Talk:Vulva/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Vulva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Remove the picture
The picture at the top must be removed and replaced with a diagram labelling the parts. The vulva shown is offensive, its spread out and shiny. It is not needed. Outsider2810 (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, Thats a pretty pussy in that picture. Yummy!School Sick 801 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- This is a picture of a vagina in it's natural state. If you don't like it, don't look at it. 12.186.37.41 (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you don't like it, find a better public domain picture. Asarelah (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Just out of curiousity, how is any image on the page offensive? I'm seriously confused by this claim. K10wnsta (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In pursuit of encyclopedic quality people put graphic images on publicly viewed pages. This attitude is mistaken and exaggerated, as a diagram would serve exactly the same informative functions without actually offending some people. Because there indeed are people out there who feel offended by such a a graphic image and the fact that you don't find it offensive doesn't change that. BTW, it's hardly in "natural state" as it's been shaved. I have seen this problem across Wikipedia and I'm really beginning to feel that there's a hidden agenda behind all that. I strongly recommend replacing the image with a diagram. Dawidbernard (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Diagrams and photographs serve different purposes. A good article would use both. Powers T 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Somewhere the idea arose that all articles should have pictures and that everything should be illustrated with pictures. In reality encyclopedia articles don't always have pictures and real encyclopedias only use them when an illustration is needed and it would be impossible or too laborious to give a worded description. When an image is graphic its inclusion should be very carefully considered. Biofase flame| stalk 22:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a real encyclopedia, and we use photos. The reasons why many encyclopedias do not have to do with issues of licensing and space. I would submit that there are plenty of medical encyclopedias that do include photographic diagrams of anatomical subjects, and therefore I see no reason we should not as well. Powers T 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah sure, real encyclopedias include explicit photos where none are needed, call people evil where such bias is not acceptable, make sure to state that a subject is pseudoscience and put people in pseudoscience categories (a non-existent class in the real world) but treat their real qualifications as though it is nothing. Funny I don't see the real encyclopedias do any of these. Sorry but until all the agendas are removed from it and a real standard accepted I and all the mainstream sources will see it for the imitation that it is. "We use photos" is a poor excuse to include graphic content that is not needed. I have still to see a medical encyclopedia include multiple pictures to illustrate the same thing just because they can and where it is included it is usually a more detailed and informative illustration than a graphic representation just to entice. Biofase flame| stalk 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- We are limited somewhat by our desire to use only free images, so professional-quality diagrams are still some way off. For now, what we have are photographs that do a perfectly good job of representing the subject. As for quantity, you could say the same thing about our biographical articles -- most biographical encyclopedias show one picture (if that) of each subject, but our biographical articles often use multiple images to portray the subject at various times in his or her life. Is that excessive? Just to "entice"? And if not, why should it be any different for anatomical articles? Powers T 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Many people visit these articles for information on a topic and don't want to be bombarded by images showing all the diffently kinds of vulvas (with or without hair). Personally I would like the option of people being able to decide which images are shown so that galleries can be included that people will only see when they want to see them but until this is a reality I don't see why every image should be included just for the sake of variety. I can hardly see where the comparison is between a couple of photos in a biography article that nobody will complain about and a number of graphical ones included just because it's possible. The fact is that people are complaining about these images. Biofase flame| stalk 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- There are a lot of images that people might find objectionable for whatever reason, but we cannot put ourselves in the position of removing an image just because someone complains. Powers T 12:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Many people visit these articles for information on a topic and don't want to be bombarded by images showing all the diffently kinds of vulvas (with or without hair). Personally I would like the option of people being able to decide which images are shown so that galleries can be included that people will only see when they want to see them but until this is a reality I don't see why every image should be included just for the sake of variety. I can hardly see where the comparison is between a couple of photos in a biography article that nobody will complain about and a number of graphical ones included just because it's possible. The fact is that people are complaining about these images. Biofase flame| stalk 18:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- We are limited somewhat by our desire to use only free images, so professional-quality diagrams are still some way off. For now, what we have are photographs that do a perfectly good job of representing the subject. As for quantity, you could say the same thing about our biographical articles -- most biographical encyclopedias show one picture (if that) of each subject, but our biographical articles often use multiple images to portray the subject at various times in his or her life. Is that excessive? Just to "entice"? And if not, why should it be any different for anatomical articles? Powers T 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah sure, real encyclopedias include explicit photos where none are needed, call people evil where such bias is not acceptable, make sure to state that a subject is pseudoscience and put people in pseudoscience categories (a non-existent class in the real world) but treat their real qualifications as though it is nothing. Funny I don't see the real encyclopedias do any of these. Sorry but until all the agendas are removed from it and a real standard accepted I and all the mainstream sources will see it for the imitation that it is. "We use photos" is a poor excuse to include graphic content that is not needed. I have still to see a medical encyclopedia include multiple pictures to illustrate the same thing just because they can and where it is included it is usually a more detailed and informative illustration than a graphic representation just to entice. Biofase flame| stalk 18:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is a real encyclopedia, and we use photos. The reasons why many encyclopedias do not have to do with issues of licensing and space. I would submit that there are plenty of medical encyclopedias that do include photographic diagrams of anatomical subjects, and therefore I see no reason we should not as well. Powers T 12:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Somewhere the idea arose that all articles should have pictures and that everything should be illustrated with pictures. In reality encyclopedia articles don't always have pictures and real encyclopedias only use them when an illustration is needed and it would be impossible or too laborious to give a worded description. When an image is graphic its inclusion should be very carefully considered. Biofase flame| stalk 22:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Spellings
What is the standard (British or American)? Right now, the article has the subsection Foetus, when it could be spelt fetus also. Perhaps there should be an alternate spelling in that subsection of the article. I am all for British spelling but foetus is one of those odd ones that not everyone recognises right off in my opinion. I read elsewhere that it was decided that for international health publications, foetus would be spelt fetus.
There are many articles that randomly use American or British spelling, not sure what should happen here, and would rather have feedback then attempt to set any trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatsh (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think wikipedia as a whole wants to take a side on the British v American spelling issue. We should just make sure that within each article the spelling is consistent. - jackdegaulle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.101.11 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Clitoral Piercing Necessary?
