This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thigh gap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Surely neither of the images here should be here, as neither of the images have the knees touching. Thanks, Mat ty. 007 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There are some health-related claims in this article that are not adequately sourced. As this article is related to extreme dieting, it is important that we are using reliable sources appropriate for health-related content per WP:MEDRS. First off, a reliable source is needed for claims that thigh gaps are due to genetics. Womenfitness.net is not a reliable source for this purpose. If a suitable source is not available, the claim should be removed or reworded. Gobōnobō + c 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I know this isn't a huge deal or anything, but this article clearly doesn't have a NPOV. This makes it sound like thigh gaps are the devil and anybody who aspires to be skinny is superficial and doesn't really care about their health. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread your thoughts about how "thigh gaps" are bad for young people's self image or whatever. Also the sources should not be presented as fact, but as opinions. 74.89.110.34 ( talk) 03:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the 'drive-by' POV tagging of the article. The tagger left no explanation and it seems here that many of the issues have been resolved by sensible editing and discussion. Sionk ( talk) 00:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This entire article is wrong. The thigh gap, only seen in women, is the small gap in some women, between the extreme upper thighs, while standing with knees together, and most of the lower and middle thighs touching, leaving a small but prominent gap between the upper thighs near the vagina. It is not seen in men because in that portion of the upper thigh, if there were a gap, it would be obscured by the external genitalia. I'd like to post a picture as an example, but I don't have one that is my own copyright. But the question is, why would anybody have a name for what is described in this article? The space between the thighs in skinny women? How is that anything to give a name to? The thigh gap is only seen in women with enough fatty tissue that the thighs are touching except for the small gap at the top where there is little subcutaneous fat. This page gives some examples: https://www.society19.com/is-having-a-thigh-gap-actually-sexy MorganDWright ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The article begins "In humans..." but talks only about women and girls. What about the other half of the species?
Jonathunder (
talk)
04:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I found a copy of:
I couldn't find a single reference to thigh gaps in this visual anatomy book. Yet, this book is being used in the article to source that thigh gaps are "caused primarily by genetics and appears in young women who have very thin thighs and are very skinny". It is also being used to source the basic definition of the gap as occurring when "standing with the back upright and the left and right knees touching each other". That particular definition seemed to have been derived from the "Do you have one?" section of the Chandrasekharan article. But when the source was questioned, it was just attributed to the offline source. I propose we scrap the Human Body references and find alternative sources. Gobōnobō + c 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem confused about what self-publishing is and how it works. As long as you're not using Amazon's ISBN numbers, when you go to sell a Kindle e-book on Amazon, you can choose whatever name you want for the "publisher." FeminineCountour Publishing is not a real company. Google it and you'll see that it's also the name used on SmashWords, a self-publishing platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 ( talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The article begins with a definition of an anatomical term: "In humans, a thigh gap is a gap between the thighs when standing upright with both feet touching." It's being argued, however, that this article isn't really about anatomy and we should avoid any coverage of biological or medical aspects, only social ones. That's unbalanced. There are sources on the scientific perspective. Physicans do discuss this. We need better coverage of that. Jonathunder ( talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"attain thigh gaps" ... what? This is an attainment? That is not what tyhe more sensible sources say. What message is being sent here? There is no "attain"-ment. Can we rephrase please Victuallers ( talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The image description page says that it came from Flickr, but this image looks an awful lot like the images that were made by and for the ShopBop website. I was a freelance image processor for ShopBop in the 2010-2012 range, and my daily routine while in that position was to edit and retouch images that used this exact photo style to show what pants looked like on-model. ShopBop has an in-house studio with photographers that are ShopBop employees, and as far as I know, everything that is shot in-house is considered "work for hire" which means that the copyright is owned by ShopBop; the freelance contract that I signed before I started as an image processor clearly stated that ShopBop owned the copyrights on the images that I was to retouch for them. The profile of the user who posted this image on Flickr says that he is in Ireland; ShopBop is located in Madison, WI, where I am located. While I was freelancing at ShopBop, there was only one image processor who was not on-site, and that person was located in the US. Slambo (Speak) 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
