![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The article lead presents the article as if it were on vaginas in general, when most of it is specifically about human vaginas (except for the bit at the end), which have notable differences from the vaginas of other animals. I think that there should either be clarification from the outset (e.g. with the about tag) that this article focuses on human vaginas, or else develop the article to accommodate for non-human vaginal discussion. -- Humorideas ( talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Footnot[7], greys anatomy isnt a reference Hollypov123 ( talk) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are all the pictures sideways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.225.222 ( talk) 01:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to print about The Guinness Record on this topic. I mean Tatuana Kozhevnikova - the strongest vagina in the world (14 kg). What do you think about? Or creat new article? Night Rain 5 ( talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it is proposed that content from
Human vaginal size be merged into this article.
Zad
68
02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: The discussion is taking place at Talk:Human vaginal size, and it's the result of this discussion at WP:MED. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Good day fellow wiki people. Ive noticed the vagina in the picture is bald. This is not a natural as vaginas do have some hair, unless of course, they've been waxed.
good day sirs 207.194.133.9 ( talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina.'
This is the first occurrence in the article of the word 'genital' which needs to be wikilinked thus: 'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina'. 121.222.35.118 ( talk) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
the vagina illustrated, has no hair on it. This is not therefore biologically correct. Shaving vaginas has become normal due to the pornification of culture. It would be great to see a biologically normal vagina for an adult woman depicted on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.60.31 ( talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present" by Ben Blatt, Slate Jan. 8 2014. Scroll down to Naomi Wolf comments... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The way this article is written suggests that the vagina exists in order to accommodate the penis. That's not biologically accurate, since the penis didn't exist first and facilitate the evolution of the vagina. It is also not accurate to most women's experience of their own bodies or sexual activities other than sexual intercourse with a man. Here is the part I find most problematic in this regard: "The vagina's inner mould has a foldy texture which can create friction for the penis during sexual intercourse. During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to facilitate the entrance of the penis." 173.228.80.252 ( talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)I was wondering if we can paraphrase and use Barbara Keesling's statement from here in this article.— Khabboos ( talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Do any of you notice this optical illusion:
Facing my computer but looking at it from below my eyes, the vagina picture looks like the face of an ugly baby. The vaginal opening is the baby's mouth and the clitoris is the baby's nose. (I really don't know what to say is the baby's eyes.) Try this illusion yourself. (To make sure you're doing the right thing, scroll the article so that the vagina image is at the lower right corner of your computer screen and you're directly facing the upper right corner.) I'm very sorry to bring up something that might seem offensive, but it's just an interesting illusion. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do the articles on both vagina and vulva have pictures of women's genitals yet the article on penis is full of animal pictures? Motion to have a different mammalian vagina as the main picture. 80.43.91.138 ( talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I mean, the whole article is mainly focussed on humans, whereas the penis article is all about different animals. Why is this? Why the human focus when so many species have vaginas? 80.43.91.138 ( talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This section of the Archives is listed in the info-box above, but not in the smaller box below it with the filing cabinet drawing. (Sorry, I haven't read about wrangling archive listings.) Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
With this edit, Mikael Häggström broke out the vast majority of the vaginal infection/disease material and made it into an article called Vaginal disease. I see the validity in that, but, per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. I don't think that it was necessary to break that material into its own article. I'm not too opposed to its existence, but I do want to point out that with the Vulva disease and Vaginal disease articles existing, there is not much left to cover in the Vulvovaginal health article, and I really don't see the Vulva disease article as being needed; that bit of material can more than adequately be covered at the Vulva article.
I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
As can be seen with this and this edit, Snowmanradio emphasized "urogenital" over "genital" in the lead. There are two reasons that I don't think that this is a good idea. The first reason is because it is not often that the vagina is referred to as urogenital; when it is referred to as that, at least in my experience, it is usually in the context of vaginal abnormalities regarding the urogenital sinus. See, for example, what this laysource states. Of course it's not the best medical source to use, but I'm using it as the laysource that it is for this point: It states, "The urethra and vagina are separate anatomical entities in normal females. But in rare instances, they are joined in what urologists call a urogenital sinus anomaly... ...A urogenital sinus anomaly is a defect present at birth in which the vagina and urethra open into a common channel, rather than separately. There are two general types of urogenital sinus anomalies. In a low confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is short, the urethral opening is close to its normal location and the vagina is almost normal in length. In a high confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is long, the urethral opening is internal and the vagina is quite short. This type is sometimes associated with an anus that is located too far forward."
And this scholarly book source (Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012, page 423), which I will soon use for the embryonic development material of the Vagina article, states: "The debate which continues concerns that portion of the vagina formed from the Müllerian ducts and that from the urogenital sinus by the growth of the sinovaginal bulb. Some believe that the upper four-fifths of the vagina is formed by the Müllerian duct and the lower fifth by the urogenital sinus, while others believe that sinus upgrowth extends to the cervix displacing the Müllerian component completely and the vagina is thus derived wholly from the endoderm of the urogenital sinus. It seems certain that some of the vagina is derived from the urogenital sinus, but it has not been determined whether or not the Müllerian component is involved."
The other reason that I don't think that we should use "urogenital" for the lead or lower in the article is because far too many people, especially boys and men, think that human females urinate out of the vagina. Google it, and you will see that it's true if you don't believe me. This has been true for some of our male Wikipedians or their relatives as well, as seen at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo and Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Consensus about the picture; take a look at the comments by David Shankbone at 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC), 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) and at 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) in that first discussion, for example. Calling the vagina "urogenital" only further confuses people and makes the ones clueless as to how human females urinate think that human females urinate out of their vaginas. As noted by the laysource above, the vagina and urethra usually do not open into a common channel. So unless we explain that in the lead, I will remain against referring to the vagina as urogenital in the Vagina article. Simply calling the penis and vagina "genital" is enough anyway.
I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead is still much too complex for the average reader and needs to be simplified. We need to lose as much medical jargon as possible in the lead. Urogenital is an example of a word that really adds nothing that can't be said with plainer language. I suggest that we lose it altogether from the lead. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
To start off, urogenital may in a dictionary say that, but its common usage is of organs relating to the urinary tracts, something which the vagina does not. The vagina is very seldom going to be referred to as urogenital, and isn't so clinically.
Second, I read the lede of this article, and it's exceedingly technical. I think what has been done is we've tried to cram as much information into the lede as possible, resulting in less than stellar readability. I really think we should strive towards high readability of the lede. Either the lede should be longer and simpler, or should be shortened substantially. I'm very happy with the way the lede of Heart has turned out, and it scores just out of reach of a 13-15 year olds readability on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, which is decent.
For some inspiration of how to simplify the Vagina article, this is from CNX Anatomy & Physiology (CC-BY) (some edits), and might give an idea of how it could be simplified.
The vagina is a muscular canal (approximately 10 cm long) that serves as the entrance to the reproductive tract. It also serves as the exit from the uterus during menstruation and childbirth. The outer walls of the anterior and posterior vagina are formed into longitudinal columns, or ridges, and the superior portion of the vagina—called the fornix—meets the protruding uterine cervix. The walls of the vagina are lined with an outer, fibrous adventitia; a middle layer of smooth muscle; and an inner mucous membrane with transverse folds called rugae. Together, the middle and inner layers allow the expansion of the vagina to accommodate intercourse and childbirth. The thin, perforated hymen can partially surround the opening to the vaginal orifice. The hymen can be ruptured with strenuous physical exercise, penile–vaginal intercourse, and childbirth. The Bartholin’s glands and the lesser vestibular glands (located near the clitoris) secrete mucus, which keeps the vestibular area moist.
The vagina is home to a normal population of microorganisms that help to protect against infection by pathogenic bacteria, yeast, or other organisms that can enter the vagina. In a healthy woman, the most predominant type of vaginal bacteria is from the genus Lactobacillus. This family of beneficial bacterial flora secretes lactic acid, and thus protects the vagina by maintaining an acidic pH (below 4.5). Potential pathogens are less likely to survive in these acidic conditions. Lactic acid, in combination with other vaginal secretions, makes the vagina a self-cleansing organ. However, douching—or washing out the vagina with fluid—can disrupt the normal balance of healthy microorganisms, and actually increase a woman’s risk for infections and irritation. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that women do not douche, and that they allow the vagina to maintain its normal healthy population of protective microbial flora.
While this only scores 31 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, it is an improvement over 27 (current lede), and there is more that can be improved. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Im a little concerned about the photo...It looks like a childs or teems vagina....I would prefer to see a womans...my vagina hasnt looked like that since I was about 13.... Lady Ez ( talk) 11:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Hi,
I took the cultural language out of the lede because it didn't seem to have enough background to be more than random comments. It is not as much that it lacks references as it seems really to lack context that could come by reading the references. Maybe a better wording of a cultural summary would work but it reads really odd to me now. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The article lead presents the article as if it were on vaginas in general, when most of it is specifically about human vaginas (except for the bit at the end), which have notable differences from the vaginas of other animals. I think that there should either be clarification from the outset (e.g. with the about tag) that this article focuses on human vaginas, or else develop the article to accommodate for non-human vaginal discussion. -- Humorideas ( talk) 12:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Footnot[7], greys anatomy isnt a reference Hollypov123 ( talk) 09:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are all the pictures sideways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.225.222 ( talk) 01:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I want to print about The Guinness Record on this topic. I mean Tatuana Kozhevnikova - the strongest vagina in the world (14 kg). What do you think about? Or creat new article? Night Rain 5 ( talk) 21:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
FYI, it is proposed that content from
Human vaginal size be merged into this article.
Zad
68
02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: The discussion is taking place at Talk:Human vaginal size, and it's the result of this discussion at WP:MED. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Good day fellow wiki people. Ive noticed the vagina in the picture is bald. This is not a natural as vaginas do have some hair, unless of course, they've been waxed.
good day sirs 207.194.133.9 ( talk) 01:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina.'
This is the first occurrence in the article of the word 'genital' which needs to be wikilinked thus: 'Unlike men, who have only one genital orifice, women have two, the urethra and the vagina'. 121.222.35.118 ( talk) 08:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
the vagina illustrated, has no hair on it. This is not therefore biologically correct. Shaving vaginas has become normal due to the pornification of culture. It would be great to see a biologically normal vagina for an adult woman depicted on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.60.31 ( talk) 20:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's penis and vagina pages: Their colorful history and popular present" by Ben Blatt, Slate Jan. 8 2014. Scroll down to Naomi Wolf comments... -- AnonMoos ( talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The way this article is written suggests that the vagina exists in order to accommodate the penis. That's not biologically accurate, since the penis didn't exist first and facilitate the evolution of the vagina. It is also not accurate to most women's experience of their own bodies or sexual activities other than sexual intercourse with a man. Here is the part I find most problematic in this regard: "The vagina's inner mould has a foldy texture which can create friction for the penis during sexual intercourse. During sexual arousal, vaginal moisture increases (vaginal lubrication) to facilitate the entrance of the penis." 173.228.80.252 ( talk) 18:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)I was wondering if we can paraphrase and use Barbara Keesling's statement from here in this article.— Khabboos ( talk) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Do any of you notice this optical illusion:
Facing my computer but looking at it from below my eyes, the vagina picture looks like the face of an ugly baby. The vaginal opening is the baby's mouth and the clitoris is the baby's nose. (I really don't know what to say is the baby's eyes.) Try this illusion yourself. (To make sure you're doing the right thing, scroll the article so that the vagina image is at the lower right corner of your computer screen and you're directly facing the upper right corner.) I'm very sorry to bring up something that might seem offensive, but it's just an interesting illusion. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do the articles on both vagina and vulva have pictures of women's genitals yet the article on penis is full of animal pictures? Motion to have a different mammalian vagina as the main picture. 80.43.91.138 ( talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I mean, the whole article is mainly focussed on humans, whereas the penis article is all about different animals. Why is this? Why the human focus when so many species have vaginas? 80.43.91.138 ( talk) 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This section of the Archives is listed in the info-box above, but not in the smaller box below it with the filing cabinet drawing. (Sorry, I haven't read about wrangling archive listings.) Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 01:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
With this edit, Mikael Häggström broke out the vast majority of the vaginal infection/disease material and made it into an article called Vaginal disease. I see the validity in that, but, per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. I don't think that it was necessary to break that material into its own article. I'm not too opposed to its existence, but I do want to point out that with the Vulva disease and Vaginal disease articles existing, there is not much left to cover in the Vulvovaginal health article, and I really don't see the Vulva disease article as being needed; that bit of material can more than adequately be covered at the Vulva article.
I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
As can be seen with this and this edit, Snowmanradio emphasized "urogenital" over "genital" in the lead. There are two reasons that I don't think that this is a good idea. The first reason is because it is not often that the vagina is referred to as urogenital; when it is referred to as that, at least in my experience, it is usually in the context of vaginal abnormalities regarding the urogenital sinus. See, for example, what this laysource states. Of course it's not the best medical source to use, but I'm using it as the laysource that it is for this point: It states, "The urethra and vagina are separate anatomical entities in normal females. But in rare instances, they are joined in what urologists call a urogenital sinus anomaly... ...A urogenital sinus anomaly is a defect present at birth in which the vagina and urethra open into a common channel, rather than separately. There are two general types of urogenital sinus anomalies. In a low confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is short, the urethral opening is close to its normal location and the vagina is almost normal in length. In a high confluence urogenital sinus anomaly, the common channel is long, the urethral opening is internal and the vagina is quite short. This type is sometimes associated with an anus that is located too far forward."
And this scholarly book source (Dewhurst's Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2012, page 423), which I will soon use for the embryonic development material of the Vagina article, states: "The debate which continues concerns that portion of the vagina formed from the Müllerian ducts and that from the urogenital sinus by the growth of the sinovaginal bulb. Some believe that the upper four-fifths of the vagina is formed by the Müllerian duct and the lower fifth by the urogenital sinus, while others believe that sinus upgrowth extends to the cervix displacing the Müllerian component completely and the vagina is thus derived wholly from the endoderm of the urogenital sinus. It seems certain that some of the vagina is derived from the urogenital sinus, but it has not been determined whether or not the Müllerian component is involved."
The other reason that I don't think that we should use "urogenital" for the lead or lower in the article is because far too many people, especially boys and men, think that human females urinate out of the vagina. Google it, and you will see that it's true if you don't believe me. This has been true for some of our male Wikipedians or their relatives as well, as seen at Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Appropriateness of photo and Talk:Urination/Archive 1#Consensus about the picture; take a look at the comments by David Shankbone at 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC), 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC) and at 08:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) in that first discussion, for example. Calling the vagina "urogenital" only further confuses people and makes the ones clueless as to how human females urinate think that human females urinate out of their vaginas. As noted by the laysource above, the vagina and urethra usually do not open into a common channel. So unless we explain that in the lead, I will remain against referring to the vagina as urogenital in the Vagina article. Simply calling the penis and vagina "genital" is enough anyway.
I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Alerted, as seen here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead is still much too complex for the average reader and needs to be simplified. We need to lose as much medical jargon as possible in the lead. Urogenital is an example of a word that really adds nothing that can't be said with plainer language. I suggest that we lose it altogether from the lead. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
To start off, urogenital may in a dictionary say that, but its common usage is of organs relating to the urinary tracts, something which the vagina does not. The vagina is very seldom going to be referred to as urogenital, and isn't so clinically.
Second, I read the lede of this article, and it's exceedingly technical. I think what has been done is we've tried to cram as much information into the lede as possible, resulting in less than stellar readability. I really think we should strive towards high readability of the lede. Either the lede should be longer and simpler, or should be shortened substantially. I'm very happy with the way the lede of Heart has turned out, and it scores just out of reach of a 13-15 year olds readability on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, which is decent.
For some inspiration of how to simplify the Vagina article, this is from CNX Anatomy & Physiology (CC-BY) (some edits), and might give an idea of how it could be simplified.
The vagina is a muscular canal (approximately 10 cm long) that serves as the entrance to the reproductive tract. It also serves as the exit from the uterus during menstruation and childbirth. The outer walls of the anterior and posterior vagina are formed into longitudinal columns, or ridges, and the superior portion of the vagina—called the fornix—meets the protruding uterine cervix. The walls of the vagina are lined with an outer, fibrous adventitia; a middle layer of smooth muscle; and an inner mucous membrane with transverse folds called rugae. Together, the middle and inner layers allow the expansion of the vagina to accommodate intercourse and childbirth. The thin, perforated hymen can partially surround the opening to the vaginal orifice. The hymen can be ruptured with strenuous physical exercise, penile–vaginal intercourse, and childbirth. The Bartholin’s glands and the lesser vestibular glands (located near the clitoris) secrete mucus, which keeps the vestibular area moist.
The vagina is home to a normal population of microorganisms that help to protect against infection by pathogenic bacteria, yeast, or other organisms that can enter the vagina. In a healthy woman, the most predominant type of vaginal bacteria is from the genus Lactobacillus. This family of beneficial bacterial flora secretes lactic acid, and thus protects the vagina by maintaining an acidic pH (below 4.5). Potential pathogens are less likely to survive in these acidic conditions. Lactic acid, in combination with other vaginal secretions, makes the vagina a self-cleansing organ. However, douching—or washing out the vagina with fluid—can disrupt the normal balance of healthy microorganisms, and actually increase a woman’s risk for infections and irritation. Indeed, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend that women do not douche, and that they allow the vagina to maintain its normal healthy population of protective microbial flora.
While this only scores 31 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease test, it is an improvement over 27 (current lede), and there is more that can be improved. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 19:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Im a little concerned about the photo...It looks like a childs or teems vagina....I would prefer to see a womans...my vagina hasnt looked like that since I was about 13.... Lady Ez ( talk) 11:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
~~~~
. I signed your username for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Hi,
I took the cultural language out of the lede because it didn't seem to have enough background to be more than random comments. It is not as much that it lacks references as it seems really to lack context that could come by reading the references. Maybe a better wording of a cultural summary would work but it reads really odd to me now. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 01:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)