Talk:Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation

This should redirect to Design vagina, Not to an article where it's clear the linker has an agenda to discuss the process not in terms of it as a plastic surgery, but as a questionable optional procedure. Linking it to designer vagina links it to similar medical ideas and the greater plastic surgery purview under which it falls ,rather than judge it to be a form of 'mutilation'.ThuranX 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article Designer vagina also redirected to Genital_modification_and_mutilation up until very recently. 'Designer Vagina' is a rather non-encyclopedic title for an article.  Right now, Designer vagina looks like a content fork.
 * There seems to be some discussion on Genital_modification_and_mutilation of moving the article to Genital modification, which I take it might address some of your concerns. If you think Genital_modification_and_mutilation is POV, I'd think that it would be better to work out that articles problems rather than create a separate article rather than leave the old article in a state that you think is POV. -- Vary | Talk 04:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea, but in the mean time, linking it to designer vagina instead of Genital_modification_and_mutilation leaves one less opportunity for the POV based redirect. I think that Genital_modification_and_mutilation has it's own POV issues, but that the redirect of NUMEROUS body modifications all to one article represents a separate issue of POV. It seems that there are two distinct POV issues there, but I'm not sure. I agree there MAY be a content fork situation, but again, until the POV issues, which basically represent a view that any alteration of the body is a bad activity, is settled, stopping the redirection vortex may be a better way to provide more factual information. as for the title of designer vagina, that's how it's being represented in the news, and casual Wiki visitors may search for that. I agree that in general, redirects from media hype to facts is good, but i don't see it serving the casual user to wind up ad genital mutilation from looking up a new article. That doesn't seem a reasonable way to promote the collection of facts wiki is.ThuranX 04:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that the content was merged to and is duplicated in Genital_modification_and_mutilation. The only possible POV issue I see with that article is the inclusion of the word 'mutilation' in the title, and while the word has negative connotations, it is technically accurate.  The only solution I could see for that article would be to split voluntary and involuntary modification into different articles; that would include vaginal rejuvenation, piercings, etc.  But that's an issue that needs to start from the existing article.  Content forks are harmful because they split editor attention.
 * But even if this specific subject, vaginal plastic surgery, needs its own article, it should be here or at another location with a less silly title, and Designer vagina should redirect there. -- Vary | Talk 02:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that last idea of yours best, that media hyped phrses redirect to the various 'techincal'/'proper' titles of things. I'm not sure that DV should redirect HERE, per se, but I wonder if things like this, which require an MD to do, shouldn't redirect to Plastic surgery. I think that establishing that procedures which require medical professionals, as opposed to 'modern primitive' or ancient traditional behaviors, should be in Plastic Surgery, and those of the latter, in Genital_modification_and_mutilation, which probably could/should be merged up to a larger category itself. I think there are some deep editorial/philosophical issues at work, beyond any clear NPOV link between plastic surgery and mutilation. The big problem with such rampant redirection is that effectively a wiki visitor is given the sense that ANY sort of behavior which modifies the body is seen as 'messing with G-d's plan', which is certainly a POV issue. There's a lot to this issue, I've read a bunch of the talk at GM&M,and have seen this whole thing go back and forth over and over. I think that in part, it's the nature of wikipedia to wind up in circles about things whose description becomes effectively ethically cast. For now, though, I'd like to see some of the redirects removed, till some sort of compromise can be reached. I know you've got the big experience at Wiki over me, and I'm listening to your experience. ThuranX 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)