anatomy." Per WP:Lead, we also note in the lead that "research on the vagina is especially lacking for different animals." We don't unnecessarily create spin-off articles and unnecessarily make readers go to separate articles. See WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split. Per WP:MEDMOS#Sections, we create an "Other animals" section in cases like this. This is also obviously done with the Clitoris article, and with medical articles like Cancer and Mental disorder. Some topics, like veterinary oncology to address cancer in non-human animals, might get their own articles. But an article like the Cancer article is going to be human-centric, with an "Other animals" section pointing readers and editors to the article about cancer in non-human animals. There are few detailed studies of the anatomy of the clitoris with regard to non-humans. And you will find very little on the vulva of non-human animals. This is why the Vulva article currently doesn't even have an "Other animals" section. Removing the "Other animals" section from the Vagina article would be unnecessary and would make the article less comprehensive. In other words, creating a Vagina (mammals) article would be unnecessary WP:Content forking. There is no valid reason to split out that small "Other animals" section.
We have also been over the images matter. Minus histology material, there are only two images of actual vaginas (one showing the opening and another showing the rugae) in the article because there are only a few images of vaginas on commons. As you can see there, there are no non-human vagina images available for use on Wikipedia. There are also only two images of an actual vagina in the article because we want the images to focus on the vagina, not on the vulva, and we don't want to clutter a section or create a MOS:SANDWICH issue. We are not going to include images just to include them. With the penis or vulva, there are more external differences, including more noticeable external differences, when comparing them than there are when it comes to comparing vaginas. It makes a lot of sense to show the different vulva variations, especially when we have so many vulva images available. As has also been discussed, we don't use galleries unless beneficial; WP:Gallery is also clear about that.
As has also been discussed, the Penis and Human penis split should be revisited. People who go to the Penis article are clearly most often looking for the human penis topic. So the Human penis is the WP:Primary topic. The only reason that article was split is because some editors felt that the Penis article was too human-centric; see, for example, Talk:Penis/Archive 9#Too anthropocentric. I'd have to check the edit histories of the Penis and and Human Penis articles to see what further discussion, if any, was had. But unlike with the vulva, clitoris and vagina topics, there is a lot of research on non-human animals. There is a lot of information on non-human penises. So having a dedicated non-human penis article is very valid. We could have the Penis article be mostly about humans with an "Other animals" section within it pointing to a Penis (mammals) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. I would probably support remerging penis and human penis. Also, I did find what I think is a good non-human vagina picture. I'll go ahead and add it. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. And regarding this, as seen there, I reverted because it's not really focusing on the vagina. It's focusing on birth. The image is also too big. All that stated, I could support including a normal-sized image showing an animal giving birth in that section; I'd rather it focus more on the vagina if possible, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, birth is one of the major functions of the vagina. And I thought the cow birth montage was just too small at normal size. There is one other animal birth photo I found, though, that may work at thumbnail size. See what you think. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)