|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vagina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
|Vagina has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Is the "Edit" option for sections currently not showing up for anyone else?
It's currently not showing up for me at this article. Instead, the "Edit" option at the top of the article is still there, and I see an "[edit on Wikidata]" option in the infobox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please change this article's name to human vagina. Like the article human penis. Or do animals have no vagina? Or must vagina be considered human per definition? Then why not the penis. 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- See Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Human-centric. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the photo
The model on this photo has removed body hair. Please either make a note about that, or remove the note about "removed body hair" for the penis photo. Be consistent please! 2001:1C06:504:3300:4A5B:39FF:FEEF:A18D (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would hate to think there was some confused young person somewhere checking online if all the hair growing around their genitals is normal, and we didn't help make it clear that it is, and that these photos show an altered state. That applies to both sexes. --Nigelj (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Slate currently has an article Why Are More and More Teen Girls Getting Cosmetic Genital Surgery? that comments on our article's lack of representative imagery of the human female external genetillia:
Even when a girl looks outside the realm of porn for clues about her place on the labial spectrum, she’ll probably find only a narrow selection of vulvas to compare with her own. In 2014, Slate asked Vagina author Naomi Wolf to analyze the Wikipedia entry for vagina. “Why is there only one image?” she wondered. “I’ve never seen a labia like that. Not outside of porn. It’s not showing a true range.” Indeed, the entry’s featured photo is a completely shaven pubic area with a barely there labia minora and a small clitoris—the size and shape preferred by porn films and increasingly desired by teen girls (many of whose labia are well within the normal range) who ask their doctors for genital modification. (The Wikipedia entry for vulva, a lesser-understood term that gets far fewer views than vagina on the site, features a tremendous collage of labial and clitoral configurations.) Meanwhile, the penis entry features an entire paragraph on size range in the header and a dedicated section further down the page.
Our article does note at the end of the intro "In common speech, the word vagina is often incorrectly used to refer to the vulva, which can impact knowledge of the female genitalia." But many readers won't get that far and may also miss the vulva link that occurs earlier. A couple of possibilities i see for improvement include:
- Moving the last comment earlier in the intro, perhaps with a live link
- adding a hat note
- Adding a note to the main caption,perhaps including the hairless issue discussed above.
- Including more images in this article.
- ArnoldReinhold (agr), we addressed Naomi Wolf commenting on this article before, back when this article was drastically different than it is now. See Talk:Vagina/Archive 5#Article reviewed in media. When it comes to images, back then I stated, " As for the [lead] image, yes, see what is currently stated above on this talk page about that (if you haven't already) and this removed observation/threat by an IP; some people think that it's a prepubescent child porn image (I don't because, with regard to that image, I see what clearly appears to be skin that used to contain hair and what looks like razor bumps areas). [...] It is a matter of selecting good vagina images from WP:Commons (by 'good,' I mean the quality of the image and images focusing on the vagina instead of on all of the female genitalia and buttocks); once that is done, they can go in an Additional images section, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy. There used to be an Additional images section in this article; I'm not sure how it got removed. [...] Also, I haven't yet read Wolf's book on the vagina, but judging by the criticism it has received (whether mostly from feminists or not), and that she is not an anatomist, sexologist or sex educator, I won't be putting much stock into her views with regard to the vagina. [...] About the images aspect again, just in case anyone thinks that I am stating that every additional image should be placed in the Additional images section, I'm not. The Additional images section should not be overpopulated anyway, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy. Of course there should be more than one image (including diagrams) of the vagina higher in the article (meaning not just in the Additional images body of the article). Once this article is significantly expanded in size, there will also be more room to do so without WP:Sandwiching images. However, we should look for images that clearly display the variation of the vagina; redundancy should be avoided. It's easier to display the variation of the penis, but the vagina is often obscured by the labia, which is why there are some images, like the current (and debated) lead image, where the vagina is being manually spread for view. Variation is more likely to be seen by the labia minora ('vaginal lips') in this case."
- In other words, showing different vaginas is different than showing different vulvas, and we need to be sure we are showing different vaginas if we are going to include more female genitalia images in this article. The images should not be of the vulva in general or redundant to what is already in the article. This article also already has enough images.
- As for the lead noting that the vagina is commonly confused with the vulva, that is a summary of what is lower in the article...per WP:Lead. I don't see how we can go into more detail on that in the lead without the lead recounting most of what is in the Etymology and definition section. And based on the level of importance of what should be noted in the lead of this anatomy article, I don't think it should be moved higher than where it is.
- As for making sure that readers get to the Vulva article; it is linked in the first sentence. So I see no need to link to the Vulva article via a WP:Hatnote.