Is it really necessary to have clitoral piercing in this article? I propose that it be merged with body modification or some other article of the sort, clitoral hood piercing is not practiced universally in the human spectrum, and is in fact practiced by a small minority of humans. I know wikipedia is not censored, even though that is likely the first response I will get. I am merely stating that a section on piercing of the clitoral hood is fluff to this article on the vulva, and is hardly encyclopedic. It is more suited to an article including its cultural ramifications, because an article on the vulva should be about the vulva and not about things cultures subject it to. It seems to me the clitoral hood piercing image is just there to spark more debate about wikipedia being censored. Also, the current vulva image including the woman's wet fingers is of genitals in an excited state and may be obscene under Florida law (which is where the servers are located.) Furthermore, this may be confusing to an uninformed reader, as the articles intention is not to depict the mechanisms of lubrication of the vulva. I think the article should be trimmed to focus on the basic anatomical structures and any additional information within reason be merged to other articles. Whiteknight521 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- The section the image is being used in is about the alternation of the Vulva, of which the clitoral hood is a part of. As for the last part, I'm not sure which image of which you're referring.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Circumcision is not practiced universally, but its still in the penis article. And I can't really tell if her vulva is stimulated or not, it just looks like it was being stretched to show the inside. Her fingers are probably wet with an artifical lubricant to make the stretching more comfortable. Besides, we have pictures of erect penises on Wikipedia, that's not obscene. Asarelah (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
In which case I would also argue that circumcision be a separate article; circumcision is not a definitive characteristic of the male genitals, nor is clitoral hood piercing a definitive characteristic of the female genitals. Furthermore I would be willing to wager that less than 1% of the world's female population has a clitoral hood piercing, while a much larger percentage of males have been circumcised. Circumcision originated for medical and religious purposes (the former of which have all but been debunked,) while clitoral hood piercing seems to be a cultural phenomenon that is done for aesthetic purposes. I just think its inclusion is superfluous to the vital information of the article. If we are going to allow that picture, we will have to allow pictures of any possible modification to the vulva no matter how obscure. With this precedent the article will become increasingly lengthy due to inclusion of all possible medical procedures, aesthetic procedures, and visual characteristics of the vulva. I just think elements of the article are far too specific for a single article. 68.61.37.27 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is the most common, well-known modification to that body part. Superfluous would be the inclusion of ALL possible modifications to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.222 (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
"Something shameful to be hidden"
- Western cultures have commonly viewed the vulva as something shameful to be hidden . . .
I wonder about the "shameful" aspect. Is it not rather an object of modesty -- as opposed to shame? I am not in any way ashamed of my sexual organs, but I'm very reluctant to show them to other people. I avoid group showers, for example.
- sigh* perhaps an article on Modesty is in order?
- In my opinion, yes it is. There is propensity in our society to view virtues as shameful, which seems inherently contradictory to me. As a witness to this, I note the almost violent reaction to teaching abstinence by a very vocal group in our society. Perhaps the 'popular' understanding of shame/freudian psychology is the source. I'm not sure.
- Um,'Virtues' are relative. Just because you've been raised to believe in certain virtues doesn't mean anything else than that you have been raised to believe in certain virtues. Abstinence for the sake of abstinence (as in religiously motivated) is insanity in my world.
- Relativism is popular, not necessarily true. Does the fact that people behave differently discount any objective discussion of morals?
- pardon me. but I don't even understand why we're talking about cultural stuff here. Yes. it's true that many cultures around the world think that vulvas should be hidden in public. However, I don't think somebody uploaded the photo to be immoral or offensive but posted it for people who visit this page to learn about it with clear and actual photo, which I think is necessary and helpful. This page isn't about morality or taboo but for human anatomy and it's good to have a photo for subject like this for better understanding it, I believe. davidmj926 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
excuse me...but WHY do you take pornographic pictures of woman's bodies and post it on the internet. in my opinion it's disgusting and shameful and personally i think you are criminals.You could be charged by police and i have saved the webpage so you better be careful. thank you.(Please go buy some morals)--Nasty Picture70.53.60.57 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Its perfectly legal to put a picture of a vulva on the Internet. And even if it were "pornography", well guess what...Internet pornography is perfectly legal too! Asarelah 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, first off, this is not pornography from my standpoint, but that's a fine point and I'll leave it alone. The real answer to you question is: this is an encyclopedia whose goal is to be a repository for human knowledge. That's "human knowledge", not "human knowledge that some particular subset of humans consider acceptable". If you have a picture that better illustrates the subject, please share it with us. -Harmil 05:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder why did you come to this entry if you are so chastise ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.39.21.94 (talk • contribs) .
- It's what every human female body basically has and the image is just for helping people to understand how it really looks, rather than just a simple drawing. This page is NOT like one of porn sites on the internet since while you're taking it pornographic, others just see it for INFORMATIONAL purpose. You're comment is just clueless and laughable. Police? How pathetic you aredavidmj926 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sex is good, but don't go out and have sex with just anyone. If you are married, have sex with your wife/husband. Save sex for marriage. It'll get you good results. You may not even get divorced.
- That may be your opinion, but that does not represent Wikipedia's idea of a Neutral Point of View. Laerwen 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is a page for vulva. not sex or marriage.davidmj926 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- And, I just can't stop laughing my ass off at your clueless and brainless comment. hahahahaha. OK, Vulvas are what every human female body basically has and the image is just for helping people to understand how it really looks, rather than just a simple drawing. GET THIS CLEARLY:This page is NOT a porn page on the internet like you think, because while you're taking it pornographic, others just see it for INFORMATIONAL purpose. davidmj926 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect a troll. In any case, ironically that IP looks up to Canada which AFAIK has fairly liberal laws on sexuality and pornography compared to, for example, the religious US Nil Einne 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There are some dumb, dumb people in the world (referring to the prude claiming arrests are in order). Also, never having sex with someone until you're married sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Very belated reply, but in response to the original question, the word pudenda translates from Latin literally as "things which one should be ashamed of"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Picture update.
The labeled picture of the female genetalia is WRONG! It swaps the clitoris with the urethra. I know, I have one, I know where my pee comes out. This picture is wrong!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.17.79 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- :( Honest to god, if I hadn't seen the pictures of vaginas here on wiki I still would have thought that my urethra... was my clit. My bf laughed at me. I'm not joking. 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Ignorant with no images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.197 (talk)
That picture is revolting!