What should I do about the contents of this edit?-- Laun chba ller 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are all these non-notable sources being used? 192.12.88.229 ( talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Quote from Kelly Richardson (Who the heck is this? Why is a quote from a random blogger being used?) is taken out of context because the Wikipedia article omits "for most people". Quote shouldn't be used anyways. 2600:1001:B014:9A1E:159E:D7D0:E323:141F ( talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Found a spelling error in the "Backlash" section of this Wikipage so I corrected the mistake to the correct version of counselors. I added a link to the body image Wikipage. I would suggest that this page is further developed with additional information. It is pretty basic and would be further along if there was additional information on associated health risks that come along with have a big thigh gap. I have heard in the past that a big thigh gap can make it more difficult for women to have children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleonor.thomas ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is little doubt that this section could be relevant to "Thigh gap", but the connection appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. I think it can be left in for now, but we need a source that connects the desire to attain a thigh gap with eating disorder issues. I am One of Many ( talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with you guys? Hope it is just this article and not widespread among Wikipedia, but I have my doubts. 70.192.94.44 ( talk) 08:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Minor language quibble: it is not possible to have anything less than "both knees touching" -- that is, if one is touching, it is touching the other. Suggest removing "both". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.107.110 ( talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute The introduction is slanted against this topic, framing it as being an impossible unhealthy body standard. Also, I'm not sure "The Times of India" is an appropriate source. If we can't find a source from an American or European source, one with higher and enforced standards for making verifiable health claims, then this probably shouldn't be at the top of this article. Eidlyn ( talk) 13:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary to delete my addition. The current Origins section claims that the "gap" gained notoriety after the 2012 Victoria's Secret show, but the source is a single Huffington Post article, in which the author cites one Tumblr page as sufficient evidence that the "gap" has gained sufficient notoriety to become a "new trend". If one Tumblr page is sufficient, I fail to see how The Chive doesn't qualify as a legitimate example of the "gap" gaining popularity as well.
The Chive started making "Mind the Gap" posts in March of 2011, long before the December '12 Victoria's Secret fashion show. In March of '11, The Chive was averaging over 1 million page views per day, which would point to those posts gaining the "gap" plenty of popularity. Further, the branding of that category of posts into a T-shirt would indicate that it was successful enough to warrant such production. Judging by the current popularity of that website, and the fact that "Mind the Gap Mondays" are still one of its most popular recurring posts, I believe omitting The Chive as one of the sources popularizing the phenomenon is a mistake. By the time that HuffPost article was written, The Chive had made over 70 "Mind the Gap" posts, and was averaging over 3 million page views per day. I fail to understand how a single HuffPost article gives a cultural phenomenon more notoriety than that.
Perhaps if I likened the "gap" to a meme (which by definition it is) it would be easier to see my point of view. Let's say we were to write a Wikipedia page about a certain meme, say "Bad Luck Brian", "Overly Attached Girlfriend", or the "Y U NO..." rage-face guy. On that page we included a section on its origin. We'd trace the meme as far back as we could, attempting to find the original post, and along the way, noting sources and points in time at which the meme gained or lost popularity. To compare this example to the "gap": even if the HuffPost article was one of those points/sources that gained the "gap" popularity along the way, to omit The Chive as a significant source of popularity-gain would be irresponsible. It would not only present inaccurate and insufficient information to those reading the page, but also snub The Chive from receiving credit for recognizing the "gap" and sharing content regarding it
Therefore, rather than simply re-adding my edit to the page, I'm posting this topic on the talk page in an attempt to at least hear your argument (among others) as to why my edit was removed.
Powell.410 ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Philafrenzy is a girl. Don't worry, I've made that mistake before now.
--
Laun
chba
ller
10:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a thigh gap that looks like it could accommodate a tennis ball if not a baseball. The treats! magazine Issue 5 cover featuring a model named Xenia, who I believe to be Xenia Deli (the other Xenias listed at the Fashion Model Directory are Xenia Tchoumitcheva, Xenia Markova, Xenia Siamas, and Xenia Micsanschi), has a pullout triptych that can be seen here. Does it get any bigger than that?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Times of India. I'm sure it's a reputable source. But it's weird that the Times of India is the news source of record for the western teenage girls phenomenon of thigh gaps. that's all I came here to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.245.126 ( talk) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We say The thigh gap has been criticized as a mostly unachievable and physically unnatural body shape and a cause of eating disorders
. I am not sure how best to re-word it but that is plain wrong: the gap might be a product of eating disorders but it certainly isn't a cause. What is meant is something like "... and attempts to achieve it may give rise to eating disorders" (but that puts two "achieve" words in one sentence and I hate repetition). -
Sitush (
talk)
21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do we need to specify gender? Who's to say the term couldn't be used for men? Even though the phenomenon is probably rarer. Ranze ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I've not seen any sources mention men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding a non-free image to the article. The image is non-free and fails WP:FUR because its use must be minimal and it is already been used in the actual album article. Further, its relevance here is based solely on WP:OR and there is no sourced commentary attesting to the relevance of the image to this article. The edit-warring to add this copyvio image to this article must stop. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Why remove this source? The article (now located here) appears to contain everything it's cited for. – Smyth\ talk 10:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Trickstar: I disagree completely. The article is one of the best researched of all the sources on this page, including quotations from both medical and cultural experts. By removing it you have left several important points, including the actual definition of the term, supported by either inferior sources or no sources at all. – Smyth\ talk 13:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Trickstar: As discussed above, this is a cultural topic rather than a scientific one, and there's nothing wrong with using mainstream media coverage to support it. The source was not used to support any scientific assertions (in fact, I previously removed such a use myself [3]).
Furthermore, the manner in which you did this was sloppy and has clearly made the article worse:
Your objections would apply at least as strongly to every other source on this page. Are you picking on this particular one because you believe there's some SEO going on? Where's your evidence for that? – Smyth\ talk 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
A neutral photo would be fine, but this photo is obviously trying to glamorize the usually unhealthy "ideal." Thus it is very POV. If you disagree, consider a photo from a famine zone - there will likely be a thigh gap, but including the photo in the article would be making an editorial comment that is inappropriate here. It works the other way around with this photo. It is overtly saying "this is something desirable". It's POV. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but I too find this argument to be a bit silly.,
Sorry, but that is dumb., to me and to Smallbones, show your propensity for insults. I remind you of our core policy of civility. Your continuous edit-warring against three experienced editors shows your propensity for forcibly imposing your POV and your lack of understanding of WP:3RR, despite having received multiple warnings. Combining POV, with edit-warring and insults, to get your way in a collaborative editing environment, is not collaborative at all, and it will probably lead to sanctions, especially if continued. I repeat what I replied to you above: This has nothing to do with censorship but with the consensus that the picture you are edit-warring into the article glamorises the thigh gap. Using a glamour model, dressed in a frilly, flowing white dress is a blatant attempt at glamourising the thigh gap, despite two-thirds of the article criticising the concept. The main image of an article is supposed to encapsulate the idea of the whole article, not just the minority portion that considers the thigh gap to be glamourous. There has been no consensus on this talkpage as to the type of image that can be used for this article. Now you unilaterally decided to add the alternate image, although there has been no consensus for including it and the discussion is still ongoing. My final piece of advice is WP:3RRNO. The link lists the possible exemptions from the 3 revert rule. These exemptions do not list WP:CENSOR as one of the acceptable exemptions. You are edit-warring at your own risk.
I think the wedding dress picture displays the meaning of thigh gap best and in no way glamourizes it. I think it should be put back. I agree with Valarian and TheValeyard. Their idea is superior. 59.101.239.4 ( talk) 15:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In the intro we find this statement:
Since the thigh gap occurs naturally in some women, it cannot be physically unnatural. Since a thigh gap, moreover, is just a physiognomic feature, it cannot cause an eating disorder. We can see, however, that the latter solecism arises because the author of this statement has misrepresented another found in the source, "Concern over teen 'thigh gap' weight loss obsession," Thejournal.ie, 6 October 2013. There we find:
Clearly, the author of the article says that self-esteem problems can lead to eating disorders; "can lead to" does not mean "can cause," let alone "cause." (I must also point out that a body shape held as an ideal cannot have a cost; neither can the holding of a body shape as an idea have a cost; what has a cost is the attempt of those for whom the body shape is unattainable to attain the ideal.)
The statement in the intro should therefore read:
I will make the appropriate changes. Wordwright ( talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In its entirety, this section runs:
The second paragraph contains no obvious information about the origin of the phenomenon. We are not told what Hugh's book is about, and Hugh's opinions are not represented by quotations from her book, but by the words of a critic.
I imagine that its original author included it in this section because the first paragraph is so short. The first paragraph is so short, however, because, although we are told what event made the thigh gap a thing to be noted, nothing is said about the origin of the two parts of the phenomenon, the idealization of the feature and the craze to acquire it. We are told only that images of thigh gaps appeared in various places, not what significance they had for the women who posted them or for the women who visited those blogs and sites.
I will move the second paragraph as it stands to the section "Backlash," but it should be re-written to indicate Hugh's theses. Anyone who is bothered by the meagre two-sentences of the resulting "Origin of the Phenomenon" section should ease their pain by doing the research necessary to tell the tale of the origin of the idealization and the craze. Wordwright ( talk) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the intro's second paragraph we find this sentence:
In composition, the beginning and the end of a sentence give the greatest emphasis to the things that occupy their positions. Since the content of the entire article is about the cultural significance of some women's obsession with the thigh gap, it is proper to mention a man's attitude towards the thigh gap as a formality in deference to the ideal of empirical completeness, but otherwise it is of no cultural importance whatever. Since indeed it is of no cultural importance, mention of a man's attitude towards the thigh gap should occupy a rhetorical position that gives it no topical or thematic emphasis.
The cultural insignificance of the man's attitude is why the notes are highly problematic. Note 2 contains a dead link, so it is no longer possible to determine whether it is the source for the claim that the thigh gap became an aspect and that it has been associated, etc.. More disturbingly, there are two notes—notes 3 and 4—to the claim about men's attitude, even though, as noted, what men think about the male thigh gap is perfectly irrelevant. Finally, the final note, note 5, refers us to a Slate article about the Vitruvian man's lack of a thigh gap—again, a perfectly irrelevant topic.
The passage should run:
I will remove the dead link and insert a request for a reference, and eliminate one of the notes to the male attitude and to the Slate article. Wordwright ( talk) 22:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thigh gap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2014. The result of the discussion was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Surely neither of the images here should be here, as neither of the images have the knees touching. Thanks, Mat ty. 007 16:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There are some health-related claims in this article that are not adequately sourced. As this article is related to extreme dieting, it is important that we are using reliable sources appropriate for health-related content per WP:MEDRS. First off, a reliable source is needed for claims that thigh gaps are due to genetics. Womenfitness.net is not a reliable source for this purpose. If a suitable source is not available, the claim should be removed or reworded. Gobōnobō + c 20:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I know this isn't a huge deal or anything, but this article clearly doesn't have a NPOV. This makes it sound like thigh gaps are the devil and anybody who aspires to be skinny is superficial and doesn't really care about their health. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to spread your thoughts about how "thigh gaps" are bad for young people's self image or whatever. Also the sources should not be presented as fact, but as opinions. 74.89.110.34 ( talk) 03:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the 'drive-by' POV tagging of the article. The tagger left no explanation and it seems here that many of the issues have been resolved by sensible editing and discussion. Sionk ( talk) 00:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This entire article is wrong. The thigh gap, only seen in women, is the small gap in some women, between the extreme upper thighs, while standing with knees together, and most of the lower and middle thighs touching, leaving a small but prominent gap between the upper thighs near the vagina. It is not seen in men because in that portion of the upper thigh, if there were a gap, it would be obscured by the external genitalia. I'd like to post a picture as an example, but I don't have one that is my own copyright. But the question is, why would anybody have a name for what is described in this article? The space between the thighs in skinny women? How is that anything to give a name to? The thigh gap is only seen in women with enough fatty tissue that the thighs are touching except for the small gap at the top where there is little subcutaneous fat. This page gives some examples: https://www.society19.com/is-having-a-thigh-gap-actually-sexy MorganDWright ( talk) 01:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The article begins "In humans..." but talks only about women and girls. What about the other half of the species?
Jonathunder (
talk)
04:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I found a copy of:
I couldn't find a single reference to thigh gaps in this visual anatomy book. Yet, this book is being used in the article to source that thigh gaps are "caused primarily by genetics and appears in young women who have very thin thighs and are very skinny". It is also being used to source the basic definition of the gap as occurring when "standing with the back upright and the left and right knees touching each other". That particular definition seemed to have been derived from the "Do you have one?" section of the Chandrasekharan article. But when the source was questioned, it was just attributed to the offline source. I propose we scrap the Human Body references and find alternative sources. Gobōnobō + c 01:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You seem confused about what self-publishing is and how it works. As long as you're not using Amazon's ISBN numbers, when you go to sell a Kindle e-book on Amazon, you can choose whatever name you want for the "publisher." FeminineCountour Publishing is not a real company. Google it and you'll see that it's also the name used on SmashWords, a self-publishing platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.211.150 ( talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The article begins with a definition of an anatomical term: "In humans, a thigh gap is a gap between the thighs when standing upright with both feet touching." It's being argued, however, that this article isn't really about anatomy and we should avoid any coverage of biological or medical aspects, only social ones. That's unbalanced. There are sources on the scientific perspective. Physicans do discuss this. We need better coverage of that. Jonathunder ( talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
"attain thigh gaps" ... what? This is an attainment? That is not what tyhe more sensible sources say. What message is being sent here? There is no "attain"-ment. Can we rephrase please Victuallers ( talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The image description page says that it came from Flickr, but this image looks an awful lot like the images that were made by and for the ShopBop website. I was a freelance image processor for ShopBop in the 2010-2012 range, and my daily routine while in that position was to edit and retouch images that used this exact photo style to show what pants looked like on-model. ShopBop has an in-house studio with photographers that are ShopBop employees, and as far as I know, everything that is shot in-house is considered "work for hire" which means that the copyright is owned by ShopBop; the freelance contract that I signed before I started as an image processor clearly stated that ShopBop owned the copyrights on the images that I was to retouch for them. The profile of the user who posted this image on Flickr says that he is in Ireland; ShopBop is located in Madison, WI, where I am located. While I was freelancing at ShopBop, there was only one image processor who was not on-site, and that person was located in the US. Slambo (Speak) 15:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
What should I do about the contents of this edit?-- Laun chba ller 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are all these non-notable sources being used? 192.12.88.229 ( talk) 03:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Quote from Kelly Richardson (Who the heck is this? Why is a quote from a random blogger being used?) is taken out of context because the Wikipedia article omits "for most people". Quote shouldn't be used anyways. 2600:1001:B014:9A1E:159E:D7D0:E323:141F ( talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Found a spelling error in the "Backlash" section of this Wikipage so I corrected the mistake to the correct version of counselors. I added a link to the body image Wikipage. I would suggest that this page is further developed with additional information. It is pretty basic and would be further along if there was additional information on associated health risks that come along with have a big thigh gap. I have heard in the past that a big thigh gap can make it more difficult for women to have children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleonor.thomas ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There is little doubt that this section could be relevant to "Thigh gap", but the connection appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. I think it can be left in for now, but we need a source that connects the desire to attain a thigh gap with eating disorder issues. I am One of Many ( talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with you guys? Hope it is just this article and not widespread among Wikipedia, but I have my doubts. 70.192.94.44 ( talk) 08:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Minor language quibble: it is not possible to have anything less than "both knees touching" -- that is, if one is touching, it is touching the other. Suggest removing "both". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.37.107.110 ( talk) 14:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute The introduction is slanted against this topic, framing it as being an impossible unhealthy body standard. Also, I'm not sure "The Times of India" is an appropriate source. If we can't find a source from an American or European source, one with higher and enforced standards for making verifiable health claims, then this probably shouldn't be at the top of this article. Eidlyn ( talk) 13:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I'm curious as to why you felt it necessary to delete my addition. The current Origins section claims that the "gap" gained notoriety after the 2012 Victoria's Secret show, but the source is a single Huffington Post article, in which the author cites one Tumblr page as sufficient evidence that the "gap" has gained sufficient notoriety to become a "new trend". If one Tumblr page is sufficient, I fail to see how The Chive doesn't qualify as a legitimate example of the "gap" gaining popularity as well.
The Chive started making "Mind the Gap" posts in March of 2011, long before the December '12 Victoria's Secret fashion show. In March of '11, The Chive was averaging over 1 million page views per day, which would point to those posts gaining the "gap" plenty of popularity. Further, the branding of that category of posts into a T-shirt would indicate that it was successful enough to warrant such production. Judging by the current popularity of that website, and the fact that "Mind the Gap Mondays" are still one of its most popular recurring posts, I believe omitting The Chive as one of the sources popularizing the phenomenon is a mistake. By the time that HuffPost article was written, The Chive had made over 70 "Mind the Gap" posts, and was averaging over 3 million page views per day. I fail to understand how a single HuffPost article gives a cultural phenomenon more notoriety than that.
Perhaps if I likened the "gap" to a meme (which by definition it is) it would be easier to see my point of view. Let's say we were to write a Wikipedia page about a certain meme, say "Bad Luck Brian", "Overly Attached Girlfriend", or the "Y U NO..." rage-face guy. On that page we included a section on its origin. We'd trace the meme as far back as we could, attempting to find the original post, and along the way, noting sources and points in time at which the meme gained or lost popularity. To compare this example to the "gap": even if the HuffPost article was one of those points/sources that gained the "gap" popularity along the way, to omit The Chive as a significant source of popularity-gain would be irresponsible. It would not only present inaccurate and insufficient information to those reading the page, but also snub The Chive from receiving credit for recognizing the "gap" and sharing content regarding it
Therefore, rather than simply re-adding my edit to the page, I'm posting this topic on the talk page in an attempt to at least hear your argument (among others) as to why my edit was removed.
Powell.410 ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Philafrenzy is a girl. Don't worry, I've made that mistake before now.
--
Laun
chba
ller
10:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I just saw a thigh gap that looks like it could accommodate a tennis ball if not a baseball. The treats! magazine Issue 5 cover featuring a model named Xenia, who I believe to be Xenia Deli (the other Xenias listed at the Fashion Model Directory are Xenia Tchoumitcheva, Xenia Markova, Xenia Siamas, and Xenia Micsanschi), has a pullout triptych that can be seen here. Does it get any bigger than that?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Times of India. I'm sure it's a reputable source. But it's weird that the Times of India is the news source of record for the western teenage girls phenomenon of thigh gaps. that's all I came here to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.245.126 ( talk) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
We say The thigh gap has been criticized as a mostly unachievable and physically unnatural body shape and a cause of eating disorders
. I am not sure how best to re-word it but that is plain wrong: the gap might be a product of eating disorders but it certainly isn't a cause. What is meant is something like "... and attempts to achieve it may give rise to eating disorders" (but that puts two "achieve" words in one sentence and I hate repetition). -
Sitush (
talk)
21:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do we need to specify gender? Who's to say the term couldn't be used for men? Even though the phenomenon is probably rarer. Ranze ( talk) 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I've not seen any sources mention men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding a non-free image to the article. The image is non-free and fails WP:FUR because its use must be minimal and it is already been used in the actual album article. Further, its relevance here is based solely on WP:OR and there is no sourced commentary attesting to the relevance of the image to this article. The edit-warring to add this copyvio image to this article must stop. Thank you. Dr. K. 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Why remove this source? The article (now located here) appears to contain everything it's cited for. – Smyth\ talk 10:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Trickstar: I disagree completely. The article is one of the best researched of all the sources on this page, including quotations from both medical and cultural experts. By removing it you have left several important points, including the actual definition of the term, supported by either inferior sources or no sources at all. – Smyth\ talk 13:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Trickstar: As discussed above, this is a cultural topic rather than a scientific one, and there's nothing wrong with using mainstream media coverage to support it. The source was not used to support any scientific assertions (in fact, I previously removed such a use myself [3]).
Furthermore, the manner in which you did this was sloppy and has clearly made the article worse:
Your objections would apply at least as strongly to every other source on this page. Are you picking on this particular one because you believe there's some SEO going on? Where's your evidence for that? – Smyth\ talk 14:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
A neutral photo would be fine, but this photo is obviously trying to glamorize the usually unhealthy "ideal." Thus it is very POV. If you disagree, consider a photo from a famine zone - there will likely be a thigh gap, but including the photo in the article would be making an editorial comment that is inappropriate here. It works the other way around with this photo. It is overtly saying "this is something desirable". It's POV. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but I too find this argument to be a bit silly.,
Sorry, but that is dumb., to me and to Smallbones, show your propensity for insults. I remind you of our core policy of civility. Your continuous edit-warring against three experienced editors shows your propensity for forcibly imposing your POV and your lack of understanding of WP:3RR, despite having received multiple warnings. Combining POV, with edit-warring and insults, to get your way in a collaborative editing environment, is not collaborative at all, and it will probably lead to sanctions, especially if continued. I repeat what I replied to you above: This has nothing to do with censorship but with the consensus that the picture you are edit-warring into the article glamorises the thigh gap. Using a glamour model, dressed in a frilly, flowing white dress is a blatant attempt at glamourising the thigh gap, despite two-thirds of the article criticising the concept. The main image of an article is supposed to encapsulate the idea of the whole article, not just the minority portion that considers the thigh gap to be glamourous. There has been no consensus on this talkpage as to the type of image that can be used for this article. Now you unilaterally decided to add the alternate image, although there has been no consensus for including it and the discussion is still ongoing. My final piece of advice is WP:3RRNO. The link lists the possible exemptions from the 3 revert rule. These exemptions do not list WP:CENSOR as one of the acceptable exemptions. You are edit-warring at your own risk.
I think the wedding dress picture displays the meaning of thigh gap best and in no way glamourizes it. I think it should be put back. I agree with Valarian and TheValeyard. Their idea is superior. 59.101.239.4 ( talk) 15:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
In the intro we find this statement:
Since the thigh gap occurs naturally in some women, it cannot be physically unnatural. Since a thigh gap, moreover, is just a physiognomic feature, it cannot cause an eating disorder. We can see, however, that the latter solecism arises because the author of this statement has misrepresented another found in the source, "Concern over teen 'thigh gap' weight loss obsession," Thejournal.ie, 6 October 2013. There we find:
Clearly, the author of the article says that self-esteem problems can lead to eating disorders; "can lead to" does not mean "can cause," let alone "cause." (I must also point out that a body shape held as an ideal cannot have a cost; neither can the holding of a body shape as an idea have a cost; what has a cost is the attempt of those for whom the body shape is unattainable to attain the ideal.)
The statement in the intro should therefore read:
I will make the appropriate changes. Wordwright ( talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In its entirety, this section runs:
The second paragraph contains no obvious information about the origin of the phenomenon. We are not told what Hugh's book is about, and Hugh's opinions are not represented by quotations from her book, but by the words of a critic.
I imagine that its original author included it in this section because the first paragraph is so short. The first paragraph is so short, however, because, although we are told what event made the thigh gap a thing to be noted, nothing is said about the origin of the two parts of the phenomenon, the idealization of the feature and the craze to acquire it. We are told only that images of thigh gaps appeared in various places, not what significance they had for the women who posted them or for the women who visited those blogs and sites.
I will move the second paragraph as it stands to the section "Backlash," but it should be re-written to indicate Hugh's theses. Anyone who is bothered by the meagre two-sentences of the resulting "Origin of the Phenomenon" section should ease their pain by doing the research necessary to tell the tale of the origin of the idealization and the craze. Wordwright ( talk) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
In the intro's second paragraph we find this sentence:
In composition, the beginning and the end of a sentence give the greatest emphasis to the things that occupy their positions. Since the content of the entire article is about the cultural significance of some women's obsession with the thigh gap, it is proper to mention a man's attitude towards the thigh gap as a formality in deference to the ideal of empirical completeness, but otherwise it is of no cultural importance whatever. Since indeed it is of no cultural importance, mention of a man's attitude towards the thigh gap should occupy a rhetorical position that gives it no topical or thematic emphasis.
The cultural insignificance of the man's attitude is why the notes are highly problematic. Note 2 contains a dead link, so it is no longer possible to determine whether it is the source for the claim that the thigh gap became an aspect and that it has been associated, etc.. More disturbingly, there are two notes—notes 3 and 4—to the claim about men's attitude, even though, as noted, what men think about the male thigh gap is perfectly irrelevant. Finally, the final note, note 5, refers us to a Slate article about the Vitruvian man's lack of a thigh gap—again, a perfectly irrelevant topic.
The passage should run:
I will remove the dead link and insert a request for a reference, and eliminate one of the notes to the male attitude and to the Slate article. Wordwright ( talk) 22:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)