- If you want to note that the vulva is hairless in the caption, feel free. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Flyer22 Reborn, thanks for pointing out the previous discussion. I'm less concerned about what images to show. My main issue with this article is based on our guideline WP:TECHNICAL (“Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material.” and in particular WP:EXPLAINLEAD: “Readers need to be able to tell what an article is about, and whether they are reading the correct article, even if they don't already know the topic in detail.“
This article is based a technically correct but commonly misunderstood meaning of its title. Almost every english speaker old enough to read knows the word “vagina”. Far fewer know the word “vulva.” In common usage the former includes the later. Indeed, our article on the human penis states in the second paragraph “The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures.” It never mentions “vulva.” As this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lets-clear-up-the-vagina-vs-vulva-debate-once-and-for-all_us_562f99dfe4b06317990f73c8 points out “Meaning shifts as people use words in new contexts, and those new usages sometimes become widely adopted.”
All I am suggesting is that the lede make crystal clear to non-technical readers what the article is and is not about. WP:TECHNICAL says simply linking the word “vulva” in the lede is not enough. I would suggest the following hatnote:
- This article is about the largely internal female body part. For the external human female genitalia see vulva. For other uses, see Vagina (disambiguation).
- This article is about the birth canal. For the external female sex organs see vulva. For other uses, see Vagina (disambiguation).
Note that penis already has an extensive hat note. I don’t see any downside to adding clarity to our hatnote.
We already discuss the colloquial use of the word in the intro. I would move the last sentence of the intro to the end of the first paragraph, changing it to “In common speech, the word vagina is often used to include the vulva.” Usage correctness and its implications are best covered in the Etymology section, which may need other voices for balance.
I also think the lead for vulva could be improved but that discussion belongs on its talk page. This article gets a lot of traffic and so it is worth some effort to make its subject clear to everyone.—agr (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- It seems inconceivable that, in the age of modern sexual education, anyone would still fail to understand the distinction between "vagina" and "vulva". But if it would assuage concerns such as those expressed in the Slate article, then I fully support the addition of vulva to the hatnote. Powers T 19:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- ArnoldReinhold (last time pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), you are welcome for the backstory information. I appreciate what you are attempting and your reasons behind it, but, for this case, I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:TECHNICAL. From what I see, the lead is crystal clear that the vulva and vagina are two different things. And, like I stated, based on the level of importance of what should be noted in the lead of this anatomy article, I don't agree with moving the terminological aspect higher. I prefer that the society and culture material is kept together and comes last, just like it comes last in the body of the article. Well, actually, the "Etymology and definition" and "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" sections both address the problems with the lack of education on the female genitalia. So there is enough to address past the lead, though, yes, I know many readers (likely most) don't read past the lead. I don't always strictly follow WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy (it's a guideline, not a policy, after all), but I don't think we should go into terminological disputes in the WP:Lead paragraph for this article. I'm not keen on the idea of trying to accompany readers who somehow do not have the understanding to see that we are distinguishing the vagina and labia at more than one point in the lead, or the patience to make it to the final paragraph of the lead. I think even enough child readers, and especially teenagers, can see that we are distinguishing the vagina and labia. Plus, the matter is even clearer with the caption you edited.
- When it comes to the Human penis article, since stating "The penis and many of its associated structures are homologous to the vagina and its associated structures." is wrong, I changed that. That article is also on my watchlist, but, due to my busy schedule, I haven't been paying much attention to the changes there lately. As for the Penis article, it has some valid uses for its hatnote, primarily that there is a separate article for the topic of the human penis, but that hatnote is currently too extensive.
- All that stated, while I don't think your suggested hatnote usage is in line with Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Hatnotes, I can compromise. So, for your suggested hatnote usage, I would go with option 2. So feel free to implement it; I can't promise it will stay. So maybe you will want to watchlist this article for possible future objections to/discussions about that hatnote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also think your second proposed hatnote is better than the current one. The "This article is about the body part." hatnote is completely useless since it's vague and it's a certainty that everyone thinks of the sexual aspect when they read or hear vagina. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have changed the hatnote to version 2 as you suggest. I think that will help lot. Thanks for being willing to compromise. I don't agree with you about the placement of the terminology sentence. This article is apparently an important source for young people. Compare it with the Web MD vagina article http://www.webmd.com/women/picture-of-the-vagina
- with its classic and hard to comprehend cross section diagram, which I remember well from when I was young, long before the internet. Or this amazing but unhelpful Healthline page: http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/vagina Both are near the top in a Google search on "vagina," just after our article. The New York Times has just weighed in on the problem of teenage girls worrying about their genital image http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/increase-in-teenage-genital-surgery-prompts-guidelines-for-doctors/ But at least the sentence in question is in the intro. So I'm inclined to wait and see what others may have to say.--agr (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)