I replaced the second diagram with a drawn diagram taken from "The Vulvodynia Survival Guide" by Howard I. Glazer, Ph.D. I chose this picture over the other because, for the most obvious reasons, it's better detailed, less questionable, and far less offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Massacabre (talk • contribs) 18:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
- There was nothing "offensive" about the pictures. If you find these articles offensive either don't look them up in the first place, or please discuss your problems here on the talk page before blanking information. --Nigelj 22:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that there are photos on wikimedia commons under the section Female_genitalia that better show the vulva than the current picture. SophieRachel 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article's photograph have pubic hair like that naturally occurring on the human female? Rdr0 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- - I agree. It should. DCEvoCE 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just replaced it with an image already in Wikimedia Commons, but if anyone has a better one feel free to replace it. Rdr0 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- - This image looks like a prepubescent girl. Where are the developed labia? Could someone please replace it with a MATURE woman? 10 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.179.27 (talk)
Scent?
Should something perhaps be mentioned about the particular scent of vulvas? From my experience, it's pretty distinct. Do penises also have a certain smell? I dunno. I just thought I'd bring it up. CerealBabyMilk 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Jesus, this an encyclopedia, not a porn magazine.--Kamikaze 10:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be something on scent. No, penises dont useually have a smell like vulvas do. I also think the section should include vaginal discharge as from what I understand thease are related and also related to the menstral cycle, as the scent and colour/viscosity of vaginal discharge changes according to the different stages of the menstral cycle and can also indicate infections of the vulva. I dont understand the comment about porn magazine. SophieRachel 17:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's time for a Wiki scratch-and-sniff technology? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I too don't understand how your only contributions are related to vagina or vulva. Probably someone eager to show they're supported ? --Kamikaze 17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyways, just to be specific, I don't think the scent thing is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. It's sure not notable enough to be mentioned in medical studies on vulva.--Kamikaze 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Kamikaze, I only just started recentley, and I am a student with not much time, and I had to start somewhere, so I started helping here. youll see more of me in other places related to the body and health later when I have more time. SophieRachel 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why this wouldn't be considered notable as long as there's a source for the information. There certainly is ample information out there on "abnormal" odours, which is good but makes it harder to find info on "normal" ones. In my experience and reading the penis can also have a distinct smell not dissimilar to that of the vulva. Sebaceous glands glands in the clitoral hood and foreskin seem to play a part in this; sometimes they are removed in circumcision in males. It would be interesting to know which chemical components are contributing the most to genital scents; maybe some of them are pheremones or sex hormones?--Eloil 14:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- You should also point out the sources that prove its notability. If you find them, of course.--Kamikaze 18:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Penises do have a certain smell, especially if they're uncircumcised. Also, the scrotum tends to sweat freely so, that adds some smell too. Hope that helps. 156.34.212.227 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pardon, how does one go about writing on a distinctive smell? If readers are actually trying to learn what a vulva smells like, I'm not sure what kind of descriptive vocabulary could be used to convey that. "Body odor" would probably be the closest recognizable scent to an uninformed observer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.241.154 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Stolen image
It would seem that the image "Sarahvulva crop.jpg", used in the article, might have been stolen from this amature porn site. see the post at Image talk:Sarahvulva crop.jpg#Possibility that the image was stolen for more information.151.203.184.11 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed the image from the article. It shouldn't be hard to get a replacement photo. Robotman1974 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about the various versions (labeled/unlabeled/cropped/uncropped) of the image that are still on the on the Wikimedia Commons? shouldn't they be deleted? 151.203.184.11 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- They certainly should, but that will have to be discussed on Wikimedia Commons. If there are any other articles here on Wikipedia that include those images, they should have the images taken out as well. Robotman1974 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- What about the various versions (labeled/unlabeled/cropped/uncropped) of the image that are still on the on the Wikimedia Commons? shouldn't they be deleted? 151.203.184.11 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do I get to say "I told you so" now? :-) Nandesuka 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the image was probably stolen was broght up on the talk pages of several versions of the image at the Commons see here, but there has been no response...151.203.184.11 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm on it :) Speedy deletions at commons aren't all that speedy... patience please :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I knew there was something odd about that user. Who asks random people if they want pictures of his naked wife?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 22:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The colour wine?
Does a womans vulva really turn from red to wine at the plateu stage? Hmmm
- I think the exact coloring varies, but it does tend to get darker.CerealBabyMilk 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are these edits considered questionable?
In the section about genital alteration I added a link to an existing phrase, a couple of "also known as", and a gloss. I also attempted a more worldwide perspective. All of these were reverted, with the edit summary that they were "questionable". I don't see why. Please could a more detailed discussion be opened up here.
Also, I wish I knew how to do that thing that provides a link to show what the two edits look like. Any helpful ideas for this WikiGnome? BrainyBabe 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
remove picture
remove the picture Origin-of-the-World.jpg that thing is just scary
I know but talk about shock images
- you do realize it's a 1860s painting, right?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The internet is not for the prudish. Conservapedia may be more to your liking. Trollderella 23:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing "shocking" or "scary" about a simple painting of a human vulva, especially not in the context of an article about the vulva. Wikipedia is not censored. Also, please sign your posts using for tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 01:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC).
The scary thing is that the Origin of the World has more pubic hair than an Armenian. Can't we have sexier, more airbrushed illustrations? Perhaps with some captions describing their hobbies...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.125 (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Airbrushed illustrations would not be realistic. This article is to show how vulvas generally look, not how people wish that they would look. Asarelah 23:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Wouldnt it be nice if they looked nicer in a way tho lol. Origin of the world is quite scary but should be kept as a 19th century painting Stui 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- wikipeia is not censored, but that image should be--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 09:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing "scary" about the painting. As for the amount of pubic hair depicted by the artist, it isn't unusual, and since the vulva in the first photograph has very little hair (and the last one none), the painting balances it out quite nicely.Shadowcrow 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- *sigh* And men wonder why women have so many issues with their bodies. A vulva in its natural state is considered "scary" and ugly. Very sad.Asarelah 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah nonsense, "scary" might be a bit off, but you would consider a man with unkempt hair unshaven for weeks to look like a bum as well, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.37.227 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- *sigh* And men wonder why women have so many issues with their bodies. A vulva in its natural state is considered "scary" and ugly. Very sad.Asarelah 02:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- If anything the pictures of the vulvae with little or no pubic hair should be removed, because they don't portray how vulvae actually look naturally. It's like the article for Human would only include pictures of people who've had a lot of cosmetic surgery and breast augmentations, or people who've suffered disfiguring and deforming accidents. --BiT 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that, BiT...isn't it important to show the Cleft of venus without the hair getting in the way? Would you object to a shaved head in the article about the human scalp? Asarelah 04:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. I think any picture of the male human head should show a full rough beard and long unwashed locks of hair, since that is its natural state. Any kind of haircut or shaving shows a cultural bias and paints a sad image of what hair should look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.37.227 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know about that, BiT...isn't it important to show the Cleft of venus without the hair getting in the way? Would you object to a shaved head in the article about the human scalp? Asarelah 04:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am a girl, and that image is a painting, it should be a picture--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 12:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- then go take a picture of your vagina and put it up here 64.15.147.181 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- sure, butwhat is wikipedia's rule on uploading a picture of a 16 year olds vulva?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- then go take a picture of your vagina and put it up here 64.15.147.181 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Erm...I wouldn't do that if I were you. People (such as your parents!) would probably react badly if you're under 18, even if it is for clinical purposes. Besides, there are already pictures in the article. Asarelah (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- i was being sarcastic--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 12:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, good. You never can tell on the Internet. (I've heard people say weirder things on talk pages, believe me.) Asarelah (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- same here--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some parts of this discussion made me laugh, even though there were valid points. Just reminds me of one of the reasons why I love Wikipedia... Although, it's also a pain, of course, due to vandals. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm removing this picture because it is not notable nor necessary on this encyclopedic page. If you want to fulfill your fantasies, do it elsewhere. This is not a matter of censorship, which Wikipedia is not of course. And just because a picture exists and may be "art" doesn't mean it needs to be included in this particular article for any reason - only if you want to get your kicks from having it here. It's totally inappropriate. You come up with all the excuses you want, but keep in mind this article doesn't belong to you - it is for everyone. Some images are included, some are not. You do not need everything under the sun to be included. If you want to find pictures about much pubic hair, go to the image search on google or something. We are tired of debating these ridiculous pictures that wild people perpetually maintain and insist belong on Wikipedia, for their own strange reasons. WP:Notability (and do read this response fully before inevitably attacking me WP:AGF? still - just be civil )~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not to mention this picture has been included by some user who wants to have their way fly on this article. The painter - I forget his name just now - is not even talked about again anywhere else in the article. The picture is completely random and not placed in the right section anyway. I mean, it's bad enough that some pierced vulva picture is included. Why show these things? Just because you are able to? People have imaginations; we don't need images that are not needed and actually offend many. I would hope that there are not people just sitting around waiting for someone to remove the picture just to undo that removal (oh WP:AGF again, sorry) the point remains though. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not "obscene", it is informative and relevant. I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. We do not remove images purely on the basis that they offend people. Period. This has been debated into the ground. I also resent your implication that I and the other editors who want it there are trying to "fulfill fantasies" or "get our kicks" and characterize us as "wild people". You are not assuming good faith, and you are being incivil. I have put the picture back in the article. 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note I already addressed your points and know well the policies, as I stated also. Repetition is not necessary. That's why I cited WP:AGF, for I was having more of a conversation - take it as you will. You say it is relevant but you do not say why. Sure any picture can be informative, such as a tissue box on the tissue article, but please explain how this is relevant - just because it has to do with the vulva doesn't give good grounds to include it in this article. There are millions of pictures quite possibly of the vulva, so what makes this one so much more relevant than the others? Like I said before - the artist and his/her painting is not even mentioned in the article - so where is this relevance - mind you relevance enough to pass the notability test? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Adding on, it would be "civil" to stop reverting these removals and starting edit wars (which is against WP policy) until there is some sort of consensus. Bickering won't get us anywhere - and edit wars don't solve, they just make problems worse. The pattern I have noticed on wikipedia is that every time there is a picture that offend people and people do not find it worthy of inclusion in the article, the "pro" side always wins. Why is that? It's not uncivil - it's thoroughness at the very very least. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not starting an edit war. If you read this talk page and its archives, you will find that consensous was built to keep pictures of vulvas on this article. That picture is relevant because it shows a vulva, which is the subject of this article. Just as the article for Hair shows pictures of hair, just as the article for nose shows a nose, this article for Vulva shows a picture of its subject, the vulva. If you are merely taking issue with it on the basis that you believe is an inferior picture of a vulva, then by all means, please find a better public domain picture of a vulva, upload it, and insert it in. But do not accuse fellow editors of putting the painting in because they are "wild people" and want to "fulfill fantasies". You were out of line. As for your belief that it is unfair that the pro side wins in arguements that pictures such as that one are obscene and therefore do not belong in the article, I would like to point out to you WP:NOTCENSORED is offical policy on this encyclopedia. They win the arguements because the people who want to censor these articles are trying go against Wikipedia's policy. If you don't like the policy, advocate to get it changed, but don't come bursting in here and demand that we ignore it because you don't like it. Asarelah (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah... very good points; well-taken. No need to take offense, I was not trying to personally attack you. I have just seen so many of these perpetual debates is all. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not starting an edit war. If you read this talk page and its archives, you will find that consensous was built to keep pictures of vulvas on this article. That picture is relevant because it shows a vulva, which is the subject of this article. Just as the article for Hair shows pictures of hair, just as the article for nose shows a nose, this article for Vulva shows a picture of its subject, the vulva. If you are merely taking issue with it on the basis that you believe is an inferior picture of a vulva, then by all means, please find a better public domain picture of a vulva, upload it, and insert it in. But do not accuse fellow editors of putting the painting in because they are "wild people" and want to "fulfill fantasies". You were out of line. As for your belief that it is unfair that the pro side wins in arguements that pictures such as that one are obscene and therefore do not belong in the article, I would like to point out to you WP:NOTCENSORED is offical policy on this encyclopedia. They win the arguements because the people who want to censor these articles are trying go against Wikipedia's policy. If you don't like the policy, advocate to get it changed, but don't come bursting in here and demand that we ignore it because you don't like it. Asarelah (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Adding on, it would be "civil" to stop reverting these removals and starting edit wars (which is against WP policy) until there is some sort of consensus. Bickering won't get us anywhere - and edit wars don't solve, they just make problems worse. The pattern I have noticed on wikipedia is that every time there is a picture that offend people and people do not find it worthy of inclusion in the article, the "pro" side always wins. Why is that? It's not uncivil - it's thoroughness at the very very least. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note I already addressed your points and know well the policies, as I stated also. Repetition is not necessary. That's why I cited WP:AGF, for I was having more of a conversation - take it as you will. You say it is relevant but you do not say why. Sure any picture can be informative, such as a tissue box on the tissue article, but please explain how this is relevant - just because it has to do with the vulva doesn't give good grounds to include it in this article. There are millions of pictures quite possibly of the vulva, so what makes this one so much more relevant than the others? Like I said before - the artist and his/her painting is not even mentioned in the article - so where is this relevance - mind you relevance enough to pass the notability test? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is not "obscene", it is informative and relevant. I remind you that Wikipedia is not censored. We do not remove images purely on the basis that they offend people. Period. This has been debated into the ground. I also resent your implication that I and the other editors who want it there are trying to "fulfill fantasies" or "get our kicks" and characterize us as "wild people". You are not assuming good faith, and you are being incivil. I have put the picture back in the article. 20:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some parts of this discussion made me laugh, even though there were valid points. Just reminds me of one of the reasons why I love Wikipedia... Although, it's also a pain, of course, due to vandals. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- same here--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, good. You never can tell on the Internet. (I've heard people say weirder things on talk pages, believe me.) Asarelah (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- i was being sarcastic--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 12:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is doctor recommended
This article is doctor recommended. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Why the unencyclopaedic tag?
What - an encyclopaedia isn't meant to cover subjects starting with V? I'm tempted to simply remove it, but is that protocol? Gordon Findlay (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:Bold. I removed them. No reason given to include them. Gillyweed (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
List of disorders
Is the list of disorders given in the section on Disorders affecting the vulva worth including? There is a link to the ICD-10 codes, which duplicates them, and is more extensive. I have tried to justify the inclusion by defining the list as "most significant" disorders, but that is just a weasel word. Gordon Findlay (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg
This image should be removed:
1) The spelling of "minora" is incorrect 2) Tbe picture displays atypical genitalia (grossly large vagina) 3) Picture appears to have been lifted from a pornography site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.151.177 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1) Indeed. You are as free as anyone to change it.
- 2) I don't exactly carry a Vernier scale to my dates, but then again, does it really have to be typical? No two vulvae look alike. But the picture is good, It shows lots of details. A picture like that is a lot more informative for the layperson than a diagram. Did you ever think "but what does it really look like?" back in sex ed? --GSchjetne (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- 1) The text looks as if it were part of the picture, and therefore hard to change. 2) The vagina does seem strangely large to me as well. This article isn't about vaginas, after all, so we don't actually have to see inside it. 3) Is it lifted from a pornography site? It certainly looks rather pornographic, with the woman's fingers and much of the mons pubis visibly (and rather inexplicably), well, wet. Shadowcrow (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I replaced it with the picture from the vagina-page. I think this one fits better.--Lamilli (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I propose to the community this one I made: Image:Vulva labeled no tags.jpg. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 13:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored ;D--Anteriormente (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The intent is encyclopaedic and for practical knowledge, not for your sexual excitation. Im not amused. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is normal to get a sexual excitation from an image vulva for a heterosexual man. It has nothing to do with the article, it's only about you. For example, typical heterosexual woman aren't going to get any sexual excitation from such images simply because she has her own Vulva. Yestadae (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
- The intent is encyclopaedic and for practical knowledge, not for your sexual excitation. Im not amused. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored ;D--Anteriormente (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I propose to the community this one I made: Image:Vulva labeled no tags.jpg. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 13:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
age of female in vulva picture
Hi This vulva does not look much like the vulvas I have seen 'face to vulva' or like the vulvas I have seen in pics. I suspect that at the time that pic was taken the female was legally a child. Dannygjk (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree...that vag is extremely small to be an adult's, or even a teen's. elisatalk. 15:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm..there isn't any hair or even stubble. Maybe we should get rid of it. Asarelah (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guessing the age of a model based on a photo is a tricky business, and easily gotten wrong. I was all set to ignore this issue, but when I looked at the contributor's other photos at Commons I see that at least one of them was deleted due to concerns about the model possibly being underage. This concerns me. For now, I've removed this image from the article, and we should look for another (free, uncopyrighted, clearly adult) illustration to replace it. Nandesuka (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was a more appropriate image on the Vagina page that can be used. Nandesuka (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I presume that there in the North America/"First World" the books about pediatric gynecology are not allowed to show photographs of the vulvas of the female children. Yes, the bourgeois legislators are ridiculous, and the ones who like to obey them without an explicit protest are even more ridiculous. But oh, yeah... "Wikipedia is not censored"... Pffft... KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.155.188.4 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- There was a more appropriate image on the Vagina page that can be used. Nandesuka (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Guessing the age of a model based on a photo is a tricky business, and easily gotten wrong. I was all set to ignore this issue, but when I looked at the contributor's other photos at Commons I see that at least one of them was deleted due to concerns about the model possibly being underage. This concerns me. For now, I've removed this image from the article, and we should look for another (free, uncopyrighted, clearly adult) illustration to replace it. Nandesuka (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm..there isn't any hair or even stubble. Maybe we should get rid of it. Asarelah (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that the age of the person on the picture matters really? It's just a vulva no worse than a nude 5 year old human to show how humans look like at that age, and in my book at least nudity isn't nearly the same as porn. You wouldn't call giving your newborn child a bath sick would you? I think people should try to remain scientific about this, but there is always the chance that I misunderstood something :P --BiT (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. This isn't a porn site, this is an encyclopedia! Why would the age matter here? I see no reason not to display even a labelled image of "a child's vulva" if someone determines it would be informational. Pediatry and pedophilia aren't quite the same thing, y'know... --arny (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Rationally, the age of the model used should make no difference (outside of whether the structures are clearly visible). Unfortunately, there is the chance that someone might raise a hue and cry and cause a great deal of legal grief for Wikipedia. I'm not sure if, strategically, that is something we want to risk right now.Daqu (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the age of the model should not matter from a legal standpoint, since this is clearly not pornography. However, I wonder how much sense it makes from an encyclopedic standpoint to have the vulva of, what at least appears to be, a pre-pubescent girl, or perhaps a slightly atypical vulva, on an encyclopedia article about vulvas? I think it would make much more sense to have a mature, adult vulva, at least as the introductory picture. Kronos o (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which image do you mean? The current image is described as depicting a 23-year-old. I don't know what image was being discussed in February. Powers T 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the age of the model should not matter from a legal standpoint, since this is clearly not pornography. However, I wonder how much sense it makes from an encyclopedic standpoint to have the vulva of, what at least appears to be, a pre-pubescent girl, or perhaps a slightly atypical vulva, on an encyclopedia article about vulvas? I think it would make much more sense to have a mature, adult vulva, at least as the introductory picture. Kronos o (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Rationally, the age of the model used should make no difference (outside of whether the structures are clearly visible). Unfortunately, there is the chance that someone might raise a hue and cry and cause a great deal of legal grief for Wikipedia. I'm not sure if, strategically, that is something we want to risk right now.Daqu (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. This isn't a porn site, this is an encyclopedia! Why would the age matter here? I see no reason not to display even a labelled image of "a child's vulva" if someone determines it would be informational. Pediatry and pedophilia aren't quite the same thing, y'know... --arny (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Start-class
Hello. Does this article still has to be rated as a start-Class on the assessment scale of the wikiprojects? — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Import Picture from German Article
What about importing this picture from the German Article? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Vulva_crop.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.165.144 (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's a stretch to say it adds anything in addition to the pictures that are already there. It's similar to the piercing pic, albeit without a piercing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
hey i am cherry glans boy.
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled1.jpg change this image. why this pic on page.crazy. The use of this image ..violence impulse.. touches off the man. danger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC) http://images.google.co.jp/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=ja&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_jaJP270JP270&q=Lilylandscape%E3%80%80%E3%83%AC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi It looks like this brick blown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um...what? Asarelah (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete the photograph. Change to the illustration as material of unquestionable as anyone can see. The rape and the crime (homicide to the woman)etc increase when leaving it.
Preferable example! http://content.revolutionhealth.com/contentimages/h9991308-001.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- We are not changing the picture. We have established consensus to keep the photograph. Asarelah (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
>>Asarelah However, you should think about a big adverse effect because of the use of such an image. Let's think about this. Is it illegal to become a stark-naked in a public, high place? Why does the man often kill the woman? Why does the man become brutal easily? Why do serial murders that aim at the prostitute occur? When the expression that sees by the man and becomes disadvantageous mentally is put on the textbook and the medicine material of the school for instance, mental damage is received. The sexual desire increases. It becomes easy to fall into the psychological illness. When the man machine is beautified in a public, oppositely high place and an expression or the beautiful one is adopted as an image, the man who saw it is relieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- We are not removing the picture. These are photographs that would be found in medical textbooks. Wikipedia is not censored. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. This is offical policy on the English Wikipedia. There is no proven causal link between depictions of nudity and violence anyway. Read the other comments on this talk page and in its archive. Asarelah (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
milk chocolate blown abalone.delicious. :-)
- I have removed the picture. Wikipedia is not "censored", but it is edited. This is a poor-quality image of uncertain provenance which is poorly -- and inaccurately ("labia menora"? Does this have to do with Hannukah??) -- labelled. We are doing our readers a disservice by using such a lousy image. I'm all for having a good picture of the vulva. But this is not that picture.
- In fact, I'm pretty sure this photo was deleted in the past. I'll look into why. Nandesuka (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I like black abalone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC) why Do you conceal labia menora?Put it. There is no something that it can be confirmed to any photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
why Do you conceal labia menora?Put it
come wikipedia head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) It is necessary to handle the model that labia menora is large. It is necessary to handle the model with a comprehensible calm condition of the labia mojora melanin. You should explain which part gets black. ：) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) When a top photograph is page top, bright milk chocolate Brown is seen. All labia menora can be confirmed, an inside color thinks, and a photograph that is white thinks that aggressiveness is low. To put it as material, the photograph being published now contains a very provocative element. do U understand?：) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.196.117.184 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% certain yet, but I think this may be one of the craziest sequence of words I've ever seen strung together. I mean, do you actually contemplate the placement of each word in what you write or is it just stream-of-consciousness? Either way, it is really, truly, impressively crazy. K10wnsta (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Either vandalism or he/she really doesn't understand a word of what they wrote. I've seen Google translate string sentences like that together. Biofase (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Image
I reverted the image back to the old one which is also used for the Vagina-page for the folowing reason: this picture shows in detail and high resolution every structure of the vulva whereas the other picture left major details out (like the clitoris, urethral and vaginal meatus) plus it was of inferior quality.--Quakeshake (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That would be the picture with the egregious mis-spellings in the labels? Thanks, but no thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- The misspelling has been corrected.--Quakeshake (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's still an unencyclopedic image, and inappropriate for an article lede, as discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Nandesuka (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to read the whole page. What do you think in unencyclopedic about the picture. I can tell you why the picture that you put in is unencyclopedic: it certainly doesn't show all the structures of a vulva. What's the point in posting a picture in which you don't even see the clitoris or the vaginal entrance. If that was the only picture we have - fine. But we got better ones, so why not take these?--Quakeshake (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like "I"m not going to read the whole [talk] page"? Nandesuka (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- This article is about the vulva, not the entire female genitalia. The image that Nandesuka reverted back to, Image:HumanVulva-NewText-PhiloViv.jpg, illustrates the subject perfectly fine. Do we really need a repeat of the penis image wars here? OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- What is the vulva if it's not the external female genitalia? And these are partially hidden in the current picture. And why should I spent the whole day going through the archives while you could just tell me in one sentence why you think this picture is so great.--Quakeshake (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a good reason why we should not take Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg --Quakeshake (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's been discussed in detail throughout this talk page. Your unwillingness to read that discussion is not our problem. As near as I can tell you are a single-purpose account, and it is incumbent on you to demonstrate a willingness to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. Continued failure to do this will result in sadness. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am willing to comply, that's why I'm trying to discuss this here. But since I was not getting any real arguments, I decides to move on and make my edit. I did read the whole discussion page now. Even though there was some discussion about images before, I couldn't find any consensus for this particular image. What makes me sad is the fact, that you seem to be unwilling to tell me your reasons for your revert. If you know where it was discussed before, why don't you just tell me or post a link. All you had to say was about misspelling (there were no misspellings in this picture) and about being "unencyclopedic" (what is that supposed to mean???). --Quakeshake (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic" means that the photo detracts from the article rather than improves it. To take one specific example, did you not read Ohnoitsjamie's observation that the photo you keep reverting to contains much extraneous detail that isn't relevant to the "vulva" article? That by itself is enough to disqualify it, in my view. In addition to my concerns regarding the spelling, which have been addressed, I observed that the image is of poor quality and uncertain provenance, both of which are strikes against using it in an article lede. Lastly, since the vulva is "stretched" in the image you prefer, in order to display the internal structures, the vulva itself is distorted from its typical appearance. When selecting photos, we generally prefer those that best represent a topic in it's "normal" state (except when such images are explicitly being used to illustrate a subtopic, such as body modification). Nandesuka (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- First of all: thanks for the first real answer. Even though I disagree in most points with you, the copyright is a good argument.--Quakeshake (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic" means that the photo detracts from the article rather than improves it. To take one specific example, did you not read Ohnoitsjamie's observation that the photo you keep reverting to contains much extraneous detail that isn't relevant to the "vulva" article? That by itself is enough to disqualify it, in my view. In addition to my concerns regarding the spelling, which have been addressed, I observed that the image is of poor quality and uncertain provenance, both of which are strikes against using it in an article lede. Lastly, since the vulva is "stretched" in the image you prefer, in order to display the internal structures, the vulva itself is distorted from its typical appearance. When selecting photos, we generally prefer those that best represent a topic in it's "normal" state (except when such images are explicitly being used to illustrate a subtopic, such as body modification). Nandesuka (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am willing to comply, that's why I'm trying to discuss this here. But since I was not getting any real arguments, I decides to move on and make my edit. I did read the whole discussion page now. Even though there was some discussion about images before, I couldn't find any consensus for this particular image. What makes me sad is the fact, that you seem to be unwilling to tell me your reasons for your revert. If you know where it was discussed before, why don't you just tell me or post a link. All you had to say was about misspelling (there were no misspellings in this picture) and about being "unencyclopedic" (what is that supposed to mean???). --Quakeshake (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's been discussed in detail throughout this talk page. Your unwillingness to read that discussion is not our problem. As near as I can tell you are a single-purpose account, and it is incumbent on you to demonstrate a willingness to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. Continued failure to do this will result in sadness. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Give me a good reason why we should not take Image:Vagina-anatomy-labelled2.jpg --Quakeshake (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like "I"m not going to read the whole [talk] page"? Nandesuka (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to read the whole page. What do you think in unencyclopedic about the picture. I can tell you why the picture that you put in is unencyclopedic: it certainly doesn't show all the structures of a vulva. What's the point in posting a picture in which you don't even see the clitoris or the vaginal entrance. If that was the only picture we have - fine. But we got better ones, so why not take these?--Quakeshake (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
There now seems to be a dispute between Image:Vulva labeled.jpg and Image:Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg. Can we have a discussion here about it instead of reverting back and forth? Personally, I prefer the latter one for a lead image. I don't like having labels on the lead image in an article, although I think it would be fine for later in the article. Powers T 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hello? Any thoughts, or are we just going to switch it back and forth for a few years? Powers T 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree: no labels should go on the lead image. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Picture?
With all the discussion over the picture to be used on the vulva page, I would just like to say that for educational purposes, a picture of a vulva in it's untouched and natural state be used. I would also like to add that to those of you who think that using a picture of a vulva is offensive, especially to children, just think that 50% of them own one.Whee.bang (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Get rid of this porn! 74.70.57.15 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is NOT censored for minors. For a picture to be useful at all, all the elements of the vulva must be clearly visible and identifiable. This includes labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, clitoral hood, opening of the urethra and the vaginal opening. Unfortunately in this day and age one has to look to porn for this, but I truly hope we can find a free image that fits this criteria that won't get deleted by the moral police shortly afterwards. --GSchjetne (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- The main pic is really lousy and half of the structures are obscured. I tried to substitute Image: Vagina,Anus,Pereneum-Detail.jpg, but it will not display, even though it is a free image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottandrewhutchins (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- It wouldn't display on this article because it was on the bad image list that only admins can edit. I'm an admin, so I've just added an exception to allow it to be used on this article, and added it per the above suggestion. I'm totally blind, so I really don't care which image is used on the vulva article. However I find it kinda fun to be able to edit the image blacklist. :-) Graham87 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
main picture is horrible, contrast horrible
It's all shiny like some obese woman who just finished shaving. Actually, I think an African American woman's vulva would be perfect. Contrast would be much better, and the problem with lighting would be lessened. Also, the visual obscurity hiding specific structures would be lessened do to the higher contrast, IMO. 75.34.80.233 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, so you're volunteering to upload a picture then? --BiT (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree - it seems to be a problem to show it as it is and simultaneusly show its beauty. The Idea of using a model with dark skin possibly solves some of the contrast problems. But on the other hand - it is an object to put a good light on it and let the shadow represent it's shape. No flash! Maybe a bw-photo may be more suitable. Black'n'white can have - or get much more contrast. And I believe to be a good photo it has to be manipulated in these matters. There will never be a photo that you just upload and everybody loves it. I'm not a photographer and have no such model. Habibie (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Error in word usage
One sentence in the "Fluids and odour" section reads:
"A secretion associated with ovulation is known as spinnbarkeit."
This is a usage error. Spinnbarkeit does not mean a secretion. Rather, it is a quality that some secretions have (such as cervical mucus during ovulation). See, for example, its entry in the Oxford English Dictionary.Daqu (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The new main photo is horrible..
Although it is a vuvla I think that the original picture that was moved down the page was a much better one.. The new photo is not only much less visually appealing, but it is also hard to make out where the clit, uretha, or vagina is. Also, I personally, whether in person or on the internet have ever seen a vuvla like that. The previous one should go back to being the main photo.
Magicman710 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please link the photos to which you refer; the images are switched back and forth with some regularity, so we have no idea which one you mean by "the original picture". Powers T 12:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the lead photo should show what the vulva looks like to the causal observer while a diagram belongs in the section below. Bobisbob2 (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This picture is porn and not an accurate representation of the adult female's genital organs.
A "shaved vulva"? Ugh. As if there aren't enough representations of Barbie-fied, utterly hairless, white women all over the web, the Wiki article has to show a porned-up version of a woman's genitalia? Believe it or not, women grow hair "down there," just like men. An accurate representation would show that. Infuriating and pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.100.206 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not pornographic, it's clinical. We do show an unshaved vulva farther down the page, but for the lead we use a shaved vulva because it actually displays the structures of the vulva, rather than obscuring them with hair. If this infuriates you, I suggest stress-reduction techniques. Powers T 14:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions, technique-wise? Drmies (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
shaven image
the first image on the page looks like a small child. who the hell put that image there ,it is disturbing and should not be on an educational board ,this is aa pornography site . will someone please replave the image with one where a woman actually does have pubic hair. 'kate' 5.november 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.59.115 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This was already discussed and it is NOT a small child. 174.124.173.233 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I changed the lede. In the previous one, the vulva takes up a very small percentage of the image. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but this one (File:01 Genitalien.jpg for the record) seems a bit too closely cropped to me. Powers T 13:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, which is why I tried to revert it out until we can establish by discussion that such heavy cropping is in the article's best interest. I don't believe that it is. --Nigelj (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- The other image is cropped too. The slight cropping for this one is not as bad as the other one's problems. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The only problem you've identified is that it was not cropped enough. That may be, but it can be cropped further. This one cannot be un-cropped to provide more context. Powers T 03:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well then, I changed to image to one with more context. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- The new one (File:03 Genitalien.jpg) is heavily shadowed and still cropped a bit too closely for my tastes. But that's just me. Powers T 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bob, if you want to call this consensus, fine. For the record, I'm with the lieutenant, and I hope you know that I reverted in part because you didn't seem to know what you were doing, replacing the text for the caption with the size (in pixels) of the image. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know how you guys measure consensus. I still prefer the original. Bob gets to give his image pride of place just by dogged pushiness, even though no one likes it? That is not consensus. --Nigelj (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that File:Female vulva.jpg is still the best of the three options, although I'm open to other suggestions. Powers T 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know how you guys measure consensus. I still prefer the original. Bob gets to give his image pride of place just by dogged pushiness, even though no one likes it? That is not consensus. --Nigelj (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bob, if you want to call this consensus, fine. For the record, I'm with the lieutenant, and I hope you know that I reverted in part because you didn't seem to know what you were doing, replacing the text for the caption with the size (in pixels) of the image. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- The new one (File:03 Genitalien.jpg) is heavily shadowed and still cropped a bit too closely for my tastes. But that's just me. Powers T 21:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The current picture File:03 Genitalien.jpg, and File:Female vulva.jpg suggested by Powers do not fit with the topic. Both only show half of the labia. They would be great on a page about labia, but on this page the only acceptable image should clearly show the mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, vestibule of the vagina, bulb of the vestibule, and Bartholin's glands, and be labeled as such. Photograph or illustration is a secondary concern to actually having the correct information displayed. That said, I agree that a photograph would be preferable, but if we can't find one it needs to be an illustration that is correctly labeled. AllenFrehold (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see that Bob is still edit-warring his image into the article (diff). This time with the note, "already did, and another poster agrees", referring to my suggestion to take his issues to Talk. Obviously ignoring the fact that three other, much more experienced editors disagreed. I think we need some admin help here to clear up what 'consensus' means and prevent this silliness going on for to much longer. --Nigelj (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Explain what makes the previous image better. The vulva make up a small amount and you don't see much of it. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was all discussed above and I, LtPowers, Drmies explained the problems with your two previous suggestions and they were removed. Then a new user comes along, and the third edit he ever made on Wikipedia discusses two of the three images we were discussing at the time, so you put a fourth one straight in! And then when I reverted the unilateral change and asked you to discuss it, you said, "already did, and another poster agrees". Nonsense, I say. Edit warring to maintain personal control of the pictures displayed on this article, I say. Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. --Nigelj (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- But there was no discussion of why the other image should be the consensus. Only you and Power supported it. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The image that was there for a long time should remain as the default until there is a consensus to change it. Powers T 13:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it's a terrible representation of the vulva. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed ever. Once your change was reverted, you should stop trying to change it until a consensus has been reached. Now, that said, I believe the current image, File:Female external genitalia.jpg is cropped far too closely. File:7-15-07NAP 441.jpg, which was the lead image until User:Whyme432 replaced it with the current one, is somewhat less illustrative but has more context. Either is probably better than any of the three we were discussing previously. Powers T 15:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can we aleast argee on 7-15-07NAP 441. I'm changing it back. Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- What about this one:--Lamilli (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed ever. Once your change was reverted, you should stop trying to change it until a consensus has been reached. Now, that said, I believe the current image, File:Female external genitalia.jpg is cropped far too closely. File:7-15-07NAP 441.jpg, which was the lead image until User:Whyme432 replaced it with the current one, is somewhat less illustrative but has more context. Either is probably better than any of the three we were discussing previously. Powers T 15:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it's a terrible representation of the vulva. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The image that was there for a long time should remain as the default until there is a consensus to change it. Powers T 13:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- But there was no discussion of why the other image should be the consensus. Only you and Power supported it. Bobisbob2 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was all discussed above and I, LtPowers, Drmies explained the problems with your two previous suggestions and they were removed. Then a new user comes along, and the third edit he ever made on Wikipedia discusses two of the three images we were discussing at the time, so you put a fourth one straight in! And then when I reverted the unilateral change and asked you to discuss it, you said, "already did, and another poster agrees". Nonsense, I say. Edit warring to maintain personal control of the pictures displayed on this article, I say. Read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. --Nigelj (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Explain what makes the previous image better. The vulva make up a small amount and you don't see much of it. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can get that labeled and them have it has the lede. And crop out the blanket. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
--Lamilli (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The original image was better, even with the blanket. The current one is cropped too closely, and I prefer a non-labeled version for the lead. Powers T 15:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Powers. Again. How long is this going to go on for? --Nigelj (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- The different parts of the vulva are perfectly exposed so they mind as well be labeled. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see what that has to do with anything. By all means, include a labeled image later in the article, and zoom it in as far as you like. But for the lead, I think the image needs to clearly show a) where the vulva is in respect to the rest of the female body, and b) all of the structures unencumbered by things such as hair and labels. Powers T 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- The different parts of the vulva are perfectly exposed so they mind as well be labeled. Bobisbob2 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Good gosh this is one of the longest debates. Seems like it is more a female genitalia debate than bothering about anything of value.Amandalu862 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed material
I removed the following large piece of unsourced text from the article. Some of it is undoubtably true, but covered elsewhere in the article; some of the language is not in our usual 'encyclopedic' voice; some of it is interesting. One possibility is that it is a copyright violation, having been lifted from elsewhere on the web. Please discuss here in detail if parts of it are to be reintroduced to the article: --Nigelj (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a good idea to introduce suspected copyright violations onto talk pages, either. =) I did indeed find that text at [1], and while it may have been written by the same author, we have no indication that is so. As such, I've removed it from the talk page. Powers T 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Extensive small changes
Quite extensive small changes were made without comment in these two edits by 98.67.107.32. Some of them seem trivial or stylistic(e.g. "taken from Middle Latin volva or vulva "womb, female genitals", probably from Latin volvere" -> "taken from the Middle Latin word volva or vulva - "womb, female genitals", probably from the Old Latin volvere"), but others change the tone of the article, e.g. "so that sperm cells can be pumped in to inseminate the female". I didn't want to revert the whole lot, but I think some of the changes are unwarranted. --Nigelj (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted one of the paragraphs in the lede to the previous, cited, version. By doing so, I have removed many of the worst changes, particularly two more gratuitous uses of the word 'vital', the assertion that the vulva is for 'pumping in', and that sex is 'pleasant' as well as 'complicated'. These did not improve the article IMHO, and the new paragraph structure was irretrievable broken. --Nigelj (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about Vulva